Speaker 1: Hey, folks, it is Wednesday, June eleventh, on what is
Speaker 1: now officially the fifth week, day twenty one of testimony
Speaker 1: in the Didty trial. Welcome everybody to this episode of
Speaker 1: Amy and TJA, where we continue to be your one
Speaker 1: stop shop to get your pot up on everything going
Speaker 1: on in the Didty trial and robes. Usually when we
Speaker 1: record these, we're able to say testimony is going on
Speaker 1: as we're recording. This is different today than getting a
Speaker 1: later start in course, so there won't be any highlights
Speaker 1: to come out of it this morning, Yes, we won't.
Speaker 2: We'll only have actually a very truncated afternoon session because
Speaker 2: the jury has been staying late to try and get
Speaker 2: in all of this insane testimony from Jane Ditty's ex girlfriend.
Speaker 2: And so yeah, they're starting at one pm and he
Speaker 2: said the judge said they are going to end no
Speaker 2: later than four pm. They've been extending to five pm
Speaker 2: some days to try and get it all in. No
Speaker 2: word on why they're starting later this morning though, maybe just.
Speaker 3: Giving them a little bit of a break.
Speaker 1: We know there was nothing official from anybody in the
Speaker 1: courtroom for is taking place. But to your point as well,
Speaker 1: it's we got to point out. This is the witness
Speaker 1: that's been on the stand. Now, Jane, this will be now,
Speaker 1: I mean tomorrow, it'll be a full week, a full
Speaker 1: week that she has been on the witness stand. And
Speaker 1: was she not the one they were trying to get
Speaker 1: out of there? She had somewhere to go, something to
Speaker 1: something to do.
Speaker 2: They said an international flight on Thursday afternoon, and yet
Speaker 2: we heard from defense attorneys yesterday saying they're going to
Speaker 2: need all day tomorrow to continue their cross examination. So
Speaker 2: no word if she's got like an eleven pm international flight.
Speaker 2: You know, sometimes they are late at night on Thursday,
Speaker 2: so she might be able to actually be on the
Speaker 2: standard will three pm and then make her way to
Speaker 2: Newark or JFK and get out of Dodge.
Speaker 1: Literally, that sounds crazy to do that. And look, they
Speaker 1: are trying to be accommodating. A lot of people might
Speaker 1: look at this and we even question, like, wait a minute,
Speaker 1: this is this important, and why with somebody's vacation or
Speaker 1: international flight, whatever they have to do, shouldn't they move
Speaker 1: everything else. Well, it's nice that maybe the government is
Speaker 1: trying to be accommodating, or the judge at least is trying.
Speaker 2: To maybe Jane has learned through all of these experiences boundaries,
Speaker 2: and she said, hey, here's mine. I'm leaving on Thursday night.
Speaker 1: And they get smack her with a Pacinka sabbena as
Speaker 1: soon as they wanted.
Speaker 2: To after that area, probably not good to draw your
Speaker 2: first boundary with the federal goverm federal.
Speaker 1: But of course we are talking about Jane again. She's
Speaker 1: a very very important key witness for the prosecution. Obviously,
Speaker 1: she is one of four victims that they are basing
Speaker 1: their case against Diddy on. She is testifying under that
Speaker 1: pseudonym Jane to protect her identity. She is someone who
Speaker 1: was dating. I guess this is fun dating.
Speaker 2: That's a very I don't know if that term is appropriate.
Speaker 1: You know what, I thought this was good. I don't
Speaker 1: know if we got into it. The defense and talking
Speaker 1: to her on the stand, said she was there for
Speaker 1: love and he was there for desire, like they had
Speaker 1: two different things they wanted out of that relationship. She
Speaker 1: and Sean Combs, and he just wasn't to her what
Speaker 1: she was to him. And she talked about continuing to
Speaker 1: love this man.
Speaker 2: As she's testified, and she said their relationship was private
Speaker 2: versus he had public relationships while he was with her,
Speaker 2: and that fueled a lot of jealousy. And that's what
Speaker 2: the defense is going for right now. They are trying
Speaker 2: to make the case that what she's testified to and
Speaker 2: her anger and resentment and feelings now come from a
Speaker 2: place of jealousy, not from coercion, not from anything criminal,
Speaker 2: but because she was jealous.
Speaker 3: She was jealous.
Speaker 1: She was They are trying to portray her as some
Speaker 1: kind of a gold digger or a clinger on her
Speaker 1: if you will, yes, that you were getting something. Again,
Speaker 1: they are making the point that she was getting something
Speaker 1: out of this relationship. Apparently there was something financial plenty
Speaker 1: that we have gotten into. But she continues and again,
Speaker 1: she was on there for several days with direct examination
Speaker 1: from the prosecution, but we knew things were going to change.
Speaker 1: You're going to look a little different, sound a little different.
Speaker 1: Once the defense got up there and it was all
Speaker 1: day a cross examination, and they kind of did do
Speaker 1: what they were trying to do, chip away at this
Speaker 1: idea that she couldn't get away, that she was scorse,
Speaker 1: that she didn't have an option, and they did this
Speaker 1: through text messages and some video messages. Excuse me, some
Speaker 1: audio messages, voicemails that showed that she was sometimes a
Speaker 1: willing enthusiastic and even had a say in a lot
Speaker 1: of what happened in these free.
Speaker 2: Costs, a say in who perhaps the escorts might be,
Speaker 2: certain male escorts that she liked better than others, So
Speaker 2: she had choices in terms of who she was having
Speaker 2: sex with in front of Ditty. But so many other
Speaker 2: details came out. You talked about how the defense was
Speaker 2: trying to set into record that she was a gold digger,
Speaker 2: that she got something financially, significantly financially out of this.
Speaker 2: She apparently went from a fourteen hundred square foot apartment
Speaker 2: to a fifty three hundred square foot home paid for
Speaker 2: by Ditty. One of the more contentious exchanges between Ditty's
Speaker 2: defense attorneys and Jane was involving a bag. It started
Speaker 2: out because I talked about that jealousy. She was jealous
Speaker 2: about one of the girlfriends receiving a Chanel bag, and
Speaker 2: so Ditty's attorney said, did you get a Chanelle bag
Speaker 2: as a gift from Ditty? And she said no, I
Speaker 2: only got trauma. But then the defense attorney pointed out
Speaker 2: that she got a botakea bag what is a botakea bag.
Speaker 2: Jane's response was, I'm sure you have one. The defense
Speaker 2: attorney said she did not, and then she asked how
Speaker 2: much does a botaga bag cost? And Jane said, how
Speaker 2: much does my body cost? So there was a little
Speaker 2: bit of contentious back and forth when I think Jane
Speaker 2: realized what they were trying to imply about her.
Speaker 1: Well, they implied it without saying it directly, but they
Speaker 1: were as close to the line as you could get.
Speaker 1: They're trying to tell the jury, Look, this is a
Speaker 1: woman who was there willingly, she was getting all of
Speaker 1: this out of it, and now she doesn't like how
Speaker 1: something went, and she's telling all these wild stories.
Speaker 3: Now they haven't gone as.
Speaker 1: Far as they've gone on some witnesses and saying they're
Speaker 1: not suggesting she's making necessarily things up. But the characterization
Speaker 1: of her relationship from listening to her being talked to
Speaker 1: by the prosecution versus being her a question by the
Speaker 1: defense are two starkly different experiences, and that is what
Speaker 1: they're trying. So any of that is going to what
Speaker 1: confuse a duror at least give a juror some doubt
Speaker 1: about the stories they're hearing. But the point being was
Speaker 1: she there willingly or not. That has everything to do
Speaker 1: with the racketeering and the sex trafficking, the sex trafficking case.
Speaker 1: That's everything it is.
Speaker 2: And to that point, the defense had her read some
Speaker 2: wildly explicit text messages that most news outlets reported that
Speaker 2: they couldn't report. It was too salacious, it was just
Speaker 2: too much to put into writing. But we did get
Speaker 2: a few of those that were out there, and I
Speaker 2: don't know what are we willing to even say here
Speaker 2: on this podcast about what some of those text messages
Speaker 2: were where it showed Jane, like you said, enthusiastically participating
Speaker 2: or talking about participating in upcoming freak offs.
Speaker 1: Look, if folks you can go try to track these
Speaker 1: down or read them yourself. But it's not I would
Speaker 1: argue ropes. I think a lot of people in their
Speaker 1: personal lives might talk to their.
Speaker 3: Lover that way.
Speaker 1: A news outlet is not used to printing some of
Speaker 1: that stuff. But I'm just trying to give a sense
Speaker 1: to the listener here that you were not talking about
Speaker 1: some outlandish Where did they get that? I've never heard
Speaker 1: of that before type language. It was just crude, it
Speaker 1: was vulgar. It was it was eroji, it was profane,
Speaker 1: It was two people talking about having sex.
Speaker 2: The point being that Jane seemed like she was really
Speaker 2: into it. Yes, in her text messages.
Speaker 3: Seemed it was. I mean, it was clear.
Speaker 1: The same point you make about text messages that were
Speaker 1: written years ago when people what was their mindset at
Speaker 1: the time when they're explaining some pain they're in or
Speaker 1: some trauma or experience.
Speaker 3: Well, how do you take these now?
Speaker 1: If she wrote these a year, two year, three years ago,
Speaker 1: does that not give her, give us, give the jury
Speaker 1: an idea in real time where her head was.
Speaker 2: Does it not do yes? And she claims that she
Speaker 2: wrote those texts and exchanged those types of texts and
Speaker 2: voicemails with Diddy because she didn't want him to feel rejected.
Speaker 2: She is maintaining that she still didn't want to do
Speaker 2: any of these things, but she knew the only way
Speaker 2: she could see him and be around him was if
Speaker 2: she agreed to it, and so she agreed to it
Speaker 2: enthusiastically only to make him excited about seeing her. So
Speaker 2: she was manipulating him. And she's admitting that on the
Speaker 2: stand that she didn't really feel the way she said
Speaker 2: she felt in those texts, she was only doing it
Speaker 2: to keep him with her.
Speaker 1: Okay, but does that tell the jury that she was
Speaker 1: doing it consciously, yes, willingly, Yes, had a means to
Speaker 1: an end. There was a purpose to what she was doing.
Speaker 1: So does that mean non con sexual consensual? Excuse me,
Speaker 1: it was flipball co sexual.
Speaker 2: That could be a new term. Actually in this was
Speaker 2: it conseexual? No, we don't. We don't need any new terms.
Speaker 2: But no, I think that from what I read, it doesn't.
Speaker 2: I think the defense is doing an excellent job at
Speaker 2: showing the jury that she, at least in terms of
Speaker 2: what Combe was receiving from her, seemed as though she
Speaker 2: was not only willing but excited to participate in some
Speaker 2: of these freak offs. Now, we did see other texts
Speaker 2: that the the prosecution talked about in her direct testimony,
Speaker 2: where she clearly was telling him she did not want
Speaker 2: to do it anymore, that she felt awful about herself
Speaker 2: and about the experience. So we've seen those texts too.
Speaker 2: But if the defense is trying to show jurors, hey,
Speaker 2: how would did he have known half the time she
Speaker 2: was telling him she was into it, She was excited
Speaker 2: about it, She couldn't wait to see him, She couldn't
Speaker 2: wait to do all the things they had planned to do.
Speaker 2: So that's fairly damning, I would have to say.
Speaker 1: You know, she does, in her testimony over the past
Speaker 1: hour day, seemed like someone who like genuinely did care
Speaker 1: for this guy, and so well, she claims she still does,
Speaker 1: but she says she cared enough to that point there
Speaker 1: she felt responsible for him, she explained, because he was
Speaker 1: revealing himself in these freak offs, in these private moments,
Speaker 1: how vulnerable he was. She took them as what an
Speaker 1: honor for me that he has let me into these,
Speaker 1: So now I have to take care of him. He's
Speaker 1: in a vulnerable state, so I need to make sure
Speaker 1: he's okay. And she went as far, she claims robe
Speaker 1: as to start researching, start looking into why a man
Speaker 1: would be into seeing somebody he cared about, somebody he
Speaker 1: was dating have sex with another man. I thought that
Speaker 1: was interesting that she took it, because, to be honest
Speaker 1: with you, I don't get it. I think a lot
Speaker 1: of people don't get that particular kink or whatever it's proclivity.
Speaker 3: I don't know. But she looked into it.
Speaker 2: And she talked about that specifically on the stand, and I, man,
Speaker 2: I'm learning things that I didn't know. She said. She
Speaker 2: with her research discovered that Diddy was a cuck, which
Speaker 2: is aluckl.
Speaker 1: That's something we've seen now that word is out there,
Speaker 1: we're used to that. Yeah, what that means, But she says,
Speaker 1: she turned it into something and started using the word
Speaker 1: she cuck shortened it.
Speaker 2: Yes, so she said, because a cock derives pleasure seeing
Speaker 2: his woman derive pleasure from another man.
Speaker 1: And that's where we usually stop and go, Okay, we've
Speaker 1: heard a similar definition. That makes sense, But she continued,
Speaker 1: do you do have the exact quote?
Speaker 2: I do? She well, She continued to say that cucks
Speaker 2: could also have by curiosity that they are too ashamed
Speaker 2: to ex experience themselves, so they use the woman, their
Speaker 2: woman to venture or to at least explore this curiosity
Speaker 2: without actually doing the act itself. So he wanted his
Speaker 2: girl to have sex with another man in lieu of
Speaker 2: him having sex with another man, and he derived pleasure
Speaker 2: from watching that because he himself wasn't willing to have sex.
Speaker 3: With the man. That is what she testified.
Speaker 1: That was a direct quote you delivered, and that was
Speaker 1: kind of an eye opening moment because why a lot
Speaker 1: of people just why look, people are into what they're into.
Speaker 3: There's no judgment there.
Speaker 1: Which you're doing in whatever dark room, as long as
Speaker 1: you're not hurting yourself or anybody else, knock yourself out.
Speaker 1: But we heard repeatedly about him sitting in a corner
Speaker 1: and masturbating while he watched the woman he was in
Speaker 1: a relationship have sex with one, two, three guys at
Speaker 1: times in a night.
Speaker 2: And interestingly, she testified to this that if he found
Speaker 2: out that she might have been or could have been
Speaker 2: hooking up with another man while he wasn't there, he
Speaker 2: went into jealous rages. So it wasn't even about the
Speaker 2: idea that it was something he wanted to watch. He
Speaker 2: wanted to experience and that gave him sexual pleasure, which
Speaker 2: is very specific, and I think a lot of light
Speaker 2: bulbs went off. It made sense to me for the
Speaker 2: first time because none of it really did up until
Speaker 2: she described it that way.
Speaker 1: It really wasn't. Oh, and who's to say if that's
Speaker 1: actually the case?
Speaker 3: Whatever? Did he's into? Did he's into?
Speaker 1: But that gave really I am And wasn't she the
Speaker 1: one that testified as well that he only wanted to
Speaker 1: have sex with her after yes, watching her sex have
Speaker 1: sex with That's.
Speaker 2: The only way that he would want to actually have
Speaker 2: sex with her is after he saw her have sex
Speaker 2: with another man.
Speaker 1: Well, again, these folks are into what they're into. But
Speaker 1: she again, why would she keep doing this? She talked
Speaker 1: about it being ninety percent of the time that they
Speaker 1: were to together.
Speaker 3: Was a freak off.
Speaker 1: But she said this, She talked it was almost I'm
Speaker 1: only able to read it, we can only read it,
Speaker 1: but softly and sweetly about these intimate moments like this
Speaker 1: was the time I got to be with him.
Speaker 2: They said. She was smiling, smiling, and that's damning for
Speaker 2: the prosecution. If she is recalling these freak offs now
Speaker 2: speaking with the defense attorney under cross examination with loving
Speaker 2: energy and a smile on her face. That's not a
Speaker 2: victim crying and ashamed and tortured. It's the defense is
Speaker 2: doing an excellent job. I think I'll just leave it
Speaker 2: at that. I'm no legal expert, but certainly if you're
Speaker 2: watching this as a layman, that is what jurors are doing.
Speaker 2: So they're not legal experts either. So actually, the way
Speaker 2: we're watching this, the way we're reading this is I think,
Speaker 2: probably a decent idea of what a lot of jurors
Speaker 2: may be thinking and feeling.
Speaker 1: The only upside we are getting is we do have
Speaker 1: the advantage of we can go look up and we
Speaker 1: can go talk to legal experts to break this stuff
Speaker 1: down for us, who are telling us that, yes, the
Speaker 1: defense has been doing a good job with his winners.
Speaker 1: The juror doesn't have anybody to break it down for them.
Speaker 1: They're not supposed to read, watch, talk nothing about this trial,
Speaker 1: so they have to do your point. They are as
Speaker 1: lay as lay people get. They get no by you
Speaker 1: to tell.
Speaker 2: You're not sequestered. Right. I can't even imagine you are
Speaker 2: now sitting on the biggest case the world is watching,
Speaker 2: and the details are as salacious as any trial I
Speaker 2: have ever seen. Get and you're not talking to anyone
Speaker 2: about it. That seems wild.
Speaker 3: You think you could come home to me.
Speaker 2: Everybody tells one person. That's my theory, No matter what,
Speaker 2: no matter what secret you're told at work or by
Speaker 2: your best friend or whatever, everyone tells one person, and
Speaker 2: usually it's the person you're in a relationship with, and
Speaker 2: then that person tells one person.
Speaker 3: Essentially that means everybody's going to help.
Speaker 1: That's what I think.
Speaker 2: That's just that's just my, yes, non expert opinion about
Speaker 2: how things are past life and around.
Speaker 1: Look, this is the last one. You'll see a lot
Speaker 1: of headlines about this. But we'll just tell you again
Speaker 1: the trifecta. Yes, they've talked. We almost know the names.
Speaker 1: That was what the punisher? That was Anton. There's a Paul,
Speaker 1: there's a Don, there's a Sly. Why in God's name
Speaker 1: am I right now able to reel off the names
Speaker 1: of that many male escorts.
Speaker 2: Yes, because there's Cabral too. Don't forget about Cara.
Speaker 1: I wanted to save Cabral for the Big Nights.
Speaker 2: So was the showstopper. Oh yeah, he was the grand
Speaker 2: finale and the game over situation, the big boom. These
Speaker 2: are all the names that they were giving Cabral.
Speaker 1: Cabral also the one that tried to blackmail them.
Speaker 2: I don't know who which which name was trying to
Speaker 2: get I thought you thought it was Anton, but maybe it.
Speaker 3: Was Anton is a dependable fellow.
Speaker 2: There he was reoccurring.
Speaker 1: But at this one about all these male escorts, they
Speaker 1: had one in particular that they really liked. His name
Speaker 1: is Paul, and I said the three of them did.
Speaker 1: He and Jane had such a good chemistry going that
Speaker 1: they call themselves the Trifecta. They had a nickname for themselves,
Speaker 1: and they did I don't know if it's role playing,
Speaker 1: is it the right way to say it, but they
Speaker 1: did a little something which they had names for each other.
Speaker 2: Yes, So Jane was Kobe, Paul was Shack, and Diddy
Speaker 2: was Jordan. I gut as in as in yes as Kobe, Bryan,
Speaker 2: Shaquille O'Neal and Michael Jordan. Sorry, I didn't think those
Speaker 2: names needed clarification, but just in case, fine.
Speaker 1: Because you would hear that and go, wait, what, Well,
Speaker 1: she's not really talking about Wait what is it?
Speaker 2: Was it just in name? There was like and again
Speaker 2: I don't know that I want a visual, but I'm
Speaker 2: just curious the basketball. The reason why they used basketball
Speaker 2: grades we was just because they're goats, because they're amazing
Speaker 2: at what they do, and so that's why they took
Speaker 2: on those names. I don't I can't imagine how role
Speaker 2: playing would come into play when it came to having sex.
Speaker 3: I don't know.
Speaker 2: Look, I don't want to know. Actually into it might
Speaker 2: ruin basketball for me, or might ruin sex for.
Speaker 1: You, could be far worse. I don't get it. Look
Speaker 1: we are. There has been a horrific testimony and details
Speaker 1: in this trial, but some of these things you really
Speaker 1: just your jaws drop. You're not supposed to know this
Speaker 1: stuff about somebody's life. Again, knock yourself out, but you're
Speaker 1: just not supposed to know. That's the one that's going
Speaker 1: to get a lot up and has been getting a
Speaker 1: lot of headlines. Why Diddy wanted to call himself Michael
Speaker 1: Jordan during a threesome with his girlfriend and another man,
Speaker 1: a man that he was referring to as who was
Speaker 1: shack again?
Speaker 2: Oh wait, Shaq was Paul? I think, yes, Shaq was Paul.
Speaker 3: And she's Kobe.
Speaker 1: And that detail came out and it's one that all
Speaker 1: the reporters in the room immediately wrote about.
Speaker 2: It was headline grabbing for sure, and that wasn't just
Speaker 2: clickbait because there was truth to it. I mean, it's
Speaker 2: one of those headlines where you think, nah, this can't
Speaker 2: be real, and lo and behold it was.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that's one you didn't have to try on. You
Speaker 1: didn't have to try to come up with something clever,
Speaker 1: just right, the headline, did he used to call himself
Speaker 1: Michael Jordan during sex?
Speaker 3: What?
Speaker 2: Oh my goodness.
Speaker 1: So yeah.
Speaker 2: So cross examination continues today for a couple hours and
Speaker 2: then reportedly all day tomorrow, So we'll see where the
Speaker 2: defense goes. But certainly they have I think they've done
Speaker 2: what they've accomplished or what they set out to do.
Speaker 2: They've accomplished what they set out to do, which was
Speaker 2: to certainly bring a question into juror's minds as to
Speaker 2: whether or not Jane was there willingly and profited handsomely,
Speaker 2: handsomely for it.
Speaker 1: And again, as she testifies again today, her rent is
Speaker 1: being paid by the defendant, Her attorney's fees are being
Speaker 1: paid by the defendant. Didty is still paying for all
Speaker 1: that with her? Again, that's got to be something that
Speaker 1: stands out in juror's minds one way or another.
Speaker 3: How don't know.
Speaker 2: And she reiterated that she loves him still and that
Speaker 2: also has to have an impact on jurors as well.
Speaker 2: So we will continue to give you all the updates
Speaker 2: what happens in this Manhattan courtroom today and the days
Speaker 2: that follow. Thank you, though for listening to us, and
Speaker 2: we hope you have a wonderful day. Everybody