DIDDY OR DIDN'T HE?

[cabanafrau]

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.

For the record I did not comment on Diddy's guilt either. I responded to comments about the jeopardy he was in according to how the system works.

I've worked in the court system myself since 2006, so I have more than a passing familiarity with the workings of a prosecutor's office, public defenders, etc. I've seen enough to question many of the assertions you've made, because I know them either not to be correct or to simply be a misleading recitation of statistics.

My experience has definitely not revealed cases being prosecuted routinely as some kind of game, far from it.

Yes, most people do wind up relying on a public defender. That's not the disadvantage you've characterized it as. Prosecutor or public defender, both are funded from the same ultimate root source -- taxpayers, so that's a level playing field. Public defenders have a lighter case load than prosecutors do, something not even considered in your statistic. An overlooked component of the notion that PDs are often seriously outgunned by prosecutors is that the burden of prosecution lays only on one side. The prosecutor has to carry the case across the finish line and prove every element of the crime(s) asserted. Defense carries none of that responsibility.

Just as people who cannot afford legal counsel are provided court-appointed counsel as part of due process they are also afforded the ability to retain experts to investigate and performing necessary testing and testify as to their professional opinions -- also at public expense. There is no difference in the caliber or professional qualifications of experts available to defendants than those available to the prosecution. Matter of fact, many times prosecution is stuck with competent, yet seriously overworked and distinctly bureaucratic experts from government agencies, such as state crime labs, etc. While the defense has the ability to reach out to one of many guns for hire who work on the private side of the fence because of bigger paychecks, which they frequently earn based on reputations borne out of carefully cultivated presentations and personae designed to dazzle jurors, get results at all costs, facts/schmacts, because the wins build reputations and beget bigger paydays. I've literally seen more than one of these con artists appear on documentaries on Netflix and elsewhere, selling their snake oil. One of them participated in a series that went viral a few years back, stirring up all kinds of public outcry about how a certain defendant was convicted based on highly questionable evidence. I watched the same expert in person in a case here. He testified about the same type of evidence as he did in the TV series. It was factual. It also was not germane to the crime and the evidence the prosecution presented, did not discredit the facts the prosecution presented, and was only brought to bog the jurors down with very technical details in the hope create doubt where there was none. It was sickening. The case here was in the murder of a child. This "expert" goes around the country collecting what qualifies as "extraordinary fees" under the legal classification the judge had to approve for the defense to get the funds approved to retain him. That idea was nowhere to be found in the TV show. I wonder if the audience would have been insisting the convicted defendant be released or get a new trial if they were enlightened about the full picture of the expert's data and opinions? I bet that show wouldn't have been all everybody was talking about for weeks and generated nearly the ratings if that was made known so publicly.

There are protections in place such as Brady and other case law, along with court rules regarding discovery and exculpatory evidence. It's ludicrous to suggest that it's the routine practice of prosecutors to deliberately obfuscate discovery simply for cases to go forward and convict just because. Defense attorneys routinely make motions to quash over much less and are granted relief by the judge.

Who benefits by railroading defendants and making sure they're incarcerated for offenses they didn't commit? Prosecutors live in society with everyone else. Sooner or later even the dimmest bulb is likely to have an aha moment and realize they and those they love are safer if those who actually committed armed robbery, murder, carjacking, home invasion, rape, etc. are the ones incarcerated for those crimes instead of just bullying through any random warm body they can convict or coerce into pleading. Even the nitwits are going to realize odds are higher their pockets will be more likely to be picked, their car is more likely to be stolen and anything they possess of value is at greater risk of being taken from them if they simply prosecute a string of random individuals for these crimes instead of proceeding where evidence strongly indicates the person responsible according to legal standards.

The broad brushstroke you characterize the entire process with simply doesn't hold up to a factual or logical analysis in my experience. The amount of complicit parties in perpetuating such a systemic scheme of deliberately malicious prosecution would have to stretch into numbers that defy all credibility and any stretch of imagination. Police, prosecutors, judges, investigators and experts -- and all the support staff of all of those for starters would all have to be complicit for the scheme you've outlined to hold up. Nobody's lips are going to be loose and spill the beans?

No, it is not a good idea to speak to the police without an attorney if you are a potential subject of investigation. I'd never do it and I would never recommend anyone else do so. That doesn't mean every law enforcement officer is corrupt. It means due process is invaluable and I'd never give up a single right.

Prosecutors do not have carte blanche immunity with no restraints. Like most in public office they have incredibly broad protections, but they are not absolute and beyond all reach.

The system is far from perfect. There are bad actors involved at various times. Mistakes are made. Injustices are done. Overall it does attempt to uphold the ideals it's supposed to stand for.

 

[DL1WDW2]

Rich people do stupid things all the time .
Almost as bads as the Boars Head listeria outbreak being investigated.
In business since 1905 and now have 9 deaths and hospitalizations with criminal and liability laws suits growing daily . And factoryshutdown affecting many families .
Apparently salmonella is the biggest food borne illness in the United States currently . How is the consumer supposed to keep track of recalls, etc.

I find it frustrating to discuss “ celebrity “ time in jail with release of financial gains witnessed afterwards. Bad is $$$,$$$.$$ and more

 

[dez1978]

For the record I did not comment on Diddy's guilt either. I responded to comments about the jeopardy he was in according to how the system works.

I've worked in the court system myself since 2006, so I have more than a passing familiarity with the workings of a prosecutor's of
fice, public defenders, etc. I've seen enough to question many of the assertions you've made, because I know them either not to be correct or to simply be a misleading recitation of statistics.



My experience has definitely not revealed cases being prosecuted routinely as some kind of game, far from it.



Yes, most people do wind up relying on a public defender. That's not the disadvantage you've characterized it as.
Prosecutor or public defender, both are funded from the same ultimate root source -- taxpayers, so that's a level playing field. Public defenders have a lighter case load than prosecutors do, something not even considered in your statistic. An overlooked component of the notion that PDs are often seriously outgunned by prosecutors is that the burden of prosecution lays only on one side. The prosecutor has to carry the case across the finish line and prove every element of the crime(s) asserted. Defense carries none of that responsibility.

Just as people who cannot afford legal counsel are provided court-appointed counsel as part of due process they are also afforded the ability to retain experts to investigate and performing necessary testing and testify as to their professional opinions -- also at public expense. There is no difference in the caliber or professional qualifications of experts available to defendants than those available to the prosecution. Matter of fact, many times prosecution is stuck with competent, yet seriously overworked and distinctly bureaucratic experts from government agencies, such as state crime labs, etc. While the defense has the ability to reach out to one of many guns for hire who work on the private side of the fence because of bigger paychecks, which they frequently earn based on reputations borne out of carefully cultivated presentations and personae designed to dazzle jurors, get results at all costs, facts/schmacts, because the wins build reputations and beget bigger paydays. I've literally seen more than one of these con artists appear on documentaries on Netflix and elsewhere, selling their snake oil. One of them participated in a series that went viral a few years back, stirring up all kinds of public outcry about how a certain defendant was convicted based on highly questionable evidence. I watched the same expert in person in a case here. He testified about the same type of evidence as he did in the TV series. It was factual. It also was not germane to the crime and the evidence the prosecution presented, did not discredit the facts the prosecution presented, and was only brought to bog the jurors down with very technical details in the hope create doubt where there was none. It was sickening. The case here was in the murder of a child. This "expert" goes around the country collecting what qualifies as "extraordinary fees" under the legal classification the judge had to approve for the defense to get the funds approved to retain him. That idea was nowhere to be found in the TV show. I wonder if the audience would have been insisting the convicted defendant be released or get a new trial if they were enlightened about the full picture of the expert's data and opinions? I bet that show wouldn't have been all everybody was talking about for weeks and generated nearly the ratings if that was made known so publicly.

There are protections in place such as Brady and other case law, along with court rules regarding discovery and exculpatory evidence. It's ludicrous to suggest that it's the routine practice of prosecutors to deliberately obfuscate discovery simply for cases to go forward and convict just because. Defense attorneys routinely make motions to quash over much less and are granted relief by the judge.

Who benefits by railroading defendants and making sure they're incarcerated for offenses they didn't commit? Prosecutors live in society with everyone else. Sooner or later even the dimmest bulb is likely to have an aha moment and realize they and those they love are safer if those who actually committed armed robbery, murder, carjacking, home invasion, rape, etc. are the ones incarcerated for those crimes instead of just bullying through any random warm body they can convict or coerce into pleading. Even the nitwits are going to realize odds are higher their pockets will be more likely to be picked, their car is more likely to be stolen and anything they possess of value is at greater risk of being taken from them if they simply prosecute a string of random individuals for these crimes instead of proceeding where evidence strongly indicates the person responsible according to legal standards.

The broad brushstroke you characterize the entire process with simply doesn't hold up to a factual or logical analysis in my experience. The amount of complicit parties in perpetuating such a systemic scheme of deliberately malicious prosecution would have to stretch into numbers that defy all credibility and any stretch of imagination. Police, prosecutors, judges, investigators and experts -- and all the support staff of all of those for starters would all have to be complicit for the scheme you've outlined to hold up. Nobody's lips are going to be loose and spill the beans?

No, it is not a good idea to speak to the police without an attorney if you are a potential subject of investigation. I'd never do it and I would never recommend anyone else do so. That doesn't mean every law enforcement officer is corrupt. It means due process is invaluable and I'd never give up a single right.

Prosecutors do not have carte blanche immunity with no restraints. Like most in public office they have incredibly broad protections, but they are not absolute and beyond all reach.

The system is far from perfect. There are bad actors involved at various times. Mistakes are made. Injustices are done. Overall it does attempt to uphold the ideals it's supposed to stand for.

That is your experience. That does not mean that is the case across the board. Yes there are protections such as Brady. But there are also no repercussions for violating it. I certainly will not say that ALL prosecutors over charge etc. But there are certainly plenty of them that do. And there are plenty of prosecutors who have documented misconduct, that have cost counties millions, and they end up judges. Take a gander at the Ryan Ferguson case for just one example. His case was overturned specifically because the prosecutors withheld Brady evidence. Cost the county 10 million in a civil suit, and the prosecutor is now a judge in that county. What repercussion did he face? The broad immunity afforded to prosecutors makes it exceedingly difficult for a defendant to go after a prosecutor for things. Sure a conviction might be overturned. But only after years and years of fighting. And evidence does support the statement that prosecutors are very, very rarely held personally liable for misconduct. According to the Innocence Project, only 1 has ever been jailed for misconduct. He got a 10 day sentence for misconduct that led to a wrongful conviction. Only 4% of prosecutors whos were involved in wrongful conviction cases that were due to prosecutorial misconduct have faced any kind of personal or professional discipline. Prosecutorial misconduct is a factor in 54% of all wrongful convictions. And these statistics only take into account over turned convictions. How many thousands more are there that the defendants haven't been able to get back into court? Also consider that 97% of federal and 94% of state felony convictions are the result of plea deals. According to the Assoc of Prosecuting attorneys, the average workload per PA was 100 cases a year. Public defenders however average 150 felonies or 400 misd per year. The avg nationwide spending on public defender services is 2.2 billion annually, vs an excess of 6 billion annually for prosecutorial funding. It really isn't that hard to find the statistics to prove my point that the system is stacked against the defendant.

https://www.yalelawjournal.org/foru...nnot-protect-against-prosecutorial-misconduct
My current job is at a forensic hospital. We get 96 hr admissions, but they have to have specific, violent felonies to come here. Officers tell us all the time that they increase the charges to get them here, and most of the time, they don't drop them, they just plea down to something else later.

Editing to add: It is also perfectly legal and acceptable for police to lie to suspects and for prosecutors to lie and misrepresent evidence in the plea bargain process to get a guilty plea.
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/prosecutors-role-plea-bargaining
And straight from the DOJ: THE PROSECUTOR BECOMES TO SOME DEGREE AN ADMINISTRATOR, AN ADVOCATE, A JUDGE, AND A LEGISLATOR. AS AN ADMINISTRATOR, HIS GOAL IS TO DISPOSE OF EACH CASE IN THE FASTEST, MOST EFFICIENT MANNER IN THE INTEREST OF GETTING HIS AND THE COURT'S WORK DONE. AS AN ADVOCATE, HIS GOAL IS TO MAXIMIZE THE NUMBER OF CONVICTIONS AND SEVERITY OF SENTENCES. THE WEAKER THE PROSECUTOR'S CASE, THE GREATER HIS CONCESSIONS. AS CONCESSIONS INCREASE, THE DEFENDANT FEELS A TREMENDOUS PRESSURE TO PLEAD GUILTY. THE DEFENDANT SIMPLY CANNOT RISK A CONVICTION AT TRIAL WHEN HE IS OFFERED A MILD SENTENCE IN RETURN FOR A PLEA TO A MINOR CHARGE. SINCE IT CAN BE ASSUMED THAT THE CHANCES OF THE DEFENDANT BEING INNOCENT INCREASE AS THE STATE'S CASE WEAKENS, THE DANGERS OF FALSE CONVICTIONS ARE APPARENT. ALTHOUGH FEW WOULD ADMIT TO PROSECUTING AN INDIVIDUAL WHILE NOT BEING PERSONALLY CONVINCED OF HIS GUILT, THIS OFTEN HAPPENS IN THE 'HEAT OF THE PROSECUTOR'S DAY.' ALTHOUGH MOST PROSECUTORS CONDEMN OVERCHARGING, THEY DEFINE IT DIFFERENTLY THAN DEFENSE ATTORNEYS. TO PROSECUTORS, OVERCHARGING IS ACCUSING THE DEFENDANT OF A CRIME OF WHICH HE IS CLEARLY INNOCENT TO INDUCE A PLEA TO THE 'PROPER' CRIME.

 

[Disneylover99]

Diddy was denied bail again today.
I wonder how quickly they’ll get to trial.

 

[brockash]

For the record I did not comment on Diddy's guilt either. I responded to comments about the jeopardy he was in according to how the system works.

I've worked in the court system myself since 2006, so I have more than a passing familiarity with the workings of a prosecutor's office, public defenders, etc. I've seen enough to question many of the assertions you've made, because I know them either not to be correct or to simply be a misleading recitation of statistics.

My experience has definitely not revealed cases being prosecuted routinely as some kind of game, far from it.

Yes, most people do wind up relying on a public defender. That's not the disadvantage you've characterized it as. Prosecutor or public defender, both are funded from the same ultimate root source -- taxpayers, so that's a level playing field. Public defenders have a lighter case load than prosecutors do, something not even considered in your statistic. An overlooked component of the notion that PDs are often seriously outgunned by prosecutors is that the burden of prosecution lays only on one side. The prosecutor has to carry the case across the finish line and prove every element of the crime(s) asserted. Defense carries none of that responsibility.

Just as people who cannot afford legal counsel are provided court-appointed counsel as part of due process they are also afforded the ability to retain experts to investigate and performing necessary testing and testify as to their professional opinions -- also at public expense. There is no difference in the caliber or professional qualifications of experts available to defendants than those available to the prosecution. Matter of fact, many times prosecution is stuck with competent, yet seriously overworked and distinctly bureaucratic experts from government agencies, such as state crime labs, etc. While the defense has the ability to reach out to one of many guns for hire who work on the private side of the fence because of bigger paychecks, which they frequently earn based on reputations borne out of carefully cultivated presentations and personae designed to dazzle jurors, get results at all costs, facts/schmacts, because the wins build reputations and beget bigger paydays. I've literally seen more than one of these con artists appear on documentaries on Netflix and elsewhere, selling their snake oil. One of them participated in a series that went viral a few years back, stirring up all kinds of public outcry about how a certain defendant was convicted based on highly questionable evidence. I watched the same expert in person in a case here. He testified about the same type of evidence as he did in the TV series. It was factual. It also was not germane to the crime and the evidence the prosecution presented, did not discredit the facts the prosecution presented, and was only brought to bog the jurors down with very technical details in the hope create doubt where there was none. It was sickening. The case here was in the murder of a child. This "expert" goes around the country collecting what qualifies as "extraordinary fees" under the legal classification the judge had to approve for the defense to get the funds approved to retain him. That idea was nowhere to be found in the TV show. I wonder if the audience would have been insisting the convicted defendant be released or get a new trial if they were enlightened about the full picture of the expert's data and opinions? I bet that show wouldn't have been all everybody was talking about for weeks and generated nearly the ratings if that was made known so publicly.

There are protections in place such as Brady and other case law, along with court rules regarding discovery and exculpatory evidence. It's ludicrous to suggest that it's the routine practice of prosecutors to deliberately obfuscate discovery simply for cases to go forward and convict just because. Defense attorneys routinely make motions to quash over much less and are granted relief by the judge.

Who benefits by railroading defendants and making sure they're incarcerated for offenses they didn't commit? Prosecutors live in society with everyone else. Sooner or later even the dimmest bulb is likely to have an aha moment and realize they and those they love are safer if those who actually committed armed robbery, murder, carjacking, home invasion, rape, etc. are the ones incarcerated for those crimes instead of just bullying through any random warm body they can convict or coerce into pleading. Even the nitwits are going to realize odds are higher their pockets will be more likely to be picked, their car is more likely to be stolen and anything they possess of value is at greater risk of being taken from them if they simply prosecute a string of random individuals for these crimes instead of proceeding where evidence strongly indicates the person responsible according to legal standards.

The broad brushstroke you characterize the entire process with simply doesn't hold up to a factual or logical analysis in my experience. The amount of complicit parties in perpetuating such a systemic scheme of deliberately malicious prosecution would have to stretch into numbers that defy all credibility and any stretch of imagination. Police, prosecutors, judges, investigators and experts -- and all the support staff of all of those for starters would all have to be complicit for the scheme you've outlined to hold up. Nobody's lips are going to be loose and spill the beans?

No, it is not a good idea to speak to the police without an attorney if you are a potential subject of investigation. I'd never do it and I would never recommend anyone else do so. That doesn't mean every law enforcement officer is corrupt. It means due process is invaluable and I'd never give up a single right.

Prosecutors do not have carte blanche immunity with no restraints. Like most in public office they have incredibly broad protections, but they are not absolute and beyond all reach.

The system is far from perfect. There are bad actors involved at various times. Mistakes are made. Injustices are done. Overall it does attempt to uphold the ideals it's supposed to stand for.

This was also my experience and in my opinion the reality from when I worked at the D.A.s office. As I read the pp description it seemed as though they were living in a different world. Certainly no profession is exempt from crappy/criminal ppl. however the picture they painted seems so far removed from reality...odd. - Especially considering in this case there is already so much public evidence that we know he has been guilty of at least some of these charges...heck he even finally admitted it. The biggest imbalance in the justice system is those who have and who do not have money...we all know what side of the pendulum Mr. Combs is on. - Already huge advantage to him.

 

[dez1978]

This was also my experience and in my opinion the reality from when I worked at the D.A.s office. As I read the pp description it seemed as though they were living in a different world. Certainly no profession is exempt from crappy/criminal ppl. however the picture they painted seems so far removed from reality...odd. - Especially considering in this case there is already so much public evidence that we know he has been guilty of at least some of these charges...heck he even finally admitted it. The biggest imbalance in the justice system is those who have and who do not have money...we all know what side of the pendulum Mr. Combs is on. - Already huge advantage to him.

In this particular case, I agree diddy has a huge advantage bc he has money. But in general, that’s also how it works in the criminal justice system. If you can afford 500k to defend yourself in a murder trial, you are certainly going to have an advantage over someone with a PD.

But as with everything in life, your experiences are going to shape your view of things. If your only experience with the system is working on the prosecution side, of course you are going to see things differently than someone who has worked on the defense side of things. If you have ever been charged with a crime you didn’t commit, you’d see things differently than you do having worked for a DA. That’s how life works. But it really doesn’t take a genius to see how it’s stacked against defendants. It does take willful ignorance to think that none of what I posted ever happens. Statistics don’t lie.

 

[mousefan73]

Seems like he is the Epstein of the rap world... and what does one do with 1000s of bottle of baby oil? It's not even a safe lubricant... so sick... per TMZ he is on suicide watch. He came across creepy trashy to me anyways over the years...

supposidly he had hidden cameras everywhere too. bet many celebs are freaking right now... just like with Epstein. the guys seems evil, hope they get him good.

 

[Imzadi]

what does one do with 1000s of bottle of baby oil? It's not even a safe lubricant...

In movies it's used to give skin a glowy, sweaty, wet look especially for steamy, hot sex scenes. Since Diddy had 1000s of bottles, it speaks of how many videos and how many women he did this to.

Here's a pic of a woman spraying some on her upper arm.

 

[Imzadi]

Old interviews with Diddy are being dug up where he actually describes what he does for his freak offs. This one here with Conan O'Brien he says how there has to be a lot of alcohols, the room needs to be hot to cause a sweaty looseness in the body, ans he even tells Conan to LOCK THE DOORS. Conan even jokes it sounds dangerous. And Diddy says it's all about one's perspective.

In this one, back in 1999, Diddy brags and predicts his parties are so illegal that he will be arrested for them some day. It's NOT like the stuff he was doing was unknown.

TMZ interviewed some long time entertainment reporter who knew Diddy well enough that he could ask Diddy the favor of giving his young, 18-ish, male nephew (or cousin) an internship or work of some kind with his music company to get him started in the music business. Diddy gave him a job.

Yet, after about 3 months, the nephew & Diddy abruptly parted ways. Turns out, one one day Diddy told the nephew that he was to "attend" one of Diddy's freak offs that night or don't bother coming into work again. The nephew knew he'd be expected to participate in the sex if he attended that freak off. So, he quit instead.

The reporter thought how crazy was Diddy that he knew the reporter was in a business where he could have reported the story of Diddy's freak offs. But, the reporter also said, every story has it's time. Back then, yes, a lot of people knew what was going on. But, it wasn't the time. Sort of like the "Me Too" movement. Sexual harassment against women had been going on forever, but there was a certain time for it to come out and have power and momentum and get real changes. The reporter's story would have simply been buried, dismissed, not truly believed. And HE would have been the one to lose his job and standing in the entertainment industry.

Due to Cassie's lawsuit detailing his abuse which way too quickly settled for $30 million after it became public, the video tape of her being beaten, both which subsequently sparked the federal investigation, and them obtaining more evidence, IT'S TIME.