Speaker 1: Before we jump into today's deep dive, just a heads
Speaker 1: up that we'll be discussing a story that includes themes
Speaker 1: of sexual assault and sex trafficking. Please listen with care
Speaker 1: already and this this is the Daily Off.
Speaker 2: This is the Daily OS. Oh, now it makes sense.
Speaker 2: Good morning, and welcome to the Daily OS. It is Wednesday,
Speaker 2: the eighth of October. I'm Billy fit Simon's.
Speaker 1: I'm Sam Kazlowski.
Speaker 2: Last Friday, rapper Sean Diddy Combes was sentenced to just
Speaker 2: over four years in prison following his conviction on prostitution
Speaker 2: related charges earlier this year. The fifty five year old
Speaker 2: music mogul has spent more than a year in New
Speaker 2: York jail after he was arrested in September last year.
Speaker 2: So what happens now to Cones? We know he will
Speaker 2: now be in jail, But what about all the other
Speaker 2: allegations that were leveled against him? What happens to those?
Speaker 2: We will tell you what you need to know on
Speaker 2: today's podcast.
Speaker 1: Billy. Let's start with the main character in this story,
Speaker 1: Sean Combs. We've spoken about him throughout this case. Give
Speaker 1: us a sense of who he is.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So Cones is a very famous rapper and producer.
Speaker 2: I'm sure many of our audience will be very familiar
Speaker 2: with him, but what you might not know is that
Speaker 2: he also built an actual music media empire. So he
Speaker 2: founded the music label bad Boy Records in nineteen ninety three,
Speaker 2: which has represented some of the world's most famous rappers,
Speaker 2: including Notorious Big and he is a three time Grammy
Speaker 2: Award winner who has worked with the likes of Mariah Carey,
Speaker 2: He's worked with Usher, He's worked with Faith Evans, and
Speaker 2: I think all of that is to kind of set
Speaker 2: the scene and give you the context that he is
Speaker 2: a very powerful person in the music industry in the US.
Speaker 2: I also should say that he also went by the
Speaker 2: names of Puff Diddy or just Diddy as well, so
Speaker 2: some people might be more familiar with him via those names.
Speaker 1: A really powerful, influential and wealthy figure, kind of a
Speaker 1: defining figure in music in the early two thousands, and
Speaker 1: all of that came crashing down when these allegations against
Speaker 1: him came out, right.
Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly. It was kind of like a third wave
Speaker 2: of the me Too movement for the music industry. So
Speaker 2: the first allegations to be leveled against coms were in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty three. That was by his former partner, Cassandra Ventura,
Speaker 2: who is an R and B singer who also goes
Speaker 2: by the name of Cassie or who professionally goes by
Speaker 2: the name of Cassie, and she accused him of sexual
Speaker 2: assault some I don't know if you remember the footage
Speaker 2: that came out of Comes kicking and dragging Cassie in
Speaker 2: a hotel hallway in twenty sixteen, extremely distressing footage. It
Speaker 2: was CCTV footage of the hotel. And despite the fact
Speaker 2: that Comes responded to that footage by calling inexcusable behavior,
Speaker 2: he did deny the allegations leveled against him by Cassie.
Speaker 2: There was a civil lawsuit that was filed against him
Speaker 2: by Cassie, but the day after that happened, it was
Speaker 2: settled out of court. So that civil lawsuit is not
Speaker 2: what we're talking about today, although Cassie was involved in
Speaker 2: the one that we are talking about today. But what
Speaker 2: I think you need to know about that context is
Speaker 2: that was the first civil lawsuit and then it kind
Speaker 2: of really snowballed from there, and after that there was
Speaker 2: several people who filed different civil lawsuits against Diddy, claiming
Speaker 2: sexual abuse.
Speaker 1: So there's a really important difference between the civil and
Speaker 1: the criminal processes in the US. We're talking first about
Speaker 1: these civil cases. Those were the ones that started piling up.
Speaker 1: It's different though, when it comes to him being criminally charged.
Speaker 1: Which one of these incidents actually led to the arrest
Speaker 1: and his entry into the criminal justice system.
Speaker 2: Yes, so it was none of those civil ones. It
Speaker 2: was the criminal one, and this was one that was
Speaker 2: brought forward by the federal US prosecutors who charged him
Speaker 2: with sex trafficking, forced labor, kidnapping, arson, bribery, and obstruction
Speaker 2: of justice. Now, we have previously on this podcast covered
Speaker 2: those allegations in this federal criminal case quite extensively, and
Speaker 2: we also covered the trial, so I'll put a link
Speaker 2: to that in the show notes. But for the purposes
Speaker 2: of today's conversation, what you need to know is that
Speaker 2: a jury acquitted Cones, which means that they found him
Speaker 2: not guilty of the most serious charges of sex trafficking
Speaker 2: and racketeering, which carried potential life sentences.
Speaker 1: So he was found not guilty of those, but he
Speaker 1: was still convicted on other charges.
Speaker 2: He was so he was convicted on two prostitution related charges. Specifically,
Speaker 2: he was found guilty of two counts of transportation to
Speaker 2: engage in institution. So the jury heard that Combs flew
Speaker 2: his girlfriends and some male sex workers around the US
Speaker 2: to engage in drug fueled sexual encounters. Now, those charges
Speaker 2: both carry maximum sentences of ten years each, so if
Speaker 2: he was to get the maximum sentences for those, that
Speaker 2: would mean twenty years in prison. But as we found
Speaker 2: out in the last few days, which is why we
Speaker 2: are talking about it today, he did not get that.
Speaker 1: So what did he get? I mean, the sentence has
Speaker 1: been handed down. How long is he facing in prison?
Speaker 2: He is facing fifty months in prison?
Speaker 1: Fifteen months, So we're talking then for four years and
Speaker 1: two months.
Speaker 2: Just great mass, just over four years. And that was
Speaker 2: longer than as you can imagine, what his lawyers argued for,
Speaker 2: So they said that he should receive no more than
Speaker 2: fourteen months. The government, on the other hand, again reminded
Speaker 2: that it was federal authorities who brought forward this case.
Speaker 2: They argued that he should get eleven years. Judge decided
Speaker 2: on four, like we said, and he said in his
Speaker 2: judgment that the four years was necessary to and this
Speaker 2: is a direct quote to send a message to abuses
Speaker 2: and victims alike that exploitation and violence against women is
Speaker 2: met with real accountability. He was also fined five hundred
Speaker 2: thousand US dollars, which was the maximum fine possible for
Speaker 2: these charges.
Speaker 1: So four and a bit years a five hundred thousand
Speaker 1: dollars US fine. That puts it about seven hundred, seven
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty thousand Australian But that also includes the
Speaker 1: time he's already spent in jail, right.
Speaker 2: Yes, So what it means is that he will now
Speaker 2: be in jail until twenty twenty eight, because, like you said,
Speaker 2: he has already spent that one year in jail and
Speaker 2: he was denied bail. That's why sometimes you might not
Speaker 2: be in jail yet. Sure, he was denied bail. One
Speaker 2: thing to note, though, is that his lawyers have said
Speaker 2: that he will appeal the judgment.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 2: One thing I know about the law system, the legal system,
Speaker 2: is that appeals can take a long time. So I
Speaker 2: think it's fair to say that he will be in
Speaker 2: jail for the foreseeable future.
Speaker 1: So he'll stay in jail while those appeals play out.
Speaker 1: But you're right, those appeals can take months, if not years,
Speaker 1: So what about the other cases against him. There are
Speaker 1: some cases. Then if we jump over to the civil system, yes,
Speaker 1: there are some lawsuits he's facing that haven't been settled yet.
Speaker 2: Yes, well there are many. There are actually more than fifty,
Speaker 2: which is crazy. That's a large number of civil lawsuits
Speaker 2: that he is still facing.
Speaker 1: And so he still faces them, right even though he's
Speaker 1: in jail on that one criminal case.
Speaker 2: Yes, I think that we should explain the difference between
Speaker 2: civil and criminal because they've kind of said it here
Speaker 2: and there, but I think we need a proper explainer.
Speaker 2: You are our in house lawyer thanks to your four
Speaker 2: year law degree, by the way, I think that you
Speaker 2: are best places to explain the difference between those two.
Speaker 1: So the way to think about it then in this
Speaker 1: context of Diddy would be that federal prosecutors who represent
Speaker 1: the interests of the American people. That's why if you
Speaker 1: think about like the OJ Simpson case, it was the
Speaker 1: people versus OJ Simpson, this would be the people versus Sean.
Speaker 2: Combs, the people meaning the government.
Speaker 1: Well, yes, the government who then represent the public. Yes,
Speaker 1: you and I if we were Americans, And so they
Speaker 1: have the jail system at their disposal and the police
Speaker 1: to use and handcuffs and arrests. That's different to the
Speaker 1: civil system, which is individuals bringing actions against other individuals,
Speaker 1: and you can't go to jail for that, so there
Speaker 1: can still be a remedy, and remedies are normally things
Speaker 1: like money, but they could also be a public apology.
Speaker 1: It could be, you know, an avo that lasts a
Speaker 1: certain amount of time, or some sort of restriction on
Speaker 1: movement sometimes, but mostly it's money. And there's different burdens
Speaker 1: of proof. I don't want to go too legal system
Speaker 1: on you, but in the criminal system, it has to
Speaker 1: be beyond a reasonable doubt. So the people or the
Speaker 1: government or the federal prosecutors had to prove that Shawn
Speaker 1: Combs did traffic sex workers beyond the reasonable doubt if
Speaker 1: he was sued. In the civil system, it has to
Speaker 1: be on the balance of probabilities, So a fifty one
Speaker 1: percent chance that that happened. So very different systems, but
Speaker 1: ultimately what it leads to is you'd imagine with fifty
Speaker 1: civil cases, it's likely that somebody, even with the money
Speaker 1: of Shawn Combs would probably file for bankruptcy at a
Speaker 1: certain stage.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and so like I said, he is still facing
Speaker 2: more than fifty civil lawsuits which are all accusing him
Speaker 2: of sexual abuse pretty much.
Speaker 1: So these would be individuals who are saying Shawn Combs
Speaker 1: owes me x number of dollars for the loss of
Speaker 1: income or the mental distress or the other sort of
Speaker 1: impact from his behavior exactly.
Speaker 2: And most of these charges are based in New York,
Speaker 2: as the criminal one was also, and according to the
Speaker 2: New York Times, the allegations date as far back as
Speaker 2: to the nineteen nineties, and the alleged victims are both
Speaker 2: men and women. To give you an idea of the
Speaker 2: kind of allegations we're talking about in these civil lawsuits,
Speaker 2: they involve alleged gang rapes, and there are also a
Speaker 2: lot of allegations of drugging people before then allegedly raping them. Horrific, Yeah,
Speaker 2: and I think the number of allegations is what just
Speaker 2: adds to how horrific it is. There are also at
Speaker 2: least a dozen of the plaintiffs who say that they
Speaker 2: were miners at the time of the alleged assaults, and
Speaker 2: many of the lawsuits were also filed anonymously.
Speaker 1: And so give me a sense of the strategy of
Speaker 1: Kames as legal team. Here so they're fighting these civil
Speaker 1: charges at the same time as moving through the criminal case.
Speaker 2: Right, yes, So whilst this very public criminal case has
Speaker 2: been ongoing, they have also been fighting these civil lawsuits
Speaker 2: I guess behind the scenes, or they just haven't been
Speaker 2: getting as much media attention as the criminal one. Sure,
Speaker 2: and in July this year, one of his lawyers said
Speaker 2: to the New York Times this is a quote again,
Speaker 2: mister Holmes will not back down. We will fight each
Speaker 2: and every civil case for as long as necessary to
Speaker 2: win his full vindication. So again they have denied all
Speaker 2: of the allegations against him.
Speaker 1: I'd say that whilst there's now a resolution in the
Speaker 1: criminal case here, the sheer number of cases that still
Speaker 1: are floating through the civil system means that this story
Speaker 1: won't get out of the headlines for a while now.
Speaker 1: We did talk about some really difficult things on today's podcast,
Speaker 1: So I just want to remind everybody that you can
Speaker 1: reach out to one eight hundred respects anytime on one
Speaker 1: eight hundred seven three seven seven three to two. Billy.
Speaker 1: Thank you for taking us through that. Thank you, and
Speaker 1: we're going to be back this afternoon with the headlines.
Speaker 1: Please take care. I'll give you that number one more time.
Speaker 1: It's one eight hundred seven three seven seven three to two.
Speaker 1: We'll chat to you in the afternoon. Until then, have
Speaker 1: a great day.
Speaker 2: My name is Lily Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda
Speaker 2: Bunjelung Calcottin woman from Gadigol Country. The Daily oz acknowledges
Speaker 2: that this podcast is recorded on the lands of the
Speaker 2: Gadigol people and pays respect to all Aboriginal and Torrestrate
Speaker 2: island and nations. We pay our respects to the first
Speaker 2: peoples of these countries, both past and present.