DIDDY OR DIDN'T HE?

It benefits no one to incarcerate individuals who did not commit the crimes they are accused of. Conviction and sentencing of someone charged and found guilty of a crime is to discipline and punish the wrongdoer, protect society and deter others from committing like offenses.

Rest assured, protections of the right to due process for those accused is extremely robust more often than not, particularly with such a deep pocketed individual of high profile. There will be a long line of talent eager to take on this klieg light challenge guaranteed to turbo boost professional profiles of all sizes.

Rarely will you find more marginalized due process and latitude of ability to advocate on the behalf of anyone more so than those alleging sexual victimization, particularly when the accused has access to power, wealth and publicity. The alleged victims in this case are not starting from go with the scales of justice anywhere near balanced, let alone in their favor, and the disadvantage that will have to be overcome in order for a conviction to take place will only grow during the legal process. The law is rife with protections regarding the past and character of the accused. The accusers have to withstand an onslaught of arrows from any and all directions if they choose to seek justice for their claims, with possibly a postage stamp sized shield of protections if they're fortunate.

For those who think accusers in a case like this deserve to face any and all onslaughts that come their way if they want to make such accusations, stop and consider that it's fairly routine even in the cases of juveniles coming forward and reporting a step parent or a parent's significant other of sexual abuse for the victim's every alleged misdeed (talking back to parents, not doing homework, lying about eating cookies from the cookie jar) is fodder for a jury's consideration of character and credibility of the accuser. While prior allegations against the accused will likely be kept out of the jury's hearing.

If all else fails he will have the wherewithal on multiple fronts to keep appellate challenges churning for many, many years. This is not at all the case of a beleaguered individual woefully outmanned and outgunned in a battle for his liberty, far from it.
This. and if he thinks there is any chance he'll go to prison, he'll just take off in his private jet to a private island. He has more than enough money to keep himself out of prison in every way possible.
 
It benefits no one to incarcerate individuals who did not commit the crimes they are accused of. Conviction and sentencing of someone charged and found guilty of a crime is to discipline and punish the wrongdoer, protect society and deter others from committing like offenses.

Rest assured, protections of the right to due process for those accused is extremely robust more often than not, particularly with such a deep pocketed individual of high profile. There will be a long line of talent eager to take on this klieg light challenge guaranteed to turbo boost professional profiles of all sizes.

Rarely will you find more marginalized due process and latitude of ability to advocate on the behalf of anyone more so than those alleging sexual victimization, particularly when the accused has access to power, wealth and publicity. The alleged victims in this case are not starting from go with the scales of justice anywhere near balanced, let alone in their favor, and the disadvantage that will have to be overcome in order for a conviction to take place will only grow during the legal process. The law is rife with protections regarding the past and character of the accused. The accusers have to withstand an onslaught of arrows from any and all directions if they choose to seek justice for their claims, with possibly a postage stamp sized shield of protections if they're fortunate.

For those who think accusers in a case like this deserve to face any and all onslaughts that come their way if they want to make such accusations, stop and consider that it's fairly routine even in the cases of juveniles coming forward and reporting a step parent or a parent's significant other of sexual abuse for the victim's every alleged misdeed (talking back to parents, not doing homework, lying about eating cookies from the cookie jar) is fodder for a jury's consideration of character and credibility of the accuser. While prior allegations against the accused will likely be kept out of the jury's hearing.

If all else fails he will have the wherewithal on multiple fronts to keep appellate challenges churning for many, many years. This is not at all the case of a beleaguered individual woefully outmanned and outgunned in a battle for his liberty, far from it.
And yet people are wrongfully convicted quite frequently. Prosecutors care more about conviction than actual justice. I am not in any way saying Diddy isn't guilty. This is more of a general statement, rather than towards this specific instance. In big public cases like this, I think prosecutors are more careful to make sure they have their ducks in a row. But on a smaller scale, the game is most often to arrest someone, charge them with the highest possible charge they "might" be able to get them on, get a bond so high that they can't get out, and hold them long enough they eventually plea to a lower charge, just to get it over with. Then the prosecutor can say they got a conviction, without every having to go to trial and prove their case. And before you say "why would anyone ever plead guilty to something they didn't do??" consider this. Most people charged with crimes (80% of defendants) have to rely on a public defender. In my state, each PD is averaging over 240 cases a year. Most PD's are taking 3x more cases than they should be able to handle. Not to mention, they have limited funding for expert testimony. Do you know how much a DNA expert costs?? So you have a defendant charged with murder for example. His bond is set at 100K cash only. Most people don't have that, and honestly, that is a very low bond for murder. It's usually closer to 500K. So they sit in jail for a couple of years, because they can't afford to bond out. They have lost their jobs, probably their homes. Their families are dealing with this hardship and the not knowing. The prosecution only turns over the portions of the discovery that are favorable to them until the last possible cut off before trial, because that is the game. They don't want you to have time to dispute it. So your PD, who doesn't know you from Adam, has no reason to actually believe that you are innocent, is like "Man, they are saying your phone pinged near the scene at this time, your car was 2 blocks away, and someone matching your description was seen leaving the area. An eye witness picked you out of a line up." A jail house snitch trying to cut a deal for himself tells them you admitted to it while you were his cellmate. They make it sound like circumstantial evidence puts you there. Then your atty says "They are offering you Manslaughter, 10 years. I think that's a pretty good deal vs 25-life for murder" You'd get the 2 years you've been in jail already credited to your sentence. And you'd probably only have to serve 7 of the 10 to be eligible for parole. Which means in 5 years, you could be out. Or, you can continue to fight it, sit in jail another year or 2, and end up convicted of 1 or 2D murder, and serve 15-20 years or more. If by chance you are found guilty, even if later the prosecutor comes back and says "my bad, we got the wrong guy" you may still never see the light of day, because the AG's office will fight tooth and nail to uphold the conviction even when the charging prosecutor is trying to get it over turned. There have been 3 cases just like this here in my state in the last 2 months. I worked in DOC for 18 years, so for the longest time I was like "They might not be guilty of this, but I'm sure they are guilty of something" But then I saw people who spent 10-15 years of their life fighting and only finally got their conviction overturned because a private attorney took his case pro bono. I watched someone I know go thru something like this (not a murder or sex offense tho), and say firsthand how the game was played, and how much it costs to pay a private atty. There is a reason attorneys preach never to speak to the police without an attorney even if you are innocent. Also, there are no protections or ways to hold a prosecutor accountable for doing unethical things. Because even if you can prove they did something wrong, they have immunity.

So yes, Diddy has plenty of money to defend himself and hire good attorneys to fight for him and his civil rights. But the average person does not.
 

In big public cases like this, I think prosecutors are more careful to make sure they have their ducks in a row.
this.

but you're also right about innocent people getting convicted every day, even those who plead guilty to a lesser crime. I know this happens in Canada too, and here there is a huge difference between doing 2 years plus a day, which must be served in a penitentiary ie. the big house, and anything less than that...which could even be house arrest. This happens everywhere though, and like you said in general it depends on the quality of their defense...and how much money their legal counsel has. I've heard that in France it works better because judges are allowed to ask questions, but I can't say for sure.
 
I know it seems far fetched but drug traffickers do it every day. There's actually no reason to trust people with that much money :rolleyes1
I’m sure they already have his passport. But have no idea how private islands come into play with this sort of thing.
 
If he does get bail, he will have to wear a gps monitor. If he were to cut it off, they would know immediately, and I doubt he would make it on a plane or boat before they got him. If he did manage to get away, he'd have to make it to a county that wouldn't allow extradition. Anyone who flew the plane or captained the boat would be charged with aiding and abetting. He's a celerity, I don't think he'd be able to hide anywhere for long. I'm also sure his private plane would be tracked the moment his monitor showed any kind of tampering. Idk that any of his "friends" would be willing to pilot a plane to whisk him away, knowing full well he'd get caught. I doubt he will get bail tho, because he's already been accused of witness tampering
 
No bail for Diddy. TMZ had such a long summary of events as the charges are 14 pages, I can't even wrap my head around all the details. (I might also not have all the legal wording right as I'm not a lawyer or even anything close.)

TMZ did note that the Feds had originally told Diddy that he'd be arrested TODAY, then they rushed and nabbed him last night, without warning. TMZ speculates that the Feds may have thought Diddy was going to be a flight risk after all, so they nabbed him early.

Diddy already knew that an arrest was forthcoming. His lawyer says that's why he stayed in a hotel in NYC for several weeks. Some weeks ago, Diddy FULLY paid for his mansion in FL for $48 million, (so he now owns it outright,) so he could offer a bond of $50 million dollars for bail. He was going to use his mom's house as the rest of the bond.

Bail has been denied.

TMZ says the Feds have lots and lots of videotapes from when they raided his home, of his "Freak Off" parties, (the federal sex trafficking charges where he paid and moved male sex workers across state lines,) and forced his young, vulnerable female victims to have sex with them, while they were forcibly drugged up. Then Diddy later used those video tapes to intimidate, blackmail, humiliate and coerce his victims.

Since these Freak Offs lasted a few days at a time each, TMZ speculates there may be a several famous celebrities who've attended these parties and may have been witnesses to the various acts, even if they didn't participate. And these people are now in the videos and may be quite nervous now as to whether them being at these Freak Offs will be exposed. (This reminds me of when Heidi Fleiss, a madam for high end call girls, had a book of her clients. After she was busted, many, many famous men were nervous they'd be publicly named as clients.)

While she wasn't specifically named, various details of what Cassie Ventura previously detailed in a lawsuit (earlier in this thread,) and was shown in the videotape of Diddy beating her in a hotel hallway and then dragging her back to the room, (the kidnap charges,) it is speculated she may be (one of) the star witnesses against Diddy.


The TMZ page written out in more layman's terms:
https://www.tmz.com/2024/09/17/diddy-arrest-sex-trafficking-indictment-charged/
 
Last edited:
No “Freak off” party for Diddy tonight.
Or maybe a different one than he imagined. lol.

More than likely, the other inmates will treat Diddy as a celebrity in prison. The same as what happened with Bill Cosby.
 
You seem certain he did this. Good chance he did. But maybe he didn’t. Would be awful if he didn’t and is found guilty.

I merely said that I was glad to see he'd been arrested.
I also said I hoped the victims would tell the truth.


So many people that claim to be victims have spoken out in the past year
that it's hard to believe he isn't guilty of some of it.

I don't want anyone who's innocent to be in jail, I get very upset when I read
articles about people that are innocent & are finally freed.
I also don't want anyone who's accused of sexual trafficking - not "just" sex crimes -
given special treatment because of their status.

My understanding is when someone is indicted it means that there is enough
evidence to bring them to trial, with the expectation that they ARE guilty.
 
My understanding is when someone is indicted it means that there is enough
evidence to bring them to trial, with the expectation that they ARE guilty.
This isn't really true. A grand jury indictment only means that the prosecution presented enough evidence to get the grand jury to think there is a possibility they did the thing they are accused of. The standard is basically probable cause:
Probable Cause:

A finding of probable cause is proper only when the evidence presented to the grand jury, without any explanation being offered by the person being investigated, persuades 12 or more grand jurors that a federal crime has probably been committed by that person.

But seeing as how no evidence is allowed to be presented by the defense, and the defense doesn't have a right to participate, it really isn't hard to convince 12 people that someone did the thing, when only one side of the story is presented. Hence the quote "A prosecutor could convince a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich"
 












Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE







New Posts







DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top