June 20, 2025 • 18 mins
Breaking… Diddy’s defense drops a bombshell telling the court today it’s possible to wrap their case within a day of testimony! Amy and T.J. go over the final push from the prosecution…. Which plans on wrapping its case as soon as Monday! We may have this case in the hands of the jury by the end of next week.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Either, folks, it is Friday, June twentieth, and week six
is in the books. We have learned that next week
should be the final week of testimony in the Ditty trial.
Welcome down to this bonus episode of Amy and TJ roolps.
I say, a bonus episode. This is not one we
were planning to do. But there were some remarkable developments
(00:22):
that happened essentially after the testimony ended, and I'm talking
about we've kind of gotten an update on the schedule
and next week should be the final week of testimony
in the Ditty trial.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Yes, so we learned that the prosecution is most likely
going to rest on Monday, but most notably, the defense
basically hinted that its case is going to be quicker
than we thought. We at first thought it might be
a couple of weeks.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Yep was the original Yep.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Then we heard maybe two to five days.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
That's what they've been saying this week, And now.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
We're hearing that it might just be a day a
day a day or so. Right, So, if the prosecution
ends it case on Monday as expected, that means that
the defense has and they say they will want the
entire day on Tuesday, maybe Wednesday at most, to the
(01:18):
point where the court now has said they're anticipating closing
arguments on Thursday, meaning that is when the jury in
this case might get this case.
Speaker 3 (01:31):
Like that, that's it.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
They're going to start deliberating in less than a week.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
Okay, And what wowed me? Okay, the schedule wows me
just to think, Wow, we've gone through all this and
you got arrested last September. We've been following this story
for so long and now here it is as finally
to the end. But I was fascinated, how is it
possible this man's life was on the line and they
actually have stated in court officially we might need only
one day to put on our case.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Do you think that is posturing in any way too
smart for that? As part of me thinks like, okay,
let the people think that we're gonna need weeks to
defend ourselves.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
Oh, we're going to go back to then Okay.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
Then you go ahead and make a dramatic shift after
you've seen what the prosecution god and you say, you
know what, now that we see it, we might just need.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
A couple of days.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
And then at the end of it, you're like, wow,
Is that all you got? Yeah, I think we just
need to get So I'm actually thinking this could be
a fully Like that makes sense, doesn't it create a
situation in which you're thinking, well, shit, is that all
they got? Okay, like they don't need to defend themselves further.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
But you're going back to the beginning and thinking saying
two to three weeks was a strategic move as well.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
Correct, So you're gonna go ahead and overestimate what you're
going to set the expectations for, like, yeah, we're gonna
need a couple of weeks to defend ourselves, and then
a little bit into the prosecution case, you say, you
know what, maybe we just need a couple of days
forget the couple weeks. I do think that would be
smart if you were and they are smart, they know
(03:10):
what they're doing. What are the last names in Diddy's
defense team, Shapiro Garagos.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
Legendary legal names, familiar legendary legal names. Yes, you are correct. Okay,
so let's take that as one possibility. Is there another
possibility here that they have put on their case already,
meaning the prosecution called so many of the same witnesses
that the defense would have called they got to cross
examine them anyway, So they got to put on their
(03:40):
case already without having to call those witnesses. They've already
interviewed the people they wanted to interview. Is that also
a legitimate way of looking at it?
Speaker 2 (03:48):
I would imagine that they feel good about their cross examination. Yes,
that they feel like they are in a strong enough
position based on their ability to discredit some of the
progress or some of the points that the prosecution was
able to make with their witnesses by discrediting them in
some way, shape or form, so that they now feel like, yeah,
(04:09):
we don't have to put on as rigorous of a
defense because of what we were able to do in
cross examination.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
Do no harm, right, do no harm. We are in
a good position. There's nothing else we can do to
further our case.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
So do no harm and do the defense doesn't have
to prove innocence. They just have to cast doubt. That's
all they have to do. They have to make one
juror think maybe that's not the case.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
They don't have to prove anything more than that.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
And that's so honestly like resting in that position of power,
because truly, it is an advantage to only have to
plant a seed of doubt worthy enough of someone saying
I can't convict.
Speaker 3 (04:53):
That is all you have to actually prove.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
Okay, last Quesch, last scenario. Is it possible? You and
I have covered a ton of cases from the state
level to the federal level throughout a thirty year career.
Do you posture in this way? Do attorneys ever roll
the dice and posture meaning they are trying to send
a message by saying, you know what, it's not even
(05:20):
worth our time because they didn't prove their case. Now,
I've heard and I've talked to plenty of attorneys who
said that this does happen at times. But this seems
like a hell of a gamble with a guy a
case this high profile and his life is on the line.
Is that a gamble worth taking simply for the matter
of the theatrics for putting on the show of look, guys,
(05:44):
we don't even have to waste our time putting on
a defense. Is there any part of that you think
is factoring into this.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
I actually think that the attorneys feel like they're in
a good position.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Genuinely.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
I actually don't think that, as you pointed out, a
garags or a ship the daughter of those esteemed attorneys
would actually think that it would be worth a risk
or worth a gamble in this place. I do think
that they feel like they've planted enough seeds of doubt
that they don't have to put on a big production.
Speaker 3 (06:14):
The question is, though, do we know has.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
Anyone actually been able to put up a name of
who they will call to the stand if they've got
a day a day and a half of testimony. Who
are the people they are putting up on the stand
to reiterate or at least bring home their case.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
But they keep adjusting. We don't have an official witness
list as of police this recording, but they keep adjusting ropes.
There's one thing for them to go from two weeks
in two to three weeks is what they said at
the beginning, They went to two to five. They said
two to five. Today they're saying one possibly wild, one
and a half that's wild. How do we get down
(06:56):
to this man's life, this complicated case. We can defend
him and put our case on in a day in
a day, and that's all it takes for us to
prove that this man should not be found guilty. I
know they did a lot with the cross examination. It
just seems like throw anything in there. I don't care
(07:16):
if freak it's elementary school teacher. I don't give a damn.
Speaker 3 (07:19):
I'm curious there.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
I'm curious their strategy in creating those expectations. They're so
smart because they know that the jurors don't want to
stay longer than they have to.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
Ah.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
But but once you set those expectations like two days max,
you can't extend like they have to know when they
make these kinds of statements that there is a level
of expectation, and that expectation is that they aren't going
to go past next week. So then they really do
have to wrap up their case, which is interesting in
(07:53):
terms of strategy. That must mean they actually do mean
what they say, because it would not do them any
good to string the jury along and to be like, oh,
we really hope to wrap it up in a day
and then suddenly have it last five days. That's not
going to go over well with the jurors.
Speaker 1 (08:08):
And how long are jury instructions? Don't can't they take
half a day at least?
Speaker 3 (08:13):
That makes sense.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
Okay, So let's say closing arguments are on Thursday, like
The best case scenario now is for the jury to
begin deliberations on Friday. We're not going to get a
verdict on Friday. Well, go through the weekend, they come
back on Monday. This is a Monday. This is not
a sequestered jury. So now they start a full week
of deliberation.
Speaker 3 (08:34):
That's June thirtieth, Dane thirtieth.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
They start off full week of deliberations. You better believe
they will be out of there before fourth of July.
Correct now clockwise? Do you think it works better for
the defense of the prosecution if it bleeds into fourth
of July? Do you think they're going to be in
a hurry to get out of there? So that means
let's hurry up and convict. Are they gonna be a
(08:58):
hurry up and get out of there?
Speaker 2 (09:00):
Hens where the majority is and where the minority in
the jury room?
Speaker 3 (09:03):
One hundred percent?
Speaker 2 (09:04):
But I also wonder to wait, how much does this
plan do it? Have you ever been on a jury,
by the way, no, either have I. I don't think
people like us tend to be on juries. I don't
think they tend to want people like us who report
the news on juries. But I'm thinking here, does it
play any factor to know that the state or sorry
(09:27):
I always say the state because I'm used to that.
But the Feds, the Feds in this case, took five.
Speaker 3 (09:33):
Weeks basically to present their case. Correct, five weeks? Is
that what it is? Okay?
Speaker 2 (09:39):
And that the defense didn't waste your time? They just
like does that make you feel more? Just like, wow,
I appreciate the defense.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
They only they told me what I needed to know
in one day.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
It took the Feds five weeks to tell me what
I needed to know. Does that play into the psychology?
Speaker 1 (10:00):
Use them to the defensive line.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
I'm just asking that. That's all. That's my question, you know.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
I again, we haven't been in the courtroom. We have
been all kinds of reports about the energy and the
back and forth and sometimes between the juries. You know what,
that hasn't been that much talk about the demeanor of
the jurors every time or sometime.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
You can't have a talk about that, correct.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
Well, they grimaced at the video. Little nuggets like that
have come out, but we haven't heard a whole lot
about their emotions and how they're doing. So nobody knows
where their heads are. But ROMs to think next Thursday.
There are closing arguments in this case. It's so at
the end of today. I think the headline came out
when testimony was over. And yes, we did hear from
(10:41):
Brendan Paul today finally, and I think rose we had
the earlier episode today if you want to check that out.
We did go through his testimony what he was talking
about in our earlier regular did he trial update? We're
doing this bonus episode because there was more here that
actually warranted the headlines. But there was something Brendan Paul
we didn't get to talk about earlier, yes, and how
he wrapped up the testimony, and it really goes to
(11:02):
show who he is, maybe the age he is, the
relationship he had, and how this is all just kind
of a mess and it's not as simple as it seems.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
No, he did not want to testify against his former boss.
And even when he was arrested caught with cocaine in
a Miami area airport in a goy yard bag, he
didn't even give up, did he at that point either.
He did not say this isn't mine, this is my boss's. Now,
(11:34):
so he said he didn't do any of that for
one simple reason. Loyalty, and you saw that on the
stand even today, like you did.
Speaker 3 (11:43):
When he was testifying.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
You know, this isn't something he chose to do, wanted
to do, sought out to do.
Speaker 3 (11:50):
He had no reason to want.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
To be there.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
And the defense only got up. He was up there
an hour and a half. It was pretty quick with
the prosecution, they questioned for hour and a half. The
cross examination only went i think tops fifteen minutes, but
then on redirect the prosecution asked a few questions and
it was that last question. We have seen a couple
of pretty good last questions, some poignant moments, some powerful
(12:27):
moments when people have wrapped their testimony. But he was
asked directly how he felt about Sean Diddy Combs today,
the guy he looked up to, the guy who taught
him so much, the guy that he was an inspiration
to him, the guy taught him about the business, gave
an opportunity, but also the guy who has him now
testifying about using drugs, buying drugs and all this. How
(12:52):
Brendan Paul do you feel about Sean Diddy Combs today?
Speaker 2 (12:55):
So this was interesting by the folks who were there
in the courtroom. They described Paul as not having a
quick or a definitive response, but ultimately after he paused,
he said, it's complicated. Wow, And I actually feel like
(13:16):
hearing him say that, taking the pause he needed to
have before he described it made it that much more authentic.
And everything he testified to beforehand he was it just look,
when you're a juror, you're looking to see, is this
person testifying before me speaking the truth? And I do
(13:39):
think in those moments, when you have those questions that
require nothing but an honest answer, and you'll know if
it's not, you then can kind of look back at
the previous testimony and base.
Speaker 3 (13:56):
It off of that answer.
Speaker 2 (13:57):
And to me, that was that moment where he said
it's complicated, and.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
That's we should all take that out of this. We
wanted to be black and white, good and bad, right,
good versus evil. This is so simple, but it's not.
This is right. And I'm always reminded because we've talked
to a lot of people who have been and we've
been in that position and other people who've been in
the position of being kind of tabloid fodder, if you will,
(14:23):
And it's easy for you to look at this kid
and he has been labeled as something other than a
human being. He's been labeled as what a drug mule.
So when you label somebody as something other than a
human being, a college student, a college graduate, a young man,
a basketball somebody, impressionable, a son, no son, a boyfriend
(14:45):
at this or that, right, we're looking at him as
something other than that until today. To be honest, he
got up there and from what we've read, we couldn't
see it. But he was a kid. Imagine being twenty
two and the biggest star in the world old you
want to be in wants you to work for him. Yes,
I will do anything you tell me to do. And
(15:05):
it just it humanizes so much of the testimony makes
these folks human in a way that I think so
much of the tabloid fodder and foolishness has not. And
I think this kid and a lot of yes, he's
twenty sex.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
Twenty six, twenty six December, he'll be twenty.
Speaker 1 (15:21):
Second, he's still a kid.
Speaker 3 (15:24):
Yeah, And so we just.
Speaker 1 (15:26):
I don't know. He was humanized in a way for me,
and I think that final answer was humanized him greatly.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
Look, I think we are watching this trial, a lot
of us are continually shocked and surprised at how some
other people live their lives or choose to live their lives.
Speaker 3 (15:47):
Who are the victims, who are complicit?
Speaker 2 (15:50):
Who are the evildoers?
Speaker 1 (15:54):
It's hard to know the willing participants, right, There's a
fine line between all that stuff.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
It is.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
It is an eye opening experience. But I do hope
and I think we both hope as we continue to
cover what's going on inside that courtroom that everyone also
just gives people a little bit of space and a
little bit of grace. You don't know what people are
going through, what their aspirations, or what their what their
(16:25):
situations are, and why or how they make decisions. I
think this is it's tough. There are fine lines and
fuzzy lines between victims and perpetrators, between being complicit and being.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
Abused.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
It's there are so many questions, and we're going to
continue to have these conversations about different industries, and you
know this has been all kind of blown open over
the last several years and all you.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
Just said, Brendan Paul summed it up today. Final answer.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
It's complicated, it really is.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
It is. So another day, six six weeks of testimony
in the books. Next week, I think we can say
confidently right will be the final week of testimony.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
I think by all accounts yes, in.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
The Diddy trial, and this jury could be deliberating by
the end of next week. Folks. Yeah, there were some
significant updates, so we thought it was worth jumping on
and giving you those updates. Again, thank you. We appreciate
you going along on this journey with us. We have
learned a lot as we report a lot about this case.
But folks, thank you as always continue to follow us
(17:44):
because obviously it's a it's a Friday. We didn't plan
on doing this. We had other plans we didn't.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
Yes, but we're always here and we're always checking in,
So thank you for checking in with us, and have
a great weekend.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
Chech
Either, folks, it is Friday, June twentieth, and week six
is in the books. We have learned that next week
should be the final week of testimony in the Ditty trial.
Welcome down to this bonus episode of Amy and TJ roolps.
I say, a bonus episode. This is not one we
were planning to do. But there were some remarkable developments
(00:22):
that happened essentially after the testimony ended, and I'm talking
about we've kind of gotten an update on the schedule
and next week should be the final week of testimony
in the Ditty trial.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Yes, so we learned that the prosecution is most likely
going to rest on Monday, but most notably, the defense
basically hinted that its case is going to be quicker
than we thought. We at first thought it might be
a couple of weeks.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Yep was the original Yep.
Speaker 2 (00:54):
Then we heard maybe two to five days.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
That's what they've been saying this week, And now.
Speaker 2 (00:58):
We're hearing that it might just be a day a
day a day or so. Right, So, if the prosecution
ends it case on Monday as expected, that means that
the defense has and they say they will want the
entire day on Tuesday, maybe Wednesday at most, to the
(01:18):
point where the court now has said they're anticipating closing
arguments on Thursday, meaning that is when the jury in
this case might get this case.
Speaker 3 (01:31):
Like that, that's it.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
They're going to start deliberating in less than a week.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
Okay, And what wowed me? Okay, the schedule wows me
just to think, Wow, we've gone through all this and
you got arrested last September. We've been following this story
for so long and now here it is as finally
to the end. But I was fascinated, how is it
possible this man's life was on the line and they
actually have stated in court officially we might need only
one day to put on our case.
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Do you think that is posturing in any way too
smart for that? As part of me thinks like, okay,
let the people think that we're gonna need weeks to
defend ourselves.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
Oh, we're going to go back to then Okay.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
Then you go ahead and make a dramatic shift after
you've seen what the prosecution god and you say, you
know what, now that we see it, we might just need.
Speaker 3 (02:21):
A couple of days.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
And then at the end of it, you're like, wow,
Is that all you got? Yeah, I think we just
need to get So I'm actually thinking this could be
a fully Like that makes sense, doesn't it create a
situation in which you're thinking, well, shit, is that all
they got? Okay, like they don't need to defend themselves further.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
But you're going back to the beginning and thinking saying
two to three weeks was a strategic move as well.
Speaker 2 (02:46):
Correct, So you're gonna go ahead and overestimate what you're
going to set the expectations for, like, yeah, we're gonna
need a couple of weeks to defend ourselves, and then
a little bit into the prosecution case, you say, you
know what, maybe we just need a couple of days
forget the couple weeks. I do think that would be
smart if you were and they are smart, they know
(03:10):
what they're doing. What are the last names in Diddy's
defense team, Shapiro Garagos.
Speaker 1 (03:17):
Legendary legal names, familiar legendary legal names. Yes, you are correct. Okay,
so let's take that as one possibility. Is there another
possibility here that they have put on their case already,
meaning the prosecution called so many of the same witnesses
that the defense would have called they got to cross
examine them anyway, So they got to put on their
(03:40):
case already without having to call those witnesses. They've already
interviewed the people they wanted to interview. Is that also
a legitimate way of looking at it?
Speaker 2 (03:48):
I would imagine that they feel good about their cross examination. Yes,
that they feel like they are in a strong enough
position based on their ability to discredit some of the
progress or some of the points that the prosecution was
able to make with their witnesses by discrediting them in
some way, shape or form, so that they now feel like, yeah,
(04:09):
we don't have to put on as rigorous of a
defense because of what we were able to do in
cross examination.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
Do no harm, right, do no harm. We are in
a good position. There's nothing else we can do to
further our case.
Speaker 2 (04:22):
So do no harm and do the defense doesn't have
to prove innocence. They just have to cast doubt. That's
all they have to do. They have to make one
juror think maybe that's not the case.
Speaker 3 (04:36):
They don't have to prove anything more than that.
Speaker 2 (04:39):
And that's so honestly like resting in that position of power,
because truly, it is an advantage to only have to
plant a seed of doubt worthy enough of someone saying
I can't convict.
Speaker 3 (04:53):
That is all you have to actually prove.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
Okay, last Quesch, last scenario. Is it possible? You and
I have covered a ton of cases from the state
level to the federal level throughout a thirty year career.
Do you posture in this way? Do attorneys ever roll
the dice and posture meaning they are trying to send
a message by saying, you know what, it's not even
(05:20):
worth our time because they didn't prove their case. Now,
I've heard and I've talked to plenty of attorneys who
said that this does happen at times. But this seems
like a hell of a gamble with a guy a
case this high profile and his life is on the line.
Is that a gamble worth taking simply for the matter
of the theatrics for putting on the show of look, guys,
(05:44):
we don't even have to waste our time putting on
a defense. Is there any part of that you think
is factoring into this.
Speaker 2 (05:51):
I actually think that the attorneys feel like they're in
a good position.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Genuinely.
Speaker 2 (05:55):
I actually don't think that, as you pointed out, a
garags or a ship the daughter of those esteemed attorneys
would actually think that it would be worth a risk
or worth a gamble in this place. I do think
that they feel like they've planted enough seeds of doubt
that they don't have to put on a big production.
Speaker 3 (06:14):
The question is, though, do we know has.
Speaker 2 (06:17):
Anyone actually been able to put up a name of
who they will call to the stand if they've got
a day a day and a half of testimony. Who
are the people they are putting up on the stand
to reiterate or at least bring home their case.
Speaker 1 (06:34):
But they keep adjusting. We don't have an official witness
list as of police this recording, but they keep adjusting ropes.
There's one thing for them to go from two weeks
in two to three weeks is what they said at
the beginning, They went to two to five. They said
two to five. Today they're saying one possibly wild, one
and a half that's wild. How do we get down
(06:56):
to this man's life, this complicated case. We can defend
him and put our case on in a day in
a day, and that's all it takes for us to
prove that this man should not be found guilty. I
know they did a lot with the cross examination. It
just seems like throw anything in there. I don't care
(07:16):
if freak it's elementary school teacher. I don't give a damn.
Speaker 3 (07:19):
I'm curious there.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
I'm curious their strategy in creating those expectations. They're so
smart because they know that the jurors don't want to
stay longer than they have to.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
Ah.
Speaker 2 (07:31):
But but once you set those expectations like two days max,
you can't extend like they have to know when they
make these kinds of statements that there is a level
of expectation, and that expectation is that they aren't going
to go past next week. So then they really do
have to wrap up their case, which is interesting in
(07:53):
terms of strategy. That must mean they actually do mean
what they say, because it would not do them any
good to string the jury along and to be like, oh,
we really hope to wrap it up in a day
and then suddenly have it last five days. That's not
going to go over well with the jurors.
Speaker 1 (08:08):
And how long are jury instructions? Don't can't they take
half a day at least?
Speaker 3 (08:13):
That makes sense.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
Okay, So let's say closing arguments are on Thursday, like
The best case scenario now is for the jury to
begin deliberations on Friday. We're not going to get a
verdict on Friday. Well, go through the weekend, they come
back on Monday. This is a Monday. This is not
a sequestered jury. So now they start a full week
of deliberation.
Speaker 3 (08:34):
That's June thirtieth, Dane thirtieth.
Speaker 1 (08:37):
They start off full week of deliberations. You better believe
they will be out of there before fourth of July.
Correct now clockwise? Do you think it works better for
the defense of the prosecution if it bleeds into fourth
of July? Do you think they're going to be in
a hurry to get out of there? So that means
let's hurry up and convict. Are they gonna be a
(08:58):
hurry up and get out of there?
Speaker 2 (09:00):
Hens where the majority is and where the minority in
the jury room?
Speaker 3 (09:03):
One hundred percent?
Speaker 2 (09:04):
But I also wonder to wait, how much does this
plan do it? Have you ever been on a jury,
by the way, no, either have I. I don't think
people like us tend to be on juries. I don't
think they tend to want people like us who report
the news on juries. But I'm thinking here, does it
play any factor to know that the state or sorry
(09:27):
I always say the state because I'm used to that.
But the Feds, the Feds in this case, took five.
Speaker 3 (09:33):
Weeks basically to present their case. Correct, five weeks? Is
that what it is? Okay?
Speaker 2 (09:39):
And that the defense didn't waste your time? They just
like does that make you feel more? Just like, wow,
I appreciate the defense.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
They only they told me what I needed to know
in one day.
Speaker 2 (09:53):
It took the Feds five weeks to tell me what
I needed to know. Does that play into the psychology?
Speaker 1 (10:00):
Use them to the defensive line.
Speaker 3 (10:02):
I'm just asking that. That's all. That's my question, you know.
Speaker 1 (10:05):
I again, we haven't been in the courtroom. We have
been all kinds of reports about the energy and the
back and forth and sometimes between the juries. You know what,
that hasn't been that much talk about the demeanor of
the jurors every time or sometime.
Speaker 2 (10:17):
You can't have a talk about that, correct.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
Well, they grimaced at the video. Little nuggets like that
have come out, but we haven't heard a whole lot
about their emotions and how they're doing. So nobody knows
where their heads are. But ROMs to think next Thursday.
There are closing arguments in this case. It's so at
the end of today. I think the headline came out
when testimony was over. And yes, we did hear from
(10:41):
Brendan Paul today finally, and I think rose we had
the earlier episode today if you want to check that out.
We did go through his testimony what he was talking
about in our earlier regular did he trial update? We're
doing this bonus episode because there was more here that
actually warranted the headlines. But there was something Brendan Paul
we didn't get to talk about earlier, yes, and how
he wrapped up the testimony, and it really goes to
(11:02):
show who he is, maybe the age he is, the
relationship he had, and how this is all just kind
of a mess and it's not as simple as it seems.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
No, he did not want to testify against his former boss.
And even when he was arrested caught with cocaine in
a Miami area airport in a goy yard bag, he
didn't even give up, did he at that point either.
He did not say this isn't mine, this is my boss's. Now,
(11:34):
so he said he didn't do any of that for
one simple reason. Loyalty, and you saw that on the
stand even today, like you did.
Speaker 3 (11:43):
When he was testifying.
Speaker 2 (11:45):
You know, this isn't something he chose to do, wanted
to do, sought out to do.
Speaker 3 (11:50):
He had no reason to want.
Speaker 2 (11:54):
To be there.
Speaker 1 (12:04):
And the defense only got up. He was up there
an hour and a half. It was pretty quick with
the prosecution, they questioned for hour and a half. The
cross examination only went i think tops fifteen minutes, but
then on redirect the prosecution asked a few questions and
it was that last question. We have seen a couple
of pretty good last questions, some poignant moments, some powerful
(12:27):
moments when people have wrapped their testimony. But he was
asked directly how he felt about Sean Diddy Combs today,
the guy he looked up to, the guy who taught
him so much, the guy that he was an inspiration
to him, the guy taught him about the business, gave
an opportunity, but also the guy who has him now
testifying about using drugs, buying drugs and all this. How
(12:52):
Brendan Paul do you feel about Sean Diddy Combs today?
Speaker 2 (12:55):
So this was interesting by the folks who were there
in the courtroom. They described Paul as not having a
quick or a definitive response, but ultimately after he paused,
he said, it's complicated. Wow, And I actually feel like
(13:16):
hearing him say that, taking the pause he needed to
have before he described it made it that much more authentic.
And everything he testified to beforehand he was it just look,
when you're a juror, you're looking to see, is this
person testifying before me speaking the truth? And I do
(13:39):
think in those moments, when you have those questions that
require nothing but an honest answer, and you'll know if
it's not, you then can kind of look back at
the previous testimony and base.
Speaker 3 (13:56):
It off of that answer.
Speaker 2 (13:57):
And to me, that was that moment where he said
it's complicated, and.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
That's we should all take that out of this. We
wanted to be black and white, good and bad, right,
good versus evil. This is so simple, but it's not.
This is right. And I'm always reminded because we've talked
to a lot of people who have been and we've
been in that position and other people who've been in
the position of being kind of tabloid fodder, if you will,
(14:23):
And it's easy for you to look at this kid
and he has been labeled as something other than a
human being. He's been labeled as what a drug mule.
So when you label somebody as something other than a
human being, a college student, a college graduate, a young man,
a basketball somebody, impressionable, a son, no son, a boyfriend
(14:45):
at this or that, right, we're looking at him as
something other than that until today. To be honest, he
got up there and from what we've read, we couldn't
see it. But he was a kid. Imagine being twenty
two and the biggest star in the world old you
want to be in wants you to work for him. Yes,
I will do anything you tell me to do. And
(15:05):
it just it humanizes so much of the testimony makes
these folks human in a way that I think so
much of the tabloid fodder and foolishness has not. And
I think this kid and a lot of yes, he's
twenty sex.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
Twenty six, twenty six December, he'll be twenty.
Speaker 1 (15:21):
Second, he's still a kid.
Speaker 3 (15:24):
Yeah, And so we just.
Speaker 1 (15:26):
I don't know. He was humanized in a way for me,
and I think that final answer was humanized him greatly.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
Look, I think we are watching this trial, a lot
of us are continually shocked and surprised at how some
other people live their lives or choose to live their lives.
Speaker 3 (15:47):
Who are the victims, who are complicit?
Speaker 2 (15:50):
Who are the evildoers?
Speaker 1 (15:54):
It's hard to know the willing participants, right, There's a
fine line between all that stuff.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
It is.
Speaker 2 (16:00):
It is an eye opening experience. But I do hope
and I think we both hope as we continue to
cover what's going on inside that courtroom that everyone also
just gives people a little bit of space and a
little bit of grace. You don't know what people are
going through, what their aspirations, or what their what their
(16:25):
situations are, and why or how they make decisions. I
think this is it's tough. There are fine lines and
fuzzy lines between victims and perpetrators, between being complicit and being.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
Abused.
Speaker 2 (16:41):
It's there are so many questions, and we're going to
continue to have these conversations about different industries, and you
know this has been all kind of blown open over
the last several years and all you.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
Just said, Brendan Paul summed it up today. Final answer.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
It's complicated, it really is.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
It is. So another day, six six weeks of testimony
in the books. Next week, I think we can say
confidently right will be the final week of testimony.
Speaker 2 (17:17):
I think by all accounts yes, in.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
The Diddy trial, and this jury could be deliberating by
the end of next week. Folks. Yeah, there were some
significant updates, so we thought it was worth jumping on
and giving you those updates. Again, thank you. We appreciate
you going along on this journey with us. We have
learned a lot as we report a lot about this case.
But folks, thank you as always continue to follow us
(17:44):
because obviously it's a it's a Friday. We didn't plan
on doing this. We had other plans we didn't.
Speaker 2 (17:49):
Yes, but we're always here and we're always checking in,
So thank you for checking in with us, and have
a great weekend.
Speaker 1 (18:00):
Chech
Hosts And Creators
Amy Robach
T.J. Holmes
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.