Legally Brunette: The Diddy Verdict

The jury has sealed Diddy’s fate and we’re breaking it down from a legal standpoint.

Plus, we dive into Bryan Kohberger’s plea deal that confirms he is guilty of murder. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:01):
Hi, guys, Welcome to another episode of Legally Brunette. I'll
be your host today, Emily Simpson with my co host Shane.
It's just Shane. You know, people DM me now and
they ask how just Shane is doing. Yes, they refer
to you as just Shane. Actually today, First of all,
let me do a little disclaimer because we are going
to talk about Diddy and the Diddy verdict. So this

(00:23):
story contains discussions of rape and sexual assault. If you
are someone you know has been sexually assaulted, you can
find help and discrete resources on the National Sexual Assault
Hotline website or by calling one eight hundred six five
six four six seven three. So the verdict and the
Didty trial actually came out today. I read it this morning.

(00:48):
So we're going to discuss that. I know a lot
of you are mad, upset, disgusted. I have a whole
treasure trove of dms of women saying how did this happen?
He paid people off. He's a celebrity, so he got off.
You know, this is disgusting. Why is he not convicted
on the higher charges? So we're going to go through that.

(01:10):
First of all, let's just go back and refresh our
memories just so we can talk about what he was
originally charged with. He there were five counts against man.
These are federal charges. One was the racketeering and conspiracy charge,
which was RICO. The second was sex trafficking by force
fraud a coercion that had to do with Cassie Ventura.
That was victim number one. Count three was transportation to

(01:32):
engage in prostitution regarding victim one and commercial sex workers.
Count four was sex trafficking by force fraud a coersion,
and that had to do with victim two, who was
known as Jane, and Jane testified. Count five was transportation
to engage in prostitution regarding Jane and commercial sex workers.

Speaker 2 (01:51):
Okay, wellt's sum up. First one's RICO, so basically, second
one's sex trafficking, yeah, the third one is.

Speaker 1 (01:59):
That's transport to engage in prostitution.

Speaker 2 (02:01):
Okay, and then the fourth one is sex trafficking by force.
It's also oh, well for Jane. Right, So there's two
sex trafficking charges, one against Cassie and another one against Jane,
well involving yeah, thank you. And then and then the
fifth one is transportation to engage in prostitution.

Speaker 1 (02:19):
Okay, so we all know that the verdict came out
and that he was found not guilty on the higher
charges of racketeering and sex trafficking. He was found guilty
only on the accounts of transportation to engage in prostitutions.

Speaker 2 (02:33):
Which includes prostitution as well.

Speaker 1 (02:36):
Right, yeah, it's it's transportation across I believe, across state
lines to engage in prostitution. All right, before we go
into the verdict and our thoughts on the verdict, let's
go through. We did do some episodes on the Diddy case,
or Shane renamed him Pity.

Speaker 2 (02:53):
Well that was that was by mistake. Yeah, but I'm
confusing Pity the fool. Yeah that has freak cops without me.

Speaker 1 (02:59):
Yeah, instead of p Diddy, he just changed it to Pity.
I feel like that works for him. Let's go back.
We did do some earlier episodes on Pity if you
would like to go back and listen to him. But
I think it's important let's start at the closing arguments,
because I feel the prosecution did a good job of
wrapping everything up and laying out like a really precise,

(03:21):
concise closing argument. So the prosecutors triggered headlines last week,
when they had backed off of or eliminated claims of
arson and kidnapping against Combs. However, when Assistant US Attorney
Christy Slavic launched closings last Thursday, she gave the allegations
of arson and kidnapping a starring role in her first sentences,
naming them before any others. She said, quote, over the

(03:44):
last several weeks, you've learned a lot about Sean Combs.
He's the leader of a criminal enterprise. He doesn't take
no foreign answer, and now you know about many crimes
the defendant committed with members of his enterprise, kidnapping of
one of the defendants employees, Arson by trying to blow
up a car, or labor, including an employee. The defendant
repeatedly sexually assaulted, bribery of a security officer to keep

(04:06):
damning evidence against the defendant buried, and of course the
brutal crimes and the heat of the case sex trafficking.
The enterprise is Comb's in his trusted inner circle, she said,
and it existed to serve his needs. In what he
said went, Slovac referred to Combe's former chief of staff,
Christina Korum, his security team and his assistants multiple times

(04:28):
during her closing arguments, describing how they aided Combs in
buying drugs, facilitated bribes, and covered up his violence. Slavic
showed the jury images of twenty seven men that Combs
hired to have sex with Ventura, Jane or with both women.
This slide shows you just a subset of the strangers
who had sex with Jane and Cassie. Slovic said that

(04:49):
sex trafficking charge regarding Jane is based on Combe's years
long pattern of fraud, coercion, and ultimately force to get
her to do quote hotel nights. She recalled rehotel nights
in particular that Jane testified about as the most clear
cut examples of sex trafficking with Jane, adding that there
are many other hotel nights that Jane agreed to because

(05:10):
of the defendants pattern of coercion. All right, here's the
problem with the sex trafficking charges, at least according to
what I've read, what I've studied, what I've listened to testimony,
I've watched videos on it. When it comes to the
sex trafficking charges, which are higher charges than the prostitution charges,
you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and the

(05:33):
burden of proof is on the prosecution. The prosecution has
the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Cassie
and Jane were forced a course into these sexual acts.
And they do a good job of painting a picture
of women that are coerced by talking about how he
pays their rent, that he's violent, that they're scared of him, or.

Speaker 2 (05:56):
Even coursed into traveling.

Speaker 1 (05:59):
Right.

Speaker 2 (06:00):
You know, I don't know the details like you might,
but which could you know? I wasn't their text messages
like I'm always ready, or yes baby, let's you know,
let's have a freak off or whatever. They would say
something that implied consent. Even if you and I know
that there was probably some pressure, But if she implied consent,
then there's no forcing of traveling or participating.

Speaker 1 (06:21):
Right, And that's where the defense comes in, And where
the defense did a good job was finding text messages,
finding Instagram things, finding things out there where these women
were exhibiting behavior of going along with it, of talking
about how they liked the hotel nights upsetting, of proving
that they were setting it up themselves, that they were

(06:43):
going through the motions that they were picking out the
mail sex workers, that they were involved in the process.
So you can't have it both ways. You can't have
coercion force and also involved in the process picking out
the mail prostitutes, paying the bills, getting the hotel, helping
set things up. But the problem is when you have

(07:05):
both of these women. I'm sure there were concrete examples
and instances where they didn't want to do it and
they probably did feel and.

Speaker 2 (07:12):
All you needed was one of those instances to be
proven right one time or they were coerced. It didn't
have to be every single freak off, every single transaction.
It just had to be one.

Speaker 1 (07:26):
But the problem is is that I think when the
jury hears the prosecutors and they hear them testify, but
then the defense comes in and shows text messages where
they're saying things like they set it up, they picked
out this male worker, they enjoyed it, thank you for
setting that up, thank you for hosting this. It takes
away from the credibility that they were coerced or that

(07:48):
they were forced into this. It looks more like they're
going along with a lifestyle all right. Then the defense
says they're closing argument. The defense's main attorney is Mark Agniphilo, Agnifhilo.
I always say his name wrong, Agnifilo. His wife represents Luigi,
and he mocked the government's case against Comb's as an overreach,
saying hundreds of agents poured into Comb's residences in Miami

(08:11):
and Los Angeles to seize hundreds of bottles of baby
oil and astroglide. I guess it's all worth it because
they found the astroglide. They found it in boxes, boxes
of astroglide, taking off the streets few. I feel better already.
He said, the streets of America are safe from the astroglide.

Speaker 2 (08:29):
So that was that sounds stupid.

Speaker 1 (08:32):
Well, you know what, you know why it sounds stupid.

Speaker 2 (08:34):
One.

Speaker 1 (08:34):
I understand the point he's trying to make, trying to
downplay it, like okay, so the.

Speaker 2 (08:38):
Guy gets it's a sex salobe like lots of people
use it. Oh no, he's trying to make it like
mocking it, like we're taking guns off the street, we're
taking astrograd off seat. Like is it really making a difference? Right?
All right?

Speaker 1 (08:58):
From the start, agnifil not say his name. I can
never get the syllable on the act on the right syllable, Agnifilo, Agnifilo, Agnifilo, Agnifilo, gosh.
From the start, Agnifilo portrayed prosecutors as unjustly targeting Combs
after a former girlfriend of nearly eleven years, Cassie Ventura,

(09:20):
sued him in November of twenty twenty three. That was
a civil suit that also remember we talked about, was
settled within one day for twenty million dollars. Agnifilo maintained
the prosecution was an unjust attack on a prominent and
widely successful black entrepreneur. Quote. They took astroglide and they
took baby oil, and that ends up being the evidence
in this case. Because his businesses are outstanding. There's nothing

(09:42):
about the businesses to fine. There's nothing about the businesses
to make it into a criminal case. Agnifilo tried to
cast the case for the jury as an attack on
everyone's bedroom and the secrets of one sex life. Quote.
They go into the man's bedroom, they go into the
man's most private life. Where is the crime scene. The
crime scene is your private sex life. That's the crime scene.

Speaker 2 (10:03):
He said, Yeah, but that argument's dumb because that can
be made with anyone that's being charged with a sex crime.
I mean that alone is stupid. Oh he went into
his bedroom. Oh oh no sex. Well, no, it's it's
what's taking place exactly. It's like going, oh no, we
went to this room and there's this a bunch of kids.
Oh no, there's kids. It's like, well, it's kidnapping or

(10:24):
pedophilia or something.

Speaker 1 (10:25):
Else, right, right, Well, he's trying to downplay and making
it not like it's a criminal enterprise and not like
there's a crime going on other than this man is
just has freaky preferences and that's not a crime. Having
astroglide and baby oil isn't a crime. And having sex
and hotels and all the lights and the red lights

(10:46):
in the cannabis.

Speaker 2 (10:47):
I know, I know, and I'm making fun of it,
but apparently it worked.

Speaker 1 (10:51):
The defense attorneys goes on to say it was not
uncommon that Comb's like to film sexual events with his girlfriends,
calling it sort of typical, you know, homemade porn, and
adding that I don't think, by any stretch of the imagination,
this is the only man in America making homemade porn.
I don't know. What do you think?

Speaker 2 (11:08):
Uh yeah, I bet there's a lot of people. Those
free costs make his homemade porn, so that but he's
not being charged with homemade porn. You're being charged with.

Speaker 1 (11:18):
Sex trafficking, sex crimes and rico right right still, he said,
investigators take yellow crime scene tape figuratively and they wrap
it around the bedroom crime scene, your bedroom, your hotel
rooms where you go with your girlfriends. Then he gave
a nod to the fiftieth anniversary of the movie Jaws,
resurrecting a classic line when he said, we need a
bigger role of crime scene tape because that's just not

(11:40):
going to be enough. Agnifilo told geors that it takes
a lot of courage to acquit. He ripped the government's
case a final time, saying the trial was very different
from any other trial. Quote. I think that the evidence
shows that you can conclude that the government targeted Sean Combs,
noting that nobody complained to the government to instigate a
pro but investigators instead began work a day after Cassie

(12:01):
filed her lawsuit. All right, then you know one closing arguments,
The prosecution goes first, then the defense gets their time,
and then the prosecution can go again, and they can
rebut what.

Speaker 2 (12:12):
You know, it sounds effective though the way he's downplaying
I can see, I can see it causing people to think, yeah,
I know, what's the big deal, Especially there was eight
men on the jury. They probably all have astrog I
believe it.

Speaker 1 (12:23):
I believe it was eight men and four women were
on the jury. First of all, here's the prosecution's job,
because we talked about how the prosecution has the burden
to prove the RICO elements, the sex trafficking elements. Those
are the biggest charges beyond a reasonable doubt. And in
order to prove the RICO charges, you have to prove
that there was a criminal enterprise and that all these

(12:47):
people in this criminal enterprise were working towards the common goal.

Speaker 2 (12:50):
Which they weren't criminal activity. Is this is this enterprise
his record company.

Speaker 1 (12:56):
Well, that's what they're trying. It's called shaan Combe's enter
or something like that. And then I think there's like
bad Boy Records and things under that, and he has
other businesses under that.

Speaker 2 (13:07):
But see let me interpew. So he has valid businesses
that are business that's being conducted, Yes, and probably for
many years prior to these charges.

Speaker 1 (13:17):
Yes, And the prosecution spent a lot of time showing
receipts that showed hotel bills being paid, transportation being paid
for these prostitutes and the women, uh you know, baby
oil and lighting and all the necessities, and then they
would show a lot of times that it came out
of his his business enterprises, but then it would be

(13:41):
paid back with his personal money, so that was that's
where it gets money. It's like, on one hand, the
prosecution is showing, okay, it's a criminal enterprise because he's
paying for it out of these businesses to pay for
these freak offs and to bring these male prostitutes in.
And then the defense would go and say, yeah, but
then he was he paid it back with personal.

Speaker 2 (14:01):
They're kind of like, it's not the criminal. It's not
the enterprise that's conducting all his criminal activity. He just
used some of the money and then he paid it.

Speaker 1 (14:07):
Back, right, so it's not a criminal enterprise. Also, you know,
the prosecution put on thirty four witnesses thirty four and
it was all to establish a network of a criminal
enterprise to establish RICO.

Speaker 2 (14:20):
The issue still couldn't get the charge.

Speaker 1 (14:22):
The issue is is that the defense would then come
in and do what the defense does. Because I don't
know if you know, but the defense called zero witnesses. Zero.
They only read some text messages I think like five hours.

Speaker 2 (14:38):
There's probably no witnesses that even come forward. Yeah, I'll
testify that I love the freak outs, that I was
willing to do it and I participated.

Speaker 1 (14:44):
And well the defense, I mean, the defenses, that's.

Speaker 2 (14:46):
What they could have done, right.

Speaker 1 (14:48):
Well, I thought maybe they might put on like a
character witness or something to like maybe pull at the
jury's heartstrings that like he's a good guy or something.
I don't know, but they put on zero witnesses a
long shot. Their case was basically just rebutting the prosecution's
case and taking each witness like, for exact example, Capricorn
Clark who talked about how she was kidnapped by Diddy. Well,

(15:09):
then there you go. You're establishing one of your elements
that you need for Rico. Right, you're establishing you have
to do two predicate crimes within a ten year period.
So you have to establish there was bribery, there was
you know arson, there's burglary. You have to have two
of these crimes. So Capricorn Clark testifies, there's your kidnapping,

(15:30):
so that would be one predicate act, right. But the
problem is then the defense comes on and then she
admits that in twenty twenty four she tried to work
for him again. Well, so it's like you're saying, I
was kidnapped at gunpoint, and I don't know what year
it was, in some earlier year, but then in twenty
twenty four she reached out to Sean Combs and want
to work for him again.

Speaker 2 (15:50):
Yeah. It even if there were acts that were conducted
that can be viewed as criminal, clearly the jury didn't
see it as the end a prize being established or
used to facilitate crime.

Speaker 1 (16:04):
Right, And the defense did a good job of every
time someone testified that there was always some evidence that
could take away their credibility, Like.

Speaker 2 (16:13):
Here's a text where she was consenting adults.

Speaker 1 (16:16):
Right, or she was setting it up, or she enjoyed it,
or she said thank you. So it was she liked.

Speaker 2 (16:22):
Being beaten up and pulled down the hallway back to
the hotel room. She didn't want to go down the elevator.

Speaker 1 (16:28):
Nobody liked that. That's about the freak offs.

Speaker 2 (16:30):
I know, But how I have questions about the elevator incident?
You do.

Speaker 1 (16:34):
What is your question about the elevator incident? Why wasn't
in the elevator? It was in the hallway. She was
trying to get into the elevator.

Speaker 2 (16:42):
Do you want me to call it the hallway incident?

Speaker 1 (16:43):
Yes, the hallway incident. What is your question about that?

Speaker 2 (16:46):
What is it? Why was he Why was that not?
Why was there no criminal charges for that? Is that
because a statue of limitations? Is that because they settle
it out of court?

Speaker 1 (16:57):
Well? I think it was because she settled it out
of court. And then I believe when prosecutors or the
government or whatever read her civil case against him, that's
when they were like, Oh, he's involved in all of
these things. And then all these other people are coming
forward with all these He's had so many civil suits
against him. Right now, then I think the government's like,
wait a minute, what is this guy involved in him?

(17:18):
What is he doing? This looks like Rico because he
has all these assistants and people working for him that are,
you know, helping him facilitate these freak offs. It looks
like this could be a possible Rico charge.

Speaker 2 (17:32):
Huh.

Speaker 1 (17:34):
Finally, a rebuttal from the prosecution. The Assistant US attorney
Maureen Komy got the final word with a rebuttal presentation
to jurors. Komy began by saying, the defense just spent
a whole lot of energy trying to blame Combe's victims
and the US government for his lies, his threats, and
for his inexcusable behavior. She added that this trial was
about how in Shaan Combe's world, no was never an option.

(17:57):
Comy said that the defense team has tried to set
violence from sex regarding both Ventura and Jane, but quote,
if part of the abuse is making your partner participate
in a commercial sex act, you're guilty of sex trafficking.
She added that the jury only has to find that
one freak off or hotel night was sex trafficked to
find Combs guilty of the charge. There's your answer. Sex

(18:19):
trafficking does not legally require the perpetrator to overcome a
no from the victim. It can also involve getting someone
to say yes through illegal means like force, fraud, and coercion.
She said that Colmbs, in his mind, was untouchable. She
noted that one former personal assistant even described him as
a god among men. For twenty years, the defendant has

(18:39):
gotten away with his crimes. That ends in this courtroom.
She said. He is a person, and in this courtroom
he stands equal before the law. Overwhelming evidence proves his guilt.
It is time to hold him accountable, find him guilty.
Now here's the thing with the Rico charges. In order
for a Rico charge to stick, you.

Speaker 2 (18:55):
Have to prove.

Speaker 1 (18:58):
Two criminal acts within a ten year period that were
part of this enterprise.

Speaker 2 (19:02):
Well, I imagine among other things, like the enterprise was
facilitating it, right.

Speaker 1 (19:08):
And also the element of like a common goal in
the way.

Speaker 2 (19:10):
And you have to prove that it was a crime.

Speaker 1 (19:13):
Right. But I'm saying I think that it was established
by the prosecution that he did commit these crimes as
far as arson, and I don't know with kid Cutty
testifying and then cast Ventura corroborating the arson, and then
I believe there was someone else that testified to it.
So there's your arsen right there. There's one crime also,

(19:34):
the bribery.

Speaker 2 (19:34):
I mean the.

Speaker 1 (19:35):
Security card talked about how you gave him a hundred
thousand dollars and brought the cash machine and counted it out. Yeah, you,
So there's two. The problem is is I think the
other elements as far as it being you have the
two underlying criminal acts within a ten.

Speaker 2 (19:50):
Year period and then trying to make it but racketeering
is to make it racketeering, and so not to downplay
anything that he did, so people don't get after me
because I'm not supporting him, not supporting him one bit.
But it's it's it's sort of like if I had
a retail store and I was just selling. I had

(20:11):
like a mini mart, and I was selling stuff, and
then I committed two acts of crime and I used
like the store, like someone came in and I bought
drugs right, or I sold on one item that was illegal. Well,
I just happened to have a store and I did
these two crimes. Like it wasn't because of the store,
I was able to commit the crimes or I created
the store in order to facilitate these crimes. So it

(20:33):
sounds like that's what it was. Like, Yeah, Okay, he's
a business guy. He's got all kinds of businesses, all
kinds of employees, entities, Yeah, all kinds of stuff, payroll this, that,
blah blah blah, and he commits crimes. So it was
probably very difficult to tie those two together.

Speaker 1 (20:50):
Well, I think it was difficult to tie in the
conspiracy part, where you're talking about all these people that
work for him. His employees, assistance, bodyguards, et cetera. Are
all part of this criminal enterpse, and they're all working
as a common goal. Took to commit times.

Speaker 2 (21:03):
It's not a hired someone and gave them the title
of like freak off calendar coordinator, right, right.

Speaker 1 (21:11):
So freakoff facilitator, yes, yes, all right, So after thirteen
hours of deliberation, what did the jury find? So the
verdict comes in? It was in this morning, count je
Rico not guilty. Count two, Sex trafficking, Cassie Ventura not guilty.
Count three, The Man Act Transportation Cassie Ventura guilty. Sex

(21:33):
trafficking Jane not guilty. Man Act Transportation of Jane guilty.
The Man Act of nineteen ten is a federal law
that criminalizes the transportation of individuals across state lines or
in international boundaries for illegal sexual activity, regardless of consent
or not. In Combe's case, the prosecution presented flight records,

(21:55):
hotel invoices, credit card charges, and video evidence documenting the
singer supporting two ex girlfriends, Cassie Ventura and a woman
referred to by the pseudonym Jane, along with paid escorts
across state lines for so called freak golf parties. How
does the man Act differ from sex trafficking? While the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act of two thousand was designed to

(22:18):
combat what Congress called modern day slavery, it targets organized
systems of commercial exploitation through force, fraud, occursion, and it
typically involves traffickers who control nearly every aspect of the
victim's life, like housing, transportation, identification, finances, and the ability
to leave. Both Cassie Ventura and Jane reported trauma and coercion,

(22:41):
but they retained housing, communication, financial resources, and career opportunities.
They were not legally or physically confined. There was no
evidence of document confiscation. There was no restriction of movement
of the kind of isolation commonly seen in trafficking cases.

Speaker 2 (22:57):
So the difference between the man Act and the general
term of sex trafficking is sex trafficking is forced or
cursed or some type of fraud, type of fraud, and
a man Act is it's two consenting adults that go
across state line commit a sex crime. Right okay, and
I think sex trafficking I know I've read this before,
is it involves underage, so it need not be coerced

(23:21):
and fraud and all that. It could just be under age.

Speaker 1 (23:24):
Your age would be sex trafficking as well.

Speaker 2 (23:26):
Which obviously didn't apply here. But I don't want to
make that clear.

Speaker 1 (23:28):
Right, are the not guilty?

Speaker 2 (23:31):
Vertical kind of funny that's called the man act. Yeah,
that's pretty ironic. I bet no female has been convicted
of the man act of the man. Probably just the
dirt bag men that do it, that.

Speaker 1 (23:41):
Are transporting women.

Speaker 2 (23:43):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (23:43):
Well now I don't know though, because this weekend in Vegas,
I almost got sex trafficked. It was a man working
with a woman. Wow.

Speaker 2 (23:53):
She might have been coursed, she might have been forced.
Well well, okay, wait a minute, he's gonna throw that
out there that you almost got sex traffic You're not
going to tell the story. You gotta tell a story now, Okay.

Speaker 1 (24:06):
So we went to Vegas this weekend and I was
at Caesar's with Shane and all the kids were there,
and then I left earlier than Shane. I left Caesar's.
First mistake, Yeah I should I should never anywhere alone.
But anyway, I left Caesar's Palace with the two boys,
so it was the three of us, and I was
with some girls.

Speaker 2 (24:24):
His girls, his daughter day.

Speaker 1 (24:28):
So I'm leaving Caesar's Palace and I'm walking out where
the valet is and there's a taxi there with the
light on, which means it's available. And I go to
open the door of the back seat of the taxi
to get in it and take it back to Mandalay
Bay where we're staying, and all of a sudden, this
very tall, large man jumps in front of me and
blocks me from getting into.

Speaker 2 (24:46):
The town where the boys in the car. I think
you told me this, but I want to make a
clireful of veers. You boys were in the car at
the timer behind.

Speaker 1 (24:53):
You're behind me, they're next to me. And then I'm like,
what is this guy doing? And at first I got irritated,
and then so I reached for the doorway.

Speaker 2 (25:01):
How was he dressed?

Speaker 1 (25:02):
Like plain clothes?

Speaker 2 (25:03):
Okay, just regular, not like a suit, no shirt.

Speaker 1 (25:07):
No, it was tall, it was big. He had a
T shirt pants on. Then I go and reach for
the door again and he gets in front of me
and blocks me from getting into the car, and I'm like,
what are you doing. I'm trying to get in this
cab and he goes, no, go in this other car,
and he points to another car by the way. The
other car car is an unmarked car. It's just a
black car. It's not a taxi. It doesn't say uber

(25:29):
or anything on it, a panel pan, it's just say
black car. And he points to a woman that's standing
about ten feet behind me, and she goes, oh, come on, sweetheart,
just get in this car. And I was like, don't
look at okay, No, I'm not getting in that car.
So I try a third time to go for the
door handle and he grabs the door and he slams

(25:50):
it shut and he gets in front of me and
he won't let me get in the car.

Speaker 2 (25:53):
How far away was she or the car? She was
about like a car length away, car length.

Speaker 1 (25:58):
Away over back behind the taxicab. And she keeps going
like motioning for me to get in this other car.

Speaker 2 (26:03):
She's trying to vouch for him, like yeah, I'm a female.
See it's okay.

Speaker 1 (26:06):
She's like it's okay, honey, come get in this car.
And then then the taxi driver, who I'm trying to
get into his car, starts fighting with the man that
won't let me in the car, and they're screaming at
each other. So then I'm just like, this is insanity.
I don't know what's going on. This woman's trying to
get me to get in another car. These guys are
screaming at each other. I thought they were going to
get in a physical altercation. So I go back into

(26:27):
Caesars and take the boys with me. The boys are scared.
I go to the valet. I'm like, I need security.
I'm trying to get in a taxi cab and this
guy won't let me get in the taxi. So then
security goes out there and it was I don't know,
it was a woman with a walkie talkie. She goes
out and she talks to the guy and I can
see him talking. He's talking to her and he's got shit.

Speaker 2 (26:46):
All she had was what he said right.

Speaker 1 (26:48):
Right, So I don't know what he said to her.
But she comes back in and she says to me
and she goes, ma'am, he was just trying to get
you in the other taxi cab. And I was like, well, ma'am,
let me tell you the other taxi cab. They black
car with no marking, thought it, I'm not getting in
that car. So then I stood there and I had
to wait until that guy finally left, and he eventually left,

(27:11):
and then the boys and I had to have an
escort take us out and find a new cab for us.

Speaker 2 (27:15):
Anyway, Veas, what got an escort in Baas, I.

Speaker 1 (27:18):
Got an escort. I got a male escort in Vegas
that escorted me to a taxi cab to make sure
I got into an actual taxi and I got to
the mandol A. But let me just tell you what
my husband said when I called him to tell him
that I almost got said.

Speaker 2 (27:30):
Remember you don't remember what you said?

Speaker 1 (27:32):
I called you and I was like, oh my gosh,
I almost got sex trafficked, and you go, aren't you
a little old to be? Said?

Speaker 2 (27:40):
Sorry?

Speaker 1 (27:40):
Thank you for that?

Speaker 2 (27:41):
All right?

Speaker 1 (27:42):
I appreciate that anyway, seriously, though, like a for real warning, women,
be aware of your surroundings totally, and be aware when
you take ubers. Always check the check plate a license plate.
Don't give them your name first, ask them who are
you looking for? Let them give you your name. Make

(28:03):
sure that the license plates match up. Make sure that
the description of the car matches up. And if you
ever get a little inkling that something's offered you feel weird,
do not get in the car. And I would also
say don't ever take an uber alone. I would say
go in groups, go with a friend, like, try not
to do that alone. It's it really was. I'm telling
you in.

Speaker 2 (28:23):
Some ways, I'm glad you got exposed to that. So
we can all and when we talk, we pass along
to our kids. We can all be more careful because
I texted you know, my daughters and everything, So it's
like we can all learn from it.

Speaker 1 (28:38):
Yes, And even if there is a woman who looks
kind and says sweetheart and tells you to get in
the car and tells you it's fine, I no, just run,
it's not even worth it. Are the not guilty verdicts justifiable?

(29:01):
This is a USA Today article. The abuse described in
the Diddy trial was real and criminal, but calling it
trafficking does not help survivors. None of this minimizes what happened.
The abuse described in the Comb's case was real, harmful,
and criminal, but redefining it as trafficking simply because other
laws didn't offer a viable path to justice does not

(29:23):
help survivors. It undermines the integrity of the trafficking framework
and could actually make it harder for victims of true
trafficking to get the support and legal recognition they need.
It's understandable why prosecutors turn to the Trafficking Victims Protection
Act because trafficking cases come with longer statutes of limitations,
more severe penalties, and more public support, and existing domestic

(29:46):
violence statues are often outdated or ill equipped to address
course of control, especially when the abuser is wealthy, powerful,
and legally savvy. Basically, what this article is saying, it's
trying to explain why what Combs did did not fit
under a trafficking standard. And basically what they're saying is
there is no legal recourse. It's either domestic violence recourse,

(30:09):
which doesn't actually fit because he is a man with
wealth and stature and he does use his money and
fame to get what he wants, but that his actions
don't actually fit under a trafficking legal standard. And that's
where this wasn't.

Speaker 2 (30:30):
Well It's yeah, that was the weakest part of the
whole right.

Speaker 1 (30:34):
But the problem is is that I believe that there
were times where it was consensual, and then there were
times where they didn't want to. And the problem is
is that the defense does a good job of pointing
out that there were times of consent when they enjoyed it,
or when they wanted to, or when they thanked him,
or when they were like, can't wait, And when you
put that in the jury's mind, that's what the jury

(30:56):
takes away. And it comes down to the jury has
to decide whether these witness credible. And even if they're
credible and they've gone through a lot, the problem is
is that they go.

Speaker 2 (31:05):
Back, Man, he really won this one. You would have
thought there would have been one instant Why where yeah one,
and there was not one. They're saying it was all
like with consent, right, because that's what the Man Act is, right,
So that's all with consent. Unbelievable, Yeah, unbelievable. And you
know what worries me, or maybe it doesn't worry me,

(31:26):
But what I think is now he thinks, see, I
didn't do anything wrong. I can keep doing what I'm doing.
And just like he paid off everyone all the time,
and just it fueled him to keep doing what he
wanted to do because he can get away with it now,
he can get away with it here. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (31:43):
Okay. Here's my question, though, after all of this that
he's been through, do you think he'll still have freak offs?

Speaker 2 (31:48):
Well, no, One's gonna give me very few people that
want to go to something like that, Like anyone that
has a face that's like in Hollywood. Do you think
they're going to want to go to that and be
tied to him? No way. It'd be like no one's
going to Epstein Island after he got busted. Yeah, No
one wants to be seen with him.

Speaker 1 (32:03):
So you're saying it's more of like the commit public
suicide around him.

Speaker 2 (32:08):
Yeah, okay.

Speaker 1 (32:09):
The other problem with this case was that no human
trafficking experts were called to the stand. One of the
most telling omissions in this trial was the absence of
a human trafficking expert witness, something virtually standard in most
trafficking prosecutions. In typical cases, these experts are brought in
to explain the dynamics of power and coercion, as well
as recruitment and control schemes typically used by traffickers. Here,

(32:33):
both the prosecution and defense opted not to call such witnesses,
likely because Comb's conduct defied those standard frameworks. Instead, prosecutors
called Don Hughes, who we talked about in previous episodes,
a psychological expert on interpersonal violence who previously testified on
behalf of Amber Heard and the Johnny Depp defamation case
that stem from allegations of domestic abuse. Diddy's alleged trafficking

(32:58):
enterprise did not resemble the cloud modern slavery narrative, and
a human trafficking expert might have inadvertently highlighted just how
unusual this case was for a trafficking prosecution. So basically
what they're saying is it makes sense that the prosecution
didn't call a trafficking expert because if you had a
trafficking expert come in and talk about what sex trafficking

(33:21):
looks like, it does not resemble his methodology, and therefore
it would have been detrimental to the prosecution if they
had done that instead of helping them in some way.
So it comes down to this article states that we
need stronger domestic violence laws, and you know what the
defense admits repeatedly, this is domestic violence.

Speaker 2 (33:41):
Well, not only that, but you need education because these
people need to report it right away. Not wait until
much later. I mean, how many people were at these
freak offs that probably could testify or show text messages
or do something that would have helped the prosecution. But
they chose not to for whatever reason.

Speaker 1 (33:58):
Well, they chose not to because I think he's a
scary man.

Speaker 2 (34:01):
Well yeah, yeah, that's the reason.

Speaker 1 (34:02):
I mean, you know, Cassie goes against him and starts
dating somebody else, and he tries that he breaks into
kid Cutty's house allegedly, and you know, burns up his
Porsche with a Molotov cocktail allegedly, you know, and then
Capricorn Clark talks about how he you know, used a
gun to brand a shit to get her in the

(34:23):
car and that was kidnapping.

Speaker 2 (34:25):
You don't think this was going to be way more
cocky now it's a big c I you.

Speaker 1 (34:31):
Don't think so. You think he's going to be cocky
here instead of humbled by all of this. I feel
like he, Yeah, he did be more careful now, I mean,
you think he's just going to keep doing this stuff
that he does.

Speaker 2 (34:40):
He should He did it wrong. He should have been
more like Charlie Sheen and has been out in the
open being like eh, I got these ladies. Yeah, paim,
they love it and this is all the open He's
walking with it one in each arm. He's like he
was public and it was like this is my lifestyle.
You love me, and he was being funny.

Speaker 1 (34:56):
Yeah, but the difference was like he was just sleeping
with prostitutes.

Speaker 2 (34:59):
I know he I know, so no one could come
forward and make it like it was not consensual because
he was so out there was so yep, that's Charlie Sheen.
Where's this? This is like no one knew this about
puff Day, at least the general public didn't, and all
of a sudden it comes out, so everyone wants to know more.

Speaker 1 (35:15):
Well, no one knew about it because no one talked
about it because of how violent he is. Yeah, I
mean he he beat these women up. He was physically abusive.

Speaker 2 (35:23):
Well, then maybe I should say that that's the difference
between him and Charlie Sheen. Charlie Sheen was more.

Speaker 1 (35:27):
Of a well he was just open and let flag fly.
But he also wasn't as far as I know, I
don't think he was violent.

Speaker 2 (35:35):
No.

Speaker 1 (35:35):
Basically, what this comes down to is we need stronger
domestic violence laws. Prosecutors may have used, that's trafficking because
the statute of limitations had already expired on more direct
charges such as sexual assault or battery.

Speaker 2 (35:48):
Yeah, and what's the statue limitation. I think it's like
a year or something, right, see, whatever it is. This
is what's crap is he can find the videos, he
can find the evidence, he can shut them up for
a year whatever the statue limitation is, and then it laps,
and then now it's over. I mean that I don't know.
I don't know about one year.

Speaker 1 (36:08):
But that's why whatever, that is why they pushed so
hard for the rico and conspiracy charges, and that's why.

Speaker 2 (36:14):
They tried to Well, then I would say that the
prosecution just didn't do their job. Maybe it was an overreach.
Maybe maybe they tried, they got ahead of themselves.

Speaker 1 (36:24):
It's not a reflection of the survivor's credibility. It's a
failure of the legal system to account for how trauma
actually works. Many victims of intimate partner violence, especially when
facing fear, manipulation or public scrutiny, wait years to come forward.
That's not weakness, it's human. But the law hasn't caught
up when time runs out on prosecuting real crimes. Prosecutors

(36:44):
sometimes look for workarounds, and the trafficking Statute offers one,
but it wasn't designed to handle domestic abuse or intimate
partner exploitation. I think that's where the sex trafficking failed.
Was it came down to It's not your typical sex
trafficking where someone is taken by force or by fraud
and then put into this world of sex trafficking. You're

(37:05):
talking about women that were his girlfriend right that they were.
They had times where, you know, the defense shared these
beautiful texts between them about how in love they were
and how they needed each other, and how happy they
were together, and how they were addicted to one another.
And it's hard to take that when you hear that
and you read those texts and then put it into

(37:26):
a sex trafficking framework. And that's where the problem was.
Let's get a little bit back to RICO. We did
talk about this earlier, but maybe let's just get into
it a little bit more. Racketeering is the participation in
an illegal scheme under the Racketeer, Influence and Corrupt Organization
Statute or RICO as a way for the US government
to prosecute organizations that contribute to criminal activity. The term

(37:50):
racketeering originates from the word racket, which originally referred to
dishonest or fraudulent business schemes, often involving extortion, coercion, or intimidation.
Notorious gangsters like al Capone built criminal empires using racketeering
tactics such as protection rackets, illegal gambling, and bribery. Crimes

(38:11):
must form a pattern, usually involving two or more acts.
We talked about that two or more predicate acts within
a ten year period to constitute racketeering under RICO. And
then also not just the two crimes, because I feel
like those two criminal crimes within a ten year period
were established. It's also establishing that it was a criminal
enterprise with a common goal and that everybody.

Speaker 2 (38:33):
Was involved, not just there was a business and two crimes.

Speaker 1 (38:36):
Right yeah. Did He's response after the verdict was read
Upon hearing that he was acquitted on three of the
five charges, did he got on his knees and placed
his head down in a chair in a prayer like position.
According to he started after they read the verdict because
he was not guilty on the higher charges.

Speaker 2 (38:54):
Off the RICO as a gesture of thinking.

Speaker 1 (38:59):
The ice thanking God, per the news organization thinking his God,
which is the thinking himself.

Speaker 2 (39:05):
He's like, thank you, Satan, I knew you would, you
would save me. Now let's continue the work. Okay.

Speaker 1 (39:12):
Comb's family stood in the courtroom slapping, clapping, not slapping. Sorry,
they were clapping. Nobody was slapping anybody. Combe's family stood
in the courtroom clapping and cheering for the music Mogul's fate.
The defense attorneys hugged each other while Comb's hugged lords.

Speaker 2 (39:27):
Okay, this is the problem. So his daughters, I know,
at one point, were at the trial, right.

Speaker 1 (39:32):
They were there in the very beginning.

Speaker 2 (39:34):
So get this, what's he going to do? Tell his dollars, No, no, no,
it wasn't criminal. All my freak offs and my behavior
and urinating in people's mouths or whatever he did.

Speaker 1 (39:45):
I think that was a sex workers whatever.

Speaker 2 (39:48):
Whatever. He's telling his girls.

Speaker 1 (39:50):
Babe, it's all okay.

Speaker 2 (39:52):
It was consensual. So I'm your daddy, it's okay. I mean,
so you're saying it's still bad, and they're they're cheering, Yay,
he didn't it wasn't criminal. They all want he's just
a freak. I mean, that's that's what they're saying.

Speaker 1 (40:06):
I don't I couldn't even understand why his kids were
in the courtroom, even though they were there in the beginning.

Speaker 2 (40:11):
It was probably a tactic.

Speaker 1 (40:12):
They were there was a tactic.

Speaker 2 (40:14):
To tug at the jury's hearts, like saying, yeah, like he's.

Speaker 1 (40:16):
A father, but but is that something I mean, is
that something that you want your.

Speaker 2 (40:27):
No? But I mean not that they couldn't see it
in the public, you know, you know, tabloids and everything.
But that's what I'm saying, is what's he gonna do?
He tells his daughters like and his sons, Yeah, I
did all those things, but it was you know, I'm
just a freak. I'm not a criminal.

Speaker 1 (40:43):
Well that I mean, that's basically that's basically the defense
is closing argument.

Speaker 2 (40:48):
He tells kids that he can't go home, be like, no,
not really, I didn't do any of that, all right.

Speaker 1 (40:51):
So what happens next? Now that Comb's verdicts has been delivered,
The US District Judge are An Aaron Supermanian will review
both the prosecution and defences submitted sentencing recommendations. Next, a
probation department will offer a sentencing recommendation after their review
of the case. The Department will consider multiple factors, including
Comb's behavior while being detained throughout his federal trial, and

(41:13):
the fact that this is his first conviction of this
type of charge. Okay, first of all, this is his first.

Speaker 2 (41:19):
Cons I mean, that's that's stupid, because like, hey, you're
on it was my first murder. Like, seriously, cut me
a break. It was my first.

Speaker 1 (41:25):
Okay, it's his first conviction. But we know that this
has been going back since like the nineties.

Speaker 2 (41:29):
And there's also this is an opportunity where the judge,
I don't know what they'll do, but they have an
opportunity to give them the max. Like, you know what,
you didn't get convicted all these crimes, but you're a
nut and you're a freak and you're a menace to society.
And they put him what's the max he could get?

Speaker 1 (41:42):
The max is twenty years, so it will be ten
years on each count. So the max that he could
get his.

Speaker 2 (41:46):
Twenty years, which I'm not saying he's gonna get that,
he's not likely.

Speaker 1 (41:49):
The judge will then review that recommendation until his sentencing hearing.
Comb's defense team has requested that he'd be released on
a million dollars bond. They also requested a bail package
in which she willingly surrenders his passport and restricts his
travel to Florida, California, New York, and New Jersey. However,
the judge denied Shawancombe's bail. He said that detention is

(42:10):
required based on Combe's conviction. He did not hear any
arguments from the lawyers. The defendant's violence was starkly depicted
in the twenty sixteen Intercontinental video, the judge said, referencing
the hotel security footage that showed him physically assaulting Cassie Venturing.
The judge called Comb's domestic violence a quote propensity for violence.

(42:31):
It is impossible for the defendant to demonstrate that he
possesses no danger to the community. So that's why his
bail was denied.

Speaker 2 (42:38):
Because he sounds so privileged. You're like, oh, I only
travel these four states where I have big homes. I mean,
I'll only go to my mansions, right, wasn't it didn't
he also say, like the attorney said, he wouldn't, he
wouldn't engage with prostitution. I saw that somewhere. I'm like, well,
I'd hope not. That's like criminal activity and not supposed

(43:00):
to be doing that.

Speaker 1 (43:01):
Yeah, they're like he won't sleep with prostitutes.

Speaker 2 (43:05):
Whatever, I should make it like, okay, fine, you want
out on bail. You're gonna live in this little apartment.
You're gonna live on minimum wage. Oh, you have no
contact with anyone.

Speaker 1 (43:13):
If you don't get prostitutes or free and money, right,
you gotta live.

Speaker 2 (43:16):
Like now, do you want to get out? Actually, that's
where he is now, he's going to sell. That's what
he's still.

Speaker 1 (43:21):
The US District Judge Aaron Supermanian Setcomb sentencing on two
counts of transportation to engage in prostitution for October third
at ten am. So he is still in prison. He
is going to remain there until October third. He then
will be sentenced. My guess is he'll get five years.

Speaker 2 (43:38):
Well, he's already served how much time.

Speaker 1 (43:40):
I think it's over a year now.

Speaker 2 (43:41):
I think it was ten months I saw this morning. Yeah,
so it's ten months.

Speaker 1 (43:44):
He'll get time.

Speaker 2 (43:45):
Ser so he'll get Yeah, that'll count, right, I don't know,
you know, we're gonna find out, is it which way
is the judge going to go? Or is it. I
bet the judge is probably gonna just give him like
a year or two.

Speaker 1 (43:56):
You think a year or two.

Speaker 2 (43:58):
I don't know. I mean, these charges aren't really that horrific.
They're not paper any But.

Speaker 1 (44:02):
Also, the judge did sit there for six weeks or
eight week however many weeks it was, and listened to
testimony after testimony of the drug.

Speaker 2 (44:09):
Yeah, but how long has this judge been on the bench.
If he had been on there for twenty years, he's
heard it all, and so it's not shocked.

Speaker 1 (44:16):
Well, I don't know if he's seen it all. Because
they showed videos of the freak offs.

Speaker 2 (44:21):
Oh they did, yeh.

Speaker 1 (44:22):
So, and let me tell you this. This is interesting
because I think this is interesting to talk about. The
prosecution showed small clips of the freak offs, small clips
that the jury's got to see the jury. The defense
showed a forty minute long clip of a freak off.
Now what do you think they were doing?

Speaker 2 (44:42):
Who's they the defense?

Speaker 1 (44:43):
What's the difference? Why is the prosecution showing short.

Speaker 2 (44:46):
Little cud They probably show what works for the prosecution,
and then the forty minute shows everyone going this is
the best party ever, we love coming here or whatever.
They're saying, so it shows consent.

Speaker 1 (44:57):
Right, So the defense showing a long freak off of
forty minute freak off, it's going to give you all
this background and context.

Speaker 2 (45:07):
In fact, it's even worse because then it's like, Oh,
the prosecution's being selective in what they're showing us. What
else are they not showing us? So it looked even
worse if the prosecutor showed a few clips and then
they say, no, let's play the whole thing.

Speaker 1 (45:19):
Yeah, are those going to be released?

Speaker 2 (45:23):
Would they can be on YouTube? Would you like?

Speaker 1 (45:27):
No?

Speaker 2 (45:27):
So I want I just want to know what's going on.

Speaker 1 (45:29):
Okay, first of all, here they obviously there they were.
The court was closed. But I saw drawings and it
showed the jurors, you know, watching you know, I don't tell.

Speaker 2 (45:40):
Me you're going to get anything out of the paintings. No,
but paint a freak off, you know, it's like, look,
it's oil painting. It's like a freak off.

Speaker 1 (45:48):
No, they didn't paint the freak offs, but they showed
images that they, you know, that the artists had painted
of like the jury looking you know, and looking at it.
And then I watched someone giving their their take because
they were in the courtroom when it was going on,
and in my mind, I'm thinking, how awkward, you know,
how awkward is that that you're sitting there and you're

(46:08):
on the jury and you're watching, Like, first of all,
it's hard for me to even visualize what these freak
offs are. I mean, all the baby oil and the
astro glide in the I bet Sean Combs was sitting there, gone,
oh yeah, I remember that day.

Speaker 2 (46:20):
That was a good one.

Speaker 1 (46:21):
And they're just watching it like you're just who took
the videos? I don't. I'm probably an assistant. It's probably
one of the freak Off employees that you were talking about.

Speaker 2 (46:31):
There's probably the Freakoff Department's archived.

Speaker 1 (46:34):
Yes, So I just I cannot. I was so uncomfortable
thinking about the jury just sitting there for forty minutes
watching the porn. I know, in a.

Speaker 2 (46:45):
Courtroom with a job, you were going to have to
take a light deitecture one day, like have you ever
seen porn?

Speaker 1 (46:50):
He's like, uh, does Dinny's trial account?

Speaker 2 (46:56):
What if they go home and now they're like, you know,
like it like having regular like sex with their wife. Oh,
they're not the same, Like now they're what if they
all come home and they're like ordering baby oil, Like
it's changed their perspective on things. I don't know, but
I just got an immune to it.

Speaker 1 (47:11):
It was awkward for me to think about the jury
watching a forty minute clip.

Speaker 2 (47:16):
Or the sonographer the snoga sitting there like typing it
all out, you know, no idea.

Speaker 1 (47:24):
Okay, let's just wrap up.

Speaker 2 (47:25):
The bailiffs were probably all signing up like I want Tuesday. No,
you get you know, I want Tuesday. That's why they're
going to show the videos. The bailiffs, Oh yeah, you're
all about this. I don't know. Well, they probably watch
a bunch of boring They probably go to a bunch
of boring criminal charges. All right, So all right, so
is he going to jail or what?

Speaker 1 (47:42):
I think he's going to serve time? Yes, but a
lot of time.

Speaker 2 (47:45):
Now years, let's predict. You think five years, five years,
I'm guessing, I sures hope I'm wrong. Two years. So
what do you think? When is it? October third? Is
the sentencing hearing? Yeah?

Speaker 1 (47:57):
All right, I know just space of on my DMS
that everyone is very upset by this verdict, and I
think it's important to just distinguish between morality and legality,
and I think we'll just end it with that. Clearly,
Diddy is not a moral man. No, he's not an
upstanding citizen. He is violent, He is atrocious. He should

(48:22):
not be walking amongst us. I think he should be
in prison. That's just my personal thought. I don't think.
I think he uses his wealth and power to intimidate,
to force. He's violent. I you know that nineteen ninety
nine shooting. I'm sure he was involved and he got
out of the yeah, oh yeah. I think he's been,

(48:43):
you know, involved in criminal activity.

Speaker 2 (48:46):
And what he wants to do in that case. We
hope he serves some time. We hope the civil suits
kind of drain him, and hopefully no one really wants
associate themselves with him anymore. I mean, it's not it's
like he said, it's legally Burnette, it's not morally Burnette.

Speaker 1 (48:59):
It's not moral Brunette. So that is the difference. That
is why the verdict is the way it is the
letter of the law. At the end of the day,
I don't think the elements were met for the rico
charges and for the sex trafficking. The article that we
talked about was a really good analysis of why what
he did didn't fit under sex trafficking and then why

(49:21):
the domestic abuse statutes don't work because of the Statute
of limitations, and so he fell into the middle of
that and he just slipped through the cracks.

Speaker 2 (49:29):
Are you going to get canceled like all his music?
Like Bill Cosby? You can't, you can't watch the Cosby Show,
you can't do anything. I mean, he should. I know,
they should have they started that already, do you know.

Speaker 1 (49:38):
I don't know. I didn't ask the canceling department, apartment.
I'll work on that. But anyway, again, just to reiterate
the difference between moral and legal, this was more the
people are disgusted because this is more of a moral issue.
And for what it's worth, he's still in jail right
now and he is, so we will follow it and
if any if there's anything else that comes out, we'll

(50:00):
definitely talk about it. But we will follow it until
October third and see what the judge sentence him.

Speaker 2 (50:04):
So there you go.

Speaker 1 (50:14):
All right, let's get a little bit into Brian Coberger
because a lot of you have been reaching out to
me about that. In the Idaho murders, if you have
not listened, you can go back and find. I mean
I think you can go back and find. We did
an episode on the Idaho murders, which I actually enjoyed
doing that episode because it's so it was so old.

Speaker 2 (50:31):
Well, it a evidence, It was a lot of evidence
to discuss.

Speaker 1 (50:33):
It was very I feel like we did a very
detailed analysis. We talked about it, We talked about timeline
and everything. So Brian Coberger was supposed to go on
to trial in August, but apparently I think this was
yesterday he pled guilty. So Brian Coberger, the thirty year
old criminal justice PhD student charged with the murders of
four University of Idaho students back in twenty twenty two,

(50:55):
admitted to the crimes in court on Wednesday, July second,
before formally entering a guilty plea. Remember, he was arrested
back in December of twenty twenty two in Pennsylvania after
forensic evidence linked him to the murders, including DNA found
on a knife sheath at the crime scene and cell
phone data placing him near the victim's home multiple times.

(51:16):
Remember we talked about the knife sheaf they that was
left behind. It had DNA on it. They used the
DNA to they ran it through those to.

Speaker 2 (51:24):
A system like the familial like DNA system.

Speaker 1 (51:27):
Yeah, and I think they got a hit on his
dad and then they and then I remember they went
to his residence and they went through the trash right
to get his DNA and then that's how they linked
him to the crimes. Also, the cell phone data showed
that he had driven by their home multiple times, phone
and things like that. As part of his plea deal,

(51:49):
Coburger pleaded guilty to four counts of first degree murder
and the stabbings of Ethan, Xanna Madison, and Kayley, who
were killed in their home. This was a college house
in Moscow, Idaho, during the early morning hours of November thirteenth,
twenty twenty two. He was also charged with one count
of burglary. Coburger faces up to four consecutive life sentences
without the possibility a parole, one for each murder charge

(52:12):
and a ten year sentence for the burglary charge. With
this deal, Coburger gives up all rights to appeal, making
the sentences final.

Speaker 2 (52:20):
Uh, he's never coming out then, right, Oh, no, he never.
If he pled guilty, that means he knew. I mean,
he is his defense duty. He's probably told him, there's
so much evidence against you. Yeah, you're screwed, and the
only thing you can do is try to not get
the death penalty.

Speaker 1 (52:35):
If Coburger was convicted a trial, prosecutors were seeking the
death penalty, likely by firing squad, making the stakes extremely high.
Coburger's defense pushed for delays, tried to block most of
the prosecution's evidence against him, and even suggested a list
of alternative perpetrators who they claim could have committed the killings,
but the judge denied most of their motions, allowing a

(52:56):
tidal wave of evidence to be presented against Coburger at
his trial, which was scheduled for next month. I think
a lot of these motions that they were filing try
to get evidence withheld. None of it stood stood, and
I think that's when they were like, look like the
mountain of evidence against.

Speaker 2 (53:15):
You is, Yeah, you're no Diddy Combs, but it's.

Speaker 1 (53:19):
A lot, so you might want to take a complete
deal good. There was overwhelming evidence against Coburger. Prosecutors had
amassed DNA evidence, including the knife sheet with his DNA
cell phone geolocation data linking him to the crime scene,
Amazon purchase history that showed he bought the knife and
sharpener a few months before the murders, and video footage
of a car that looked just like his circling the

(53:40):
home of the victims. I don't remember which college student.
But she also saw him. Remember he had the black
mask on and she saw him in the house and
she said he had the bushy eyebrows. Then he took
that selfie the next morning, Yeah, which the prosecution wanted
to enter that showed that he had bushy eyebrows, and
I know the defense tried to suppress that. They got
it in. Also, remember he said he was like, what

(54:03):
did you say? He liked to look at stars or something,
and that's why he was driving around at three am
around their house like he was a stargazer.

Speaker 2 (54:09):
Or something like that.

Speaker 1 (54:12):
The plea was accepted on July second, twenty twenty five
by Judge Steven Hipler. He will formally sentence Coburger on
July twenty third and Boise, Idaho. The sentencing is expected
to take one day and victim impact statements will be
read at that time. I don't know what do you
think about someone like that? Being able to take a
plea deal. I mean, I understand that it alleviates the
cost on the state on the court system. Yeah, but

(54:36):
it is taxpayers money.

Speaker 2 (54:38):
Isn't it up to the victims' families too? Or is
it just a courtesy thing where they usually talk to
the victims families to see if they're okay with it?
Because I've seen that happen before. I don't know if
it's a legal thing or if it's just a courtesy
thing to say, are you okay with allowing for a
plea deal?

Speaker 1 (54:54):
You know, I don't know if there were discussions with
the family before the plea deal.

Speaker 2 (54:57):
But I know that that does happen on occasion, right, Yeah,
because then sometimes the family would be like, we don't
want to testify, we don't want to be a part
of it. We just want to put it to rest
and go home. Yeah. I don't know if that that
took place.

Speaker 1 (55:09):
In this way, I don't know, But you know, on
one hand, it's like I want I wanted this guy
to go to trial because I had so many questions.
Remember when we did the episode, I was like, I
can't wait for trial because I feel like a lot
of things will be.

Speaker 2 (55:20):
Answered, well, I think, aren't all those things answering now
that he pled guilty.

Speaker 1 (55:25):
No, No, I had questions that had to do with
when she saw him in the house, Why did it
take so long before she called the police. Then they
were in the room together with those those Yeah, I
mean maybe some of the obviously they were tight lit
because they were going to trial, So I was I
was looking forward to the trial.

Speaker 2 (55:43):
There'll be something the questions.

Speaker 1 (55:45):
That I had about this case were hopefully answered. So
now that there's a plea deal, I don't know. Legal
experts weigh in on this case. Gretchen Ingle, the executive
director of the Center for Death Penalty Litigation, said that
in her experience, it's pretty common for a plea deal
to come together at the very last minute. However, she
said she is a bit mystified that prosecutors in this

(56:05):
case agreed to a deal just some month before trial.
One reason could be that there's a weakness in the case.
CBS News legal contributor Caroline policy Policy said the state
of Idaho will benefit from the plea deal, especially since
Coberg will not be able to appeal, and that may
also offer relief to the families they're getting a conviction
right away. They're getting the absolute guarantee of life behind

(56:27):
bars without the possibility of parole. It costs way more
money to have a capital case to impose the death
penalty than it does to have somebody serve life behind bars.

Speaker 2 (56:36):
Wait, he agreed, so he's plea He pled guilty and
he we already know that the outcome will be life
behind bars.

Speaker 1 (56:46):
Well that's what his plea deal was. They took the
death penalty.

Speaker 2 (56:49):
Well, okay, but sometimes sometimes there's plea deals and you
don't know what the sentencing is, no, and you just
accept it. You you agree to accept whatever it is
that the judge throws at you. In this case, part
of the plea deal was the sentencing.

Speaker 1 (57:02):
Yeah, I think it was take the death penalty off
of the table. I'll plead guilty and then I'll just
get a life sentence.

Speaker 2 (57:09):
Without the possibility because you know that happens. Sometimes they'll
plead guilty but you don't know what you're sensing is.
But you don't know what the sensing is. And that's
the risk you take, because I've seen that with usually
like dui cases and stuff. Right, and then they'll be
like Okay, I'll plead guilty. Then they get like twenty.

Speaker 1 (57:23):
Years and like what, I guess the benefits of him
taking a plea deal is it costs way more money
to have a capital case to impose the death penalty
than it doesn't have somebody serve life behind bars.

Speaker 2 (57:32):
So, contrary to what people think, it's more expensive to
push someone for capital punishment than it is to put
him in jail for the rest of their life.

Speaker 1 (57:42):
Part of the rationale that the State of Idaho and
prosecutors said was we're saving these families the anguish of
going through the appeals process. This would not be a
quick process. I mean, a capital case is always has
an automatic appeal.

Speaker 2 (57:55):
Oh after appeal, yeah, so autumn. But in this case,
he pleads guilty, he goes, he gets sentenced, as you said,
he goes to jail the next day and it's over. Yeah,
and now hopefully the families, you know, find some peace
or just be able to move on, which you know
is easier said than done.

Speaker 1 (58:14):
The plea deal also allows the state to have judicial
resources and avoids the uncertainty of a trial and sentencing.
This is a slam dunk case by all accounts. The
DNA evidence on the knife sheath in particular. There's so
much evidence here, she said. But trials there's always a
wild card, right, There's always a chance that there wouldn't
be a conviction. Then there's the death penalty isn't necessarily
a sure thing either. However, the lack of a trial

(58:35):
means that some questions may remain unanswered. We may never
know the motive or the exact way that this crime
took place, which I think is frustrating for the families
as well. That's what that's the fust I understand. The
benefit is these families don't have to sit there and
listen and relive what happened that night.

Speaker 2 (58:52):
People know how long.

Speaker 1 (58:53):
Yeah, they don't have to go through the appeals process.
They don't have to look at him sitting in court
every day knowing.

Speaker 2 (58:59):
That they took you know, they can just know he's
in jail now forever.

Speaker 1 (59:03):
However, you're probably not going to get like the questions
I had and the questions that they probably have, those
are never going to get answered, and you just have
to be maybe.

Speaker 2 (59:10):
One day he'll do a interview or something. Interview.

Speaker 1 (59:14):
Yeah, one of the families is against the plea deal.
That's the gone call. I never say this right, and
people tell me gon Solve, Gone Solve family Aubrey gunn Solve,
the family of Kailey gun Solve, said Brian Coberger. Facing
a life in prison means he would still get to speak,
form relationships and engage with the world. Meanwhile, our loved ones.

Speaker 2 (59:36):
Oh yeah, you don't think there's gonna Females constantly messaging
this guy, sending him letters and and you know what,
that gets that part of it. He still gets a life,
albeit in a cell. He still gets a life.

Speaker 1 (59:49):
Yeah, and I mean some A lot of times people
create a life that's not so bad. You know, you
get three meals a day, you can have friends, You
get an education. Yeah, you can still talk to family.

Speaker 2 (01:00:00):
Yeah, you can do a lot more than as if
you were dead.

Speaker 1 (01:00:02):
You get access to internet. Meanwhile, our loved ones have
been silenced forever. That really stings more deeply when it
feels like the system is protecting his future more than
honoring the victims past. From the from the Gonsalvice family
social media post, we are beyond furious at the State

(01:00:22):
of Idaho. They have failed us. Please give us some time.
This was very unexpected.

Speaker 2 (01:00:28):
I would say that it's understandable if a family is
happy with the plea deal, and it's understandable if a
family is not happy with the pat.

Speaker 1 (01:00:36):
Right, And in contrast to that, the Mogan family is
in support of it. Ben Mogan, father of Madison Mogen,
in an interview with CBS, said, if you get that
quick death sentence, you don't have to spend decades thinking
about how terrible you made the world. We can actually
put this behind us and not have these future dates
and future things that we don't want to have to
be at. We get to just think about the rest
of our lives and have to try and figure out

(01:00:58):
how to do it without Maddie and the rest.

Speaker 2 (01:00:59):
Of the kids. Yeah, and it won't be on the
news over and over again if you're changing channels and
you see them on there because they're giving updates.

Speaker 1 (01:01:06):
It's just he's in jail, right exactly. So we were
actually going to cover or do our best to do
some episodes on the Brian Coburger trial because it was
coming up in August, but now that he took please deal,
we'll move on to other cases. So as always, if
you guys have interesting cases out there that you would
like us to discuss. Please DM me. We're always happy
to hear your thoughts, your critiques, your questions, your comments.

(01:01:31):
So thank you for doing that, and thank you for listening.

Speaker 2 (01:01:34):
Thank you