4.Defense Closing (Part 2)

MR. AGNIFILO: Thank you, Judge. All right. So we were talking about forced labor, and we already talked about Capricorn. Now we're going to talk about Mia. Every indication -- and this is where sort of love and money come together. There is every indication that Mia loved working at this company, working with Mr. Combs, loved the work she did. And so this forced labor is -- force labored, you wouldn't think of forced labor when someone is crestfallen and even suicidal that they've been fired. Right? I mean if it's forced labor you want to get out of there any means possible. But what you remember from the testimony -- and I'm not going to belabor it, because I think you remember a lot of it -- is that Mia seemed to express great love and admiration for Mr. Combs at every step of the way. She was enthusiastic. I'm not going to show you the video clip -- I think you probably remember it -- for his birthday. You know, pop in. Remember all that stuff? That's the real her.

What I submit to you -- and listen, you guys, what I say about this doesn't matter. It's what you guys think. I think you have every reason to conclude that she took on a false persona in the courtroom. That's just not what you saw on the video, and I felt like maybe I need to play it again, but I don't think -- I think you guys probably remember it. She was bubbly. She was outspoken. She was happy. I know the government's position is, well, because she wasn't talking about something, you know, traumatic. But listen, I think the evidence is pretty clear. I'm going to go through it, not in tremendous detail but at least enough, that this was not unwanted sexual contact. And I say that because of a few reasons. But one of the reasons I say it is at one point there was a text exchange between Combs and Mia, and Combs says: I'm going to tell Cassie about us. Do you remember that? I'm going to tell Cassie about us. Now, if he sexually assaulted Mia, why would he kind of stir that pot?

Right? I mean if it's, like, I did something to you that's a crime or that is improper or something that I should never ever have done, why am I going to say I'm going to tell Cassie about us? Because what he's inviting, at a minimum, is for Mia to say, well, then I'm going to tell her what really happened. But the problem is there is no what really happened. What happened is something consensual happened. It happened, and Mia and Cassie are friends. Cassie doesn't know about it. Mia doesn't want Cassie to know about it, and so the pressure point that Mr. Combs uses in that instance is, yeah, I'm going to tell Cassie about us. What that basically should say to you is this was eminently and undoubtedly a consensual thing, or series of things. When she says that she didn't want to do it, that it was done without her consent, that's just false. And certainly Mr. Combs knows it's false, which is why he's handling this the way he's handling it and sort of saying, all right, so tell her.

What she says is that I was going to take this to my grave. Well, when one person is, like, I'm going to tell Cassie and one person's, like, I'm not going to tell anybody ever, maybe the one sort of shining the light on this event is the one telling the truth. And I submit to you that's the situation here. There was not any unwanted sexual contact between Mr. Combs and Mia. Now, I know it's absolutely possible -- we heard platonic love from Capricorn -- to have platonic love and admiration for someone. No doubt about that, of course. But I submit to you that the feelings that Mia had for Mr. Combs went way beyond that. And I don't know. Mr. Steel, when he was doing his cross-examination of Mia, showed you all these Instagram postings. I think they're Instagram postings, some pictures and stuff. Right? One is just more positive than the next, more positive than the next, more positive than the next. There's wonderful pictures and wonderful sort of slogans.

And I know the government says, well, that was kind of her job, so you know -- but it's hard to be effusive and loving and leaning into sort of good times and things artificially. So I submit to you that's how she really felt. But if you have any doubt, if you have any doubt about all of those postings that Mr. Steel took you through one after the next after the next after the next, you can't have any doubt about this. This isn't in evidence. This was given to you as what's known as a demonstrative. So you can't take it back into the jury room, because it's not a piece of evidence. But what you can see it is is something really remarkable, really, really remarkable. And this is not part of her job. This is not -- you know, this is something she did. If there was ever an act of love, really an act of love -- if there was ever an act of love, this is an act of love. This is -- I can't imagine, I can't imagine how long this took. I mean it's just article after article.

Here he is, a young man, has his whole life ahead of him. Article after article after article. It's remarkable. And you know what? What she wrote is remarkable, and that is in evidence. And you can take that back with you. And it's so remarkable that I'm going to read it to you. It won't take too long: "Happy 45th birthday, Puff Daddy. Puff sometimes life goes by at catastrophic speeds, where you never get to live in and enjoy the now. Things that used to feel unattainable and symbolic of success can become the norm and lose all of the adrenaline and excitement it used to stir up. And life keeps going and going and each new height reached is a celebration moment in the world of getting to that next goal -- all of this to say that I hope on this day that you get to sit back and actually take it all in of how much you've accomplished, how far you have gone and are still going.

So I put together this book of magazine articles from 1991 to 1999" -- this is from 1991 to 1999 -- "that I hope will stir up nostalgic feelings of when you got started and how you felt and what a dream to you, then that's an everyday reality so yourself can tell your younger self how great you've become. Not that you'll ever forget your past, but I hope it reminds you of when this world made your eyes light up. "Happy, happy birthday." She loves him. She loves him. You can't fake that. You can't act that. I think there's every reason to think that what she did in this courtroom with you was acting. That's real. I'm going to go one step further. I think she loves him so -- I don't necessarily mean romantic. I mean like almost something purer than that, like, he is people's worlds. Don't lose sight of that. He makes people's worlds. It's not just business. He gives people a home. These things, the businesses that he built, forget the business part. I want to show you a picture.

I wasn't going to do this until later, but I'm going to do it now. I'm going to show it to you. I want you to read -- I want you to look at that picture. I want you to look at that picture. And I want you to think of a word or phrase. I'm not going to ask you what it is because we're not in school. I want you to think of a word or phrase that's come to mind, that comes to your mind. Just look at it and think of a word or phrase that comes to mind. Joy? Family? Home? Belonging? Diversity? Racketeering enterprise? This -- this -- is your racketeering enterprise, folks. This is your racketeering enterprise. There's K.K. There's D-Roc. You have Faheem. That's your racketeering enterprise. So whatever word you thought, whatever phrase you thought, that's not what the government thinks, because this is the inner circle we've now heard so much about. This is the racketeering enterprise. And I'm quite sure that that is not the phrase you came up with.

The real trial, the trial based on the evidence, is that he created a remarkably special place. He moved people. He moved them in their hearts, in their souls, and they wanted to stay -- not because it was easy, because it wasn't easy, but because it was worth it. And that's what we want. We want something that's worth it. We want something that's meaningful. And that's what he gave everybody. And it's all been taken away. So, when Mia is told that she's going to be fired -- this is Defense Exhibit 1728 -- and she's going to leave this special place, she's going to leave the place that Sean Combs built for her and everyone, she had the following text exchange with K.K. This is racketeering co-conspirator K.K. OK? Mia: I'm going to kill myself. My life is over. Racketeering co-conspirator K.K.: OMG. WTF, Mia? That's not funny. Mia: I don't think so either. Mia: Literally over. Racketeering co-conspirator K.K.: What is wrong and don't say that. Take it back.

Mia: Watch your back here, my love. Racketeering co-conspirator K.K.: Answer your phone, Mia. This is serious. Racketeering co-conspirator K.K.: Mia, you can't make a statement like the first thing you said and then not answer your phone. Racketeering co-conspirator K.K.: I'm serious. Please answer your phone. Racketeering co-conspirator K.K.: I'm going to call Yaya if you don't call me back right now, please. Racketeering co-conspirator K.K.: Mia, I'm serious. Racketeering co-conspirator K.K.: Mia, WTF? You cannot say that and not answer your phone. Mia, I'm serious. You know I just went through this. You need to call me back now or I'm calling your parents. Racketeering co-conspirator K.K.: Mia, can you please answer your phone. Mia: Fuck. I'm so sorry. I completely forgot. I'm so sorry. I'm with Flora Gomez. I'll call you soon. The last thing she wanted to do was leave. The last thing she wanted to do was leave, and she's charged with forced labor.

And there's just no evidence of in. Let's talk about drug distribution, and where we're going to start is I'm going to read something that the government said yesterday -- I'm sorry. The government, in summation, yesterday said to you: You heard the defense asking witnesses about whether the drug amounts were for personal use, meaning the defendant's personal use. But that's just a distraction. OK? That's what the government said yesterday. Here is the charge, and let me reiterate -- what the judge charges you at the end of the case is the charge. I'm going to read what I think the charge is going to be. But the charge is not the charge until the judge gives the charge: If a person possessed drugs solely for his personal use, rather than for the purpose of distributing them to anyone else, then the person did not intend to distribute the drugs. It's not a distraction. That's the charge. A small quantity of drugs standing alone is insufficient to prove intent to distribute.

Let's go to the next paragraph: An individual's agreement to buy controlled substances from a seller does not establish that the buyer joined with the seller in a conspiracy to distribute or possess with intent to distribute those controlled substances, and the buyer's contact with drug traffickers, without more, is not sufficient to prove that the buyer participated in such a conspiracy. In other words, the agreement to distribute from one alleged co -- from one alleged conspirator to another cannot also be the agreement that forms the conspiracy. So here's what I think the evidence shows you. There's not been one single witness in this case -- and the government called many, many witnesses -- who's gotten on that stand and said I knew I was committing a crime and I was committing a crime intentionally and I was committing a crime for Mr. Combs when I was bringing these drugs, because I thought they were for personal use.

And really on this point, Brendan Paul, who only testified a couple of days ago, was clear as a bell on this. He said that these were personal-use drugs, and he told you I didn't think they were criminal. And then he says I forgot to take the cocaine out of my bag, and when -- and on March 25, when, you know, the search was done, they found the cocaine in my bag in Florida. And he says I got the best lawyer in the world, and my charges were dismissed. OK. So let's look at the three things that he says. I moved drugs. I brought drugs from point A to point B. I did all that. I didn't it was breaking the law because it was personal-use drugs. That's what he said. They found the personal-use drugs in my possession, and my case got dismissed. Now, that's the evidence in the case, but what I want you all to consider as the evidence in the case is this is -- there's no allegation, and the government's going to say there doesn't have to be.

But let's show what the evidence shows and what the evidence doesn't show. There's no allegation that Sean Combs is selling drugs. OK? He's made however much money he's made from music and fashion and all the different businesses he had. There's no allegation in this case that he's selling drugs. What Cassie Ventura said, I'm probably, maybe, the person who knows him -- maybe not the best but knows him well, is that she considered him at one point a drug addict. She testified to that. Well, where are drug addicts going to get -- unless you're going to grow your own Xanax, unless you're going to somehow grow poppy seeds -- I don't know where this stuff comes from -- you're going to get it from somewhere. He obviously has a drug problem. He has a drug problem. There's no question. So many of the different witnesses said this, and Cassie said that.

And the government's charged him not with possession of drugs, not just with distribution of drugs but distribution of drugs as a racketeering act, as part of a racketeering conspiracy. And there's just no evidence of that. Is there evidence that he had drugs? Of course. There's no doubt that he had personal-use drugs. I mean they found some of it in his house. The witnesses are testifying, there's personal-use drugs around. But was he using his enterprise? Is this really a part of a racketeering conspiracy, where he's using his enterprise to sell drugs, move drugs, have drug, possess drugs, possess with intent to distribute drugs? I submit to you the answer is no. But you're going to have to give -- I'm going to be straight with you. You're going to have to give this one thought. You have to really think through this, because he had drugs. OK? Now, what drugs did he have? There's Xanax.

There's painkillers, and I think he was addicted to painkillers so he's obviously going to have possessed painkillers. There's ecstasy. But what's the evidence that he had any interest in distributing this or in possessing these with the intent to distribute? These are things that he did with his girlfriends. They did them together. There's no indication that he's, you know, getting this stuff so that he could either sell it to Cassie or Jane or somehow, you know, move the drugs, distribute the drugs. That's just not what the evidence is, I submit to you. So what I submit to you, though, is that this is personal-use drugs. That's what it is. And I submit to you that it's very clear that the purpose of these businesses -- now, the government said yesterday that the enterprise is kind of larger than, like, Combs Enterprise, the business -- that the purpose of these businesses and the enterprise has nothing to do -- nothing, nothing, nothing to do -- with getting him drugs.

I mean, it is not unusual -- one thing I want you guys to keep in mind, and the personal assistants all testified to this. The personal assistants basically said to you, one of them said my advice was get in, get out. Because once you're in, once you're in that sort of celebrity kind of whatever it is, clique, just celebrities. You're in the world of celebrities, right? Wasn't it Mia who went and worked for Madonna? Like, you're in, you're in. OK? So what Mr. Combs is doing isn't really that different, I submit to you, than what a lot of other people are doing when it comes to the use of your personal assistants. Right? You have personal assistants. You know, I don't expect that we're going to see Beyoncé in CVS. She has someone to go there. So people have personal assistants to do these things, and that the personal assistants also, as a small, 1 percent, I think was the testimony, part of their job do truly personal things for Mr.

Combs, whether it be buy condoms, buy Astroglide, buy baby oil, you know, or even get drugs for him, doesn't somehow transform that minuscule part of their job into what the companies do collectively as part of the enterprise that is alleged as the racketeering enterprise in this case. So you have to separate it all out. It's not enough to sort of say, oh, he had personal-use drug, he's guilty of this racketeering act or that he committed this racketeering act and he conspired to commit this racketeering act. You have to also find that this was how he participated in the conspiracy. I'm going to get to the RICO -- this is not easy, by the way. You're all looking at me like I was with you for a while. So this is really complicated, and so I'm going to go to the RICO part, but you're really going to understand it much better when the judge gives you the law on RICO and breaks it down for you. But it's not self-evident. It all involved participating in an enterprise.

So what you have to find is that Mr. Combs conspired to participate in the enterprise through -- when it comes to the drug racketeering predicate, through the possession with intent to distribute drugs. And there's just not evidence of that. It's not a drug charge. He's not charged with drugs. He's charged with participating in the enterprise through the distribution with intent to sell -- I'm sorry, the possession with intent to distribute drugs. And there's just no evidence of that. Let me show you an example of what I submit to you is an entirely different kind of drug transaction, and it comes from David James. And if you remember, David James says that he's in Saint-Tropez. Right? And David James says that someone, not Mr. Combs, someone else there asks him to get an eight ball of cocaine. OK? And he goes and gets the eight ball of cocaine. That's eight ounces of cocaine, a fair amount of cocaine. And I asked him, does that have anything to do with Sean Combs?

Nope, nothing, didn't even tell him. OK? Didn't even tell him. So it's an interesting little anecdote, because if Combs -- and I think I even went further than that: You kept it from him, not only did you not tell him, you didn't happen to tell him, you kept it from him. So that's an interesting anecdote for the way to look at the drugs in the context of the RICO. OK? And let me tell you why. Because if, if it was really the enterprise's business, OK, to move drugs or to get drugs and move them from one point to another, why would he hide it from the head of the enterprise? He'd be like, hey, doing the enterprise's work. Got an eight ball for -- I think it was some woman. Anyway, I got an eight ball for so-and-so. Aren't you happy I'm doing the stuff that our criminal enterprise is supposed to be doing? But he's keeping it from him, because that's not what they do. Also, I don't want you to sort of lose sight of the fact that, you know, I mean Cassie's doing lots of drugs.

Cassie's getting drugs from Bana. Bana testified to that. Cassie testified to that. And I'm not justifying it, but it's people in kind of creative fields, and they're just kind of doing -- I'm not in the creative field, so I wouldn't know. But they seem to be doing what people in creative fields do. All of a sudden, it's part of a racketeering conspiracy? That's just -- there's just no evidence that this has anything to do with a racketeering conspiracy. OK. I want to talk about Cassie, and I'm going to talk about the sex trafficking count and racketeering act. So let's talk first in general, and at one point -- you'll be happy to know at one point I was going to show you text message after text message after text message. Look -- I can't say the word. She wants to do it. She likes it. She's talking -- a lot of dirty talk in this case, probably more than dirty talk in this case than your average federal criminal case by a long shot. But you guys remember this.

You guys remember this, I know you do, and you don't want me to do that. That's not going to be helpful to you. What's helpful to you, I think, is to tell you very quickly, the story, very quickly, the story of Cassie and Sean Combs and then put their sex life into a context where you will see it's just not -- it's just not sex trafficking. I mean, first of all, let's start with the lowest hanging fruit imaginable. It's his girlfriend. I suppose you can sex traffic your girlfriend. If you sell her into prostitution, I think you've done it. I mean I'm not saying that a boyfriend can't -- I'm not saying that -- I think probably husbands and wives, doesn't matter, sisters and brothers, God forbid, my client sometimes says. I'm not saying that, but I am saying it's the sex that they are having. I mean there's no suggestion that Sean Combs is making money from it. I mean you guys know that. Right? He's not making money from this. This is his personal life. They are swingers.

They are validly swingers. This is their lifestyle. He wouldn't think in a million years that there's anything wrong with it. And it was fine. If you go through all of the text messages, hundreds, thousands, how ever many there are -- now, they're a couple and they're fighting about a lot of things, but you're not seeing -- and we're going to talk about Jane in a second. Jane has a couple of text messages that are very anti (inaudible). Not so with Cassie, because they're not. They're different that way. And I suggest to you, and part of the reason, I submit to you, that RICO doesn't fit the charges is because of what I'm going to say to you now. All right. So people are in love. People are having sex. What does it mean -- like, if your partner really likes anything, all right, and you really don't like the anything, but they really love it, they really -- it makes them happy, do you still not want to do it?

Where does that land on the "I want to do it, I don't want to do it" spectrum even. And I'm not even saying that's where you are with Cassie. I am saying the evidence, I think, is overwhelming that Cassie wanted to do this. But part of the reason she wants to do this, I suppose, and I think that's true for any intimate partner, is this is how they're close. This is how they're close. If you're close by drinking lemonade with, you know, strawberries in it, lemonade with strawberries has great memories for me. I'm close with you because we go to the beach. I view the beach as differently. My wife's from Los Angeles. I hated Los Angeles. I love Los Angeles. Los Angeles is a great city. Sorry. That's how it happens. Like, your likes and their likes become one. That's actually what love is. And that is what is going to with Cassie. Would this have been her choice? I don't know. Maybe it would have.

I mean she's obviously -- you know, if she could kind of like keep Kid Cudi on one side and Combs on the other, she's -- she's ready to go. I mean she is -- like I said, God bless her. She's a beautiful, sexy woman, and that's what she deserves to be if that's what she wants to be. And that's what she wants to be. I mean when she wasn't with Sean Combs, she was with Michael B. Jordan, like the most handsome man in the world. No offense. I mean, you know, she's not messing around. Do you remember when Capricorn -- I think Capricorn testified to this, said, you know, you should just break up with Sean. You know what she said? Jay-Z is taken. Who am I going to date? OK? She's at a high level. She has sexual confidence. Good for her. So I submit to you she is not clutching her pearls. I don't think Cassie Ventura has a bunch of pearls in her hand, clutching them. That's just not who she is. And so my first argument to you is that this was her lifestyle choice also.

But a second argument, and it's not inconsistent with the first, is this is how I am intimate with the man I love. And you can want that. If you didn't innately want it in the beginning, you could come to want that, and the result is the same. You want it because you want to be close. Now, a couple of specific things. I think the government talked about -- so it's hard to necessarily follow where they're coming from, but I'm going to try. I thought what they said yesterday -- well, they clearly said we're not saying all the freak-offs were nonconsensual. No, they're not. We think that she wanted to do some of them. All right. Now where are we? Which ones? Like, is it that she wanted to do 110 and she didn't want to do three. Did she want to do 70 and not do 50? Like, once you open that door, where do we go now? OK? But the government focused on three. Three.

They said there's one at Cannes, I think, was one that they mentioned; one in regard to Daniel Phillip, and we'll talk about that one; and then the InterContinental. OK. So we'll talk about all three. The Cannes one, I don't know that there's any evidence of that one way or the other. I mean it's just one that they kind of, like, threw into the mix. You know? But think about it for a second. If what the government is saying is they're not saying that she -- that they're all sex trafficking, some were OK, you know, then you have to ask, well, how is he supposed to know the difference? I mean if we're at freak-off No. 75 and 75 of them have been consensual, what momentous thing would have to happen in freak-off No. 76 to sort of say, man, now it's sex trafficking. Zero to 60. Now it's sex trafficking. And none of that happens. I mean none of that happens. There's no time where, you know, she says in a text message, you know -- I mean she gets mad at him sometimes.

He gets mad at her sometimes. He sometimes speaks vulgar to him. She speaks vulgar to him. But there's nothing that would say to him, oh, I get it, she doesn't ever want to do these again. You know, she doesn't want ever to do these again. Nothing. And so I submit to you that there's nothing that would ever indicate to him that, you know, this was something that was against her will. Let's talk about the Daniel Phillip one. So, from cross-examination, I think we established when Mr. Donaldson was cross-examining Mr. Phillip, and I think it might have been on recross, that this might have happened on July the 30th, 2012. And there's been some evidence of that in the record, and this is when Mr. Donaldson is recrossing the witness. Let's look very quickly at the texts leading up to that date. This is exhibit B, like boy, 346. On the bottom, Sean Combs writes to Cassie: Good, are you horny? She says yes. He says: How horny? He says: What you be thinking about when you're horny?

She says: I think about you on top of me and inside of me, the way you look at me and talk to me like that. I love looking up at you and hearing you moan. And at the bottom of the page, he says: One of my favorite times is when we FOed and then we made love after. I also liked when we make love before and then Jules is in the next room. Then he came in and I blindfolded you. And she says: Yes, I like those times. I love when we make love. The last time was so good when we were at my place. I came so hard for so long. Then a few pages in, he says: I want you to tell me a fantasy of how you want it next time. And then he says: Would Dave turn you on? She says: I don't know. I haven't even had time to think about it. I've been trying to think about you with a girl to get into it, and I think I'm starting to fantasize about that. All right. Here's the point.

First of all, if we're leading up to this particular date, 7/30, there's obviously nothing in that series of text messages to indicates that she doesn't want to do that. And I think even more than that, it shows the nature of their lifestyle. That's just the commitment that they've made as a couple. You know, my fantasy is to have you with a girl. That might not be for everybody, but it is for them. And that's their avowed, committed lifestyle. All right. Let's talk about the InterContinental. So we're going to start with exhibit 1088, which is from 3/4/16. And Cassie writes -- and I'm not going to do that many of these: I know you're sick, but I have to tell you this, and maybe you can read this later and enjoy it. My mother is so happy I became a lawyer. My pussy has been so hot since we've been making love this past week. For the past two days I'll just think about it and my pussy will cream. That's what she says. She goes on. She says: So let's do it.

Can you set it up, though, so I can just run home and grab stuff? And you guys have seen this. And Combs says: I think if we start at seven or eight maybe four at the latest, take a Xanax or Ambien, and go to sleep, we'll be OK. Because she has her big premier coming up. But they're going through this together. They're sort of thinking through this together. You know, there was some suggestion made yesterday that somehow Combs imposed this on her and then she agreed only because otherwise, like, he would ruin the premier. But I really encourage you to look at exhibit 1088, because the lead-up text messages to the InterContinental freak-off show that they're kind of workshopping this together, very much as a couple. You know, if we do it quickly, if don't stay out too late. They're trying to find a way to make it work. All right. I am now going to play part of the video, and here's the point I want to make in the video. The video is not sex trafficking. OK?

The video is very much -- very much -- domestic violence. And there's two reasons why I say to you that it's not sex trafficking. First, I say it to you because it seems to all be about a phone. This entire situation's about a phone, and I'm going to show you a few snippets. I'm not going to play the whole thing. I'm going to show you a few snippets as to why I'm saying that to you and why I think it's true, that it's all about a phone. Now, is it crystal clear whether it's Cassie's phone or Mr. Combs's phone? It's not crystal clear. More likely than not it's Combs's phone, and I'll show you some snippets and then we can kind of think through it together. Let's do this. Let's start it and go to :13.

MR. AGNIFILO: I'll give you a spoiler alert. OK? Here's what you're going to see. At 9:21, on the counter, Cassie goes to the room. Cassie comes out at 9:59, but because the camera is motion censored, that dot plays no role in the scenario here. Because the camera's motion censored, what, on the counter is, you know, whatever that is, 9:21 to 9:59, if you look at the actual time, it goes from 11:26:02 -- this is time of day, 11:26:02 to 11:29:44, meaning that Cassie was in the room for three minutes and 42 seconds with Combs. OK? And so again, and that's presumably when Israel Florez was there too. So the point is the room is not a scary place. This was a fight about a phone. Still not clear that it's his phone or Cassie's phone. But nothing -- if you go back and look at this, which you can, it's totally up to you, I think you'll see there's no clear point where he relinquishes the phone back to Cassie, which is why I think reasonably it might be his phone.

One interesting thing is that at 11:27, and I think this time on the upper left is close to accurate. And I say that to you because there's a government chart where there's a bunch of phone calls that Combs is making to Cassie, one after the next after the next after the next. And the times on the chart coincide with the times here. You know, it's, like, between, say, like 11:30 and 11:38 or so. So -- and that's when, that's when he's calling and trying to get her attention and she left and he's upset and he's saying, you know, the police arrested me and all this other stuff. All right. Let's go back to -- and then we're going to be very tech-free the rest of the time. OK. All right. B631. B631 is a bunch of text messages from five days after the InterContinental. OK? And Sean Combs says: Baby, I can't say it enough. I'm so sorry. She says: LOL. That's funny I'm listening to sorry on the radio. It always automatically makes me think of you singing it.

They're obviously getting past this as a couple. She says: And thank you. All right. Then we're going to go to 1434, which a few pages in. And this is an important -- I submit to you this is a very important text message, which is why I'm showing it to you. Cassie writes to Sean, in the middle there: How would I know if the drugs are going to be bad or that you won't drink too much? OK. They're still talking about what happened five days earlier, and I submit to you that that remark of how would I know if the drugs are going to be bad -- there's been some issue at the trial, I think you know we've been maintaining that part of what was off is that the drugs were different. The drugs were off. The drugs were bad. And we actually have evidence of that in this text message. And you have Cassie saying: How would I know if the drugs are going to be bad or that you won't drink too much? There seem to be two possibilities -- one, that the drugs are bad, or two, that he drank too much.

And I submit to you that it's interesting, if we played the whole thing through, he stays in a towel in a public hallway way too long. I mean way too long. Like, what's up with -- you are Sean Combs. You know, if you went to Tokyo, a thousand people would recognize you, and you are walking around in the middle of the day in a hotel in a towel and socks. So what gives? What gives? And I think Cassie's text message is part of what's telling you what gives. OK. We're looking now at 1091, 1436. And they're still going through it. And so Combs, on the top, says: You wanna act like I'm not sorry. You want me to keep punishing myself and I am. You want me to not forget and I won't. You want me to know that I should feel extra sorry. And I do. It's just best that I get myself together. I'm not going this year, and I'm not talking about it anymore. Have a good day. She writes back, and she's trying to make him feel better: Baby, I'm not trying to make you feel worse than you already do.

I know you feel sad and are sorry. Did you tell them what really happened? Then on the next page, she says: I'm really not trying to make you feel bad. I want you to take care of yourself and not mask the sad stuff with partying. It's OK to miss out sometimes. I know we would have to plan it, but let's just talk about it when we see each other this weekend or next week. I hope you know that I only want what's best for you. If we have to fight to get right, we have to fight to get right. If we give up, then you should be able to do whatever you want. So the video's terrible. It's nothing but terrible. It's bad. It's a crime. It's illegal. It's unforgivable. They're trying to pass it as a couple, and that's why I submit to you there's nothing about their relationship that is, you know, him -- it's not one way. They get through it together.

I mean, you know, when Cassie was on the stand, she was very clear, I'm not -- sometimes I hit him first, sometimes he hit me first, sometimes I hit him first and then he hit me worse. You know, but they're doing this. They're in this together. All right. One thing I want to talk about, and it's interesting because it's not charged. OK? Cassie says that there was a rape, that Sean Combs rapes her. I'm going to show you why that didn't happen. OK? But also equally important, it's not charged. It's just not part of the sex trafficking. It's not a commercial sex act. It's not an alleged act of prostitution. It's a horrible, horrible thing if it happened. But let me show you why it didn't happen. This other transcript, and this is at page 850, at the bottom: "Q. Can you describe how Sean was acting at the dinner? "A. Um, he was just being really nice, playful, laughing, kind of romantic vibe, sort of. But we just were normal, laughing. "Q. How did the dinner end? "A.

Um, it ended with him bringing me home and, yeah, that was it." OK. Let's just stop right there for a second. This is the night she was supposedly raped. OK? And her first answer, her first answer right here in this courtroom to you was, um, it ended with me bringing him home and, yeah, that was it. Like, did she miss a prompt? Was she supposed to talk about it and she didn't? Let's see what happens next. "Q. And can you remind the jury which residence you lived in around this time? "A. Harold Way, where you saw the door with the knife. "Q. When you arrived at your home in Harold Way, what happened? "A. Um, I went inside, went in the living room. He came in, pretty usual, nothing weird, and then he raped me in my living room." Oh, OK. That's a pretty -- there's just not a lot of kind of lead-up. Like it just happened, you know. And so I suggest to you maybe it didn't happen. Maybe it didn't happen, and I'll show you why conclusively it didn't happen -- because of this.

Initially, this is -- the question was that it happened in August. OK? Her initial statements about the rape is that it happened in September. And she said that to you. She said that in her civil suit, alleged that it happened in September, and then she told the government it happened in September, and we have transcript along these lines. Page 1231, line 3: "Q. And on that date you told the government that this incident occurred when Mr. Combs returned from Burning Man in September 2018, right? "A. Yup. "Q. So you told the government essentially the same thing that was in your civil lawsuit, that it was in September 2018, right? "A. OK, right. So now it's September. But let me show you what happens. Cassie she goes in and meets with the government, and she's shown a bunch of text messages. And let me show you one of the text messages that she's shown, and it's 1376, and it's from September 27, 2018: I had a lot of fun with you. Thank you for the night.

I told myself I didn't want anything to happen and I'm not tripping on it. I know you aren't either. I'll let you know what I talk about with my publicist, and I'll keep you posted on that. Love you. OK. You really can no longer maintain that a rape took place and then send this text message right after it. But let's delve into this text message a little more deeply, because I think just from this text message alone you can figure out a lot of what's going on. All right. Cassie is now with her current husband. She's no longer with Combs. All right? She agrees to meet with Combs, but she tells herself nothing's going to happen. They meet and something happens, and you know that's true because she says that. She says: I had a lot of fun with you. Thanks for the night. I told myself I didn't want anything to happen. I'm sure she did. And I'm not tripping on it. Because something happened, but she's not tripping on it. I know you aren't either. OK.

So here's what happened, and you know this from the next text message. While they're together, she gets a FaceTime, and she gets a FaceTime from something, Boogie Bat Phone. FaceTime. All right? So let's go to the next series of messages, and let me just do a spoiler alert. Boogie Bat Phone is her current husband. So while she's actually with Combs, her current husband calls on Boogie Bat Phone. So let's go to the next page. Combs says: So you going to ignore the fact that whoever was FaceTime you while I'm making love to you, you worrying about me having friends, and it's apparent you have friends. Crazy. Then you want to act. OK. So he's basically saying what happened. We're making love, you get a call on Boogie Bat Phone. So what does she say? I really don't know who that was. Oh, Cassie. Cassie. Oh, I don't really know who that was. I looked at it this morning, and I still don't know so I dropped it. I get weird calls often, even if they're locked in.

I know you do too, and I'm not acting like it didn't happen. I remember. I had a really good time with you. OK. Next page. Combs says: It's always been fucking up our shit, always. You act like this brokenhearted angel and you're just not. The question is who are you. For one second I thought love affection us, but as usual there's another end, and you question me about girls that I'm FaceTimeing me at 3 a.m. After all this time, you still lying. You need to stop living your lie. What does she say? You're taking this way too far. That's not true at all. I can't even be defensive with it because there's nothing to defend. I don't know who that was. I don't have Ns at all. And I was saying thank you for last night, because I enjoyed it. All right. So she's in a bind. She's in a bind because she got a call from her now-husband on the Boogie Bat Phone while she's with Combs. And she has to do the oldest trick in the book.

I don't know how Alex found out, but he found out, and she has to say he raped me, because it's better than the alternative for her, because it's better than saying, yeah, I slipped. I told you I was going to see him, I thought nothing was going to happen and then something happened and I slipped. So she lies. She lies and says that she was raped. The problem is that because of all these I really enjoyed you emails, she can't say that it is September. She doesn't want to give up on the rape because she already told that to her husband. So I submit to you that she sees a text, A441-I. And you were shown this yesterday. The government showed you this yesterday and said that this bottom text was -- I think we could just blow that up. This bottom text, what the prosecutor said to you yesterday, was Combs's way of apologizing for a rape that happened in August. OK. So now we're off September. She's no longer claiming anything happened in September.

But she's claiming that something happened in August. And the evidence, what it is, that something happened in August, is this text. And here's the text: I know I look bad to you. I could tell I didn't turn you on yesterday. I fell off but I'm about to get my shit together. Now what the prosecutor said to you yesterday is that is evidence of, like, a confession. Like, that's his way of saying that he raped her. That's what the prosecutor said to you yesterday. That is just ridiculous. I mean that could mean many things, but it certainly doesn't mean that. So she says rape because she's sideways with her now-husband. She says September because that's when she got the call from the Boogie Bat Phone. She couldn't maintain September because of the text message of "I really had a good time with you last night." So she changes it to August and says, well, look, this is the evidence that it happened in August. But at the end of the day, this isn't evidence of anything.

And I submit to you there's no evidence of a rape. And what she goes on to say is -- she then has consensual sex with Combs, she says, in October. So I suggest to you if there was really a rape in August, she wouldn't not have gone back and had consensual sex with him. So there's no rape. At the end of the day, you don't even have to decide. I mean it's called rape, so I have to defend the rape. I can't let you think that it was a rape. It's not charged. It's just not charged. It's in the case, and it's not charged. All right. I want to kind of give you guys a feel of kind of the nature of the relationship that Combs had with Cassie and with Jane. And I'm going to do it by reading one question -- I've been struck by this answer since she gave it. And I almost told myself I wouldn't share it with you. This is page 825: "Q. What kind of pain did Sean put you through?" I was gripping my chair. Whoa. What is she going to say? What kind of pain did Sean put you through? No one objected.

You know, she's just going to answer the question, right here in public in front of everybody. And I think her answer is remarkable. And her answer is this: "A. I think bigger, more than anything, it was his own personal shame in having to carry the things that were shameful to him." So, you know, we use words like love, you know, kind of generically. But here's what she's saying, and this is a thoughtful answer -- more than thoughtful -- she felt he had shame. She felt he carried shame, and the most painful -- in a sex trafficking case, the most painful thing for her was to unburden him of his shame and carry around his shame. That's what that answer -- she could have answered that question any one of a million ways. She could have said he made me a prostitute. He ruined me. He did all these things, and that that's her answer, and the reason it's beautiful is the only person who could answer a question that way is someone who's truly, truly in love with the other person.

And all you need to know is that answer. Because she could have said anything, and that's what she says. He felt shame and it was most painful to me, was carrying around his shame. What's even more fascinating? Jane says almost exactly the same thing. Line 23, at the bottom: "A. In the context of these rooms, I felt that my partner was trusting me in a very vulnerable moment and -- well, so he made me believe that this was something really special, that this was something that him and I only did. And I really took that on very strongly and I really wanted to just go along with these things because I felt like if I can be my partner's escape, then I would be. And I didn't want to judge him for the things I noticed in these rooms about his behavior and the things that he liked. And I just would kind of put blinders on and just go along with what he was telling me to do.

But deep down in my heart, with what I could assess in the situation, I didn't want him to feel that eyes were on him while he was in this vulnerable state." So you have both Cassie and Jane basically saying this was this essential, vulnerable, deep part of himself and he trusted me to go there with him. And remember one of the things that Jane said? Jane said: I knew he had other women, but I also knew that the other women weren't doing this with him. So that was her testimony. I knew these other women weren't doing this with him. And so I think one of the things that you could glean from Jane's testimony, what hurt her so much was not so much that she minded, minded the hotel nights. She was basically saying, listen, I am going to a very vulnerable, special place for you, and I'm doing it because I love you. So I don't want to see Yung Miami on a plane with you. I don't want to see another girl on a, you know, bigger yacht than you took me on.

I don't want to see another girl have a nicer handbag than the handbag I have. If I'm going to go here with you, you put me first, because I don't want to be put second. And that's many, many things. It's just not sex trafficking, though. And so there's so much about this case. And when I say to you if you really get deep, and you have to. If you really get deep into these very fascinating, complicated, intimate sexual relationships -- but forget sex. Sex is almost a distraction. Like, intimate. Like, man, there's this deep self in all of this and here is where I am my realest self, and I'm doing it with you. That's just not -- when you think of sex trafficking, is that what you think of? I mean it's just people in love being vulnerable and intimate and real with each other. Does your Honor have an idea of when -- you're going to ask me anyhow?

MR. AGNIFILO: Thank you very much. Thank you all for working so hard today and paying such close attention. I have one last couple of things about Cassie, and then I'll move on to Jane, that I neglected to say. There was some suggestion at this trial that somehow like Cassie didn't get the support and attention as an artist that other artists at Bad Boy got. And while I think Capricorn is imperfect witness, in some ways I think one of the things she does know about is what she said about Cassie, is that in 2007 to 2010, I think she said that Cassie got the lion's share, is the way she put it, of the resources and the attention from the production company, from Bad Boy. And that after that, other artists came on, joined Bad Boy, and then she sort of had to share the support and attention with other artists.

But there was no perception from her part, and she would know because she was hands-on with Cassie, that she was somehow, you know, being given less resources than other people or that, you know, her music wasn't being supported. I think if you listen to Capricorn's take on this, I think she was looking to be appropriately polite about it. She said Cassie is a studio musician. And remember, I tried, I asked her what does that mean. And so she said she's not like Beyonce or someone like that. She's talented, but she's not one of these great natural talents with a microphone that work the magic like some of the great artists that we know of. So I think there is really nothing to all of that. I don't think there's really any suggestion in the evidence that's credible that sort of Mr. Combs was holding her back. You see quite the opposite. You know, she obviously did movies. She went to South Africa and did movies. She was busy. She was active. She put out, you know, a tape.

Maybe it didn't make a lot of money, but there's really nothing -- I think she rose and fell on her own merits. I think when she testified, I don't know that she's really done anything since meaningful, so it's not as though that she left Bad Boy and had top records, and, you know, changed the scope of her career so you could really say wow, if we look at the whole arc of her career, it really took off after she left Mr. Combs and Bad Boy. There's just no evidence of that whatsoever. The evidence is what I think she said, is that she was going to do a tour. I think she was going to go to New Zealand and Australia in the fall of 20 -- around time that she filed the lawsuit, so 2023. And when she got the lawsuit proceeds, she canceled the tour. So $20 million will do that, I guess. So, you know, I think that's a fair read on it. Also, there's really nothing meaningful, I submit, to this bit like I had the freak-offs because I was afraid of him being violent. He was violent at times.

I don't think there's anything really in the credible evidence to link the two. You know, they were together. Their problems weren't about violence. You'll see some text message where she's angry when he would hit her, and they would be violent, and of course she would be. But I really think that she spent most of her time, you know, on jealousy, on that, on Mr. Combs being with other women, you know, at the same time that she was being with other men. So with that, we can move on to Jane. I want to start with the recordings. And you guys noticed this, so I might be stating the obvious: Neither side played any of the videos for the witnesses. You know, we didn't play them for Cassie. We didn't play them for Jane. And I'm sure the government probably feels the same way. I think that's probably the parties' way of being as respectful about this sensitive evidence as we can be. But what you guys have to keep in mind is it's evidence.

I mean, so what I'm asking you to do is feel free to watch the videos. Videos are important evidence. They're sensitive, but they're important. So you almost have to take on the role of like a doctor and just say, all right, I'm going to sort of divorce myself, which is hard to do — and I'll tell you why in a minute — I'm going to divorce myself from the fact that I was never meant to see these. I was never meant to see these videos, and yet -- and, you know, there are many of the ones from Cassie were on her device; not an irrelevant fact, I submit. They were on her device. She kept them on her device for six years. And one thing she said, and I think it's interesting, she was like, well, it didn't work. You know, it was on my iPad or laptop or one of those things, but it didn't work. It was damaged by the rain. But when the card examiner from the Department of Homeland Security examined it, he said it worked fine.

So I don't think it's really true that it didn't work because the expert was able to open it and was able to look into it. Why am I saying that? Listen, I don't know what role these videos played, if any, in Cassie's life after she left Mr. Combs, but she certainly didn't go in to delete them. She certainly didn't throw that device away. And what we know for a fact is that they were on her device, which was working, and which was then examined by the folks at Department of Homeland Security, and they extracted the videos from there. So that's just, you know, part of the things to consider. But let's talk about the videos generally for a second. They are essentially, I submit to you, a date night. That's all it is. I mean, sometimes we have -- they've given them racy names like freak-offs or hotel or king nights, but it's really a date night. And if you end up watching the videos, if that's what you choose to do, and you guys can handle your deliberation any way you want.

There are certain things that I -- and you've probably seen them, so I'm not saying this so you have to see them again. The hotel rooms are beautiful. The music is nice. I think there's Bryson Tiller and Usher, and the music is beautiful. It's a nice mood. You know, when you watch these videos for the first time, you have no idea you know you're in a federal courthouse and in a racketeering sex trafficking trial. Man, now they're going to make me watch videos? Like what am I going to see, you know? And what you see is certainly something that you're not meant to see, and I think that could be a little jarring. You know, it could be I'm not meant to see this and it's because you weren't. You guys were never meant to see it. And if the circumstances didn't happen the way they were, no one would ever have seen it.

And one thing I want to make a point since we're on this point is there were times, you know, I'm going to release the videos, I'm going to release the videos, that's like saying I'm going to kill you. You know, that's just I'm angry. There is no way on God's green earth Sean Combs is going to release one of these videos. Zero. Zero. Zero percent chance. Never. He was worried about the Intercontinental video being released. He would be very worried about these videos being released. I think everybody knew that sometimes he talks, you know, he might have said that from time to time, but there's no way, no way that he's going to release any of these videos. And I submit to you, there's no way anyone thinks that he will. But looking at the videos, it's, you know, I mean you've heard some of the testimony, mostly from Jane. There is a nice dinner before. They go to a nice hotel. I mean, these are lovely.

You know, take the part out that is inconsistent or not inconsistent with how, you know, many people choose to be intimate, and what you really have left is kind of this beautiful evening. You know, the music is nice. The mood seems, you know, friendly and easy-going, and everyone is smiling and laughing. Forget the sex part. I mean, they're hanging out. They're eating food. At one point Cassie is eating watermelon. People are hanging out, having a nice time, listening to music. And that was the escape as much as the physical intimacy. And I think what, you know, the two escorts that were called to testify at the trial said is, you know, there's a lot of talking. There's a lot of hanging out. I mean, one of the things that's interesting is, you know, Phillips and I always call all him the Punisher. That's not the name his mother gave him. He got the name playing basketball. Sharay Hayes. They both really thought that like Cassie was into them, you know. Like, oh yeah, that Cassie.

I'm special to Cassie. I didn't know, like, you know, exotic dancers could be so naïve. But they were. So there's a real genuine intimacy, and just nice quality to these evenings. They're not aggressive. They're not -- you know, I submit to you that the physical intimacy is not aggressive. You've seen it. It's very standard. It's very, you know, sort of typical, you know, homemade porn. That's really what it is. And I don't think by any stretch of the imagination this is the only man in America making homemade porn. I'm under the impression that this is a pretty popular thing nowadays. So let's look at it in the context in which it is in. So let's get to Jane now. Jane is a little different than Cassie. Jane, if you had to kind of like really get to the essence of it, I think what Jane is about is she really likes the trappings, you know, put it that way. How many times did she say, I didn't get anything postable. She was in -- she wanted stuff she could post, I guess, on Instagram.

I didn't get anything postable. She wants beautiful trips because I think she likes beautiful trips. But, you know, there's nothing like posting a villa, you know, in Turks. There's nothing like posting a yacht, you know, and so that's what is -- that's what she's into, and I think she really did love Sean Combs, and I think Sean Combs loved her too, but she's a little bit more, I would call like, you know, focused on what am I getting out of it that the world can see. You know, I want great. I want images. I want to take great pictures. I want nice things. I want to have nice bags. I want to have nice just stuff. So that's a lot of what motivated her, I think. And listen, you guys, you guys know who her baby father is. You guys know. And you guys also know when she was in Vegas, you know who she was with in Vegas. You guys know that. So she is comfortable being in that sort of strata, like this isn't -- you know, he's special in a lot of ways. He's not really special like that to her.

That's just how she moves, you know, and he just kind of fits in like that. So let's look at a couple of things. So first the government said the same thing about Jane that they said about Cassie. They're not saying that every single hotel night was sex trafficking, so it raises the exact same question. Well, then which ones and how Sean Combs is supposed to know the difference? And they did isolate a couple. And the first one I remember that they isolated was September 2023. So let's look -- and if I remember right, this is all like jealousy over a yacht. I think someone went on a yacht, and she didn't go on the same yacht, and she's sort of jealous over the same yacht. Let's do the lead-up to it. This is Defense Exhibit 3327. She's on a plane. If I remember her testimony right, she's on a plane, and she gets a text of Cowboys4Angels. So what you're seeing here on top is that she is liking a message Cowboys4Angels. Combs sents a message Cowboys4Angels, and she likes it.

I think this is from the plane. What is he to think? What he's to think is that he sends out a, you know, a message Cowboys4Angels, and she likes it, so we go forward and we try to make that happen. Next message is 3187. Cowboy comes, and she doesn't like the guy. And this happened quite a few times, handful of times. More than once or twice where Jane just didn't like the guy, and every time she didn't like the guy, the guy had to go. There was one guy she said she just didn't like how he looked. I think she said he smelled. She said another guy she wasn't attracted to. And when that happens, you know, the guy is sent packing. So 3187, what we see is Cowboy gets sent over. Cowboy gets sent packing. Why does he get sent packing? It says on the bottom for "her bum ass cowboy." She doesn't like the cowboy. But guess what? They paid. They paid a thousand dollars for a bum ass cowboy and no sex. So we'll get to this in a minute.

But this whole notion of like paying for sex, paying for time. Got paid. No sex. What gives? Paying for time. I know the government yesterday, the way that they handled the paying for time thing was to just literally not talk about it at all and be dismissive, but that's what just happened. That's what just happened here. Bum ass cowboy. Pay a thousand dollars for a bum ass cowboy with no sex. All right. What she then does, if you remember, is she calls Kabrale. And they sometimes call Kabrale chef because Kabrale's a chef. And so Kabrale comes. And I think you can see from the evidence that Jane likes Kabrale. They just -- they just get along, you know, and then we have texts from a week later 3191. And what they're talking about is they're looking at the videos from the time with Kabrale and saying: I can't even look. It will drive me crazy. You might blow up, daddy, like a locomotive, muy caliente.

I don't see how the government says that this is sex trafficking, but they say it, and this is one of the three that they're saying is sex trafficking. You know, she wanted it to happen. She called her guy. She called Kabrale. It happened they made videos. They watch it a week later and talk of muy caliente and locomotives and all the like. Next one is so-called sobriety party, October 2023. And at this point jane really wants Combs to be healthier and, you know, you've got to drink less. You've got to do less drugs. You have to eat better food. And so they have this sobriety party. And what's happened is she's angry at the end at this point over Gina. That's what she's angry about. She's angry over Gina. And she's angry over Gina a lot. She basically told you guys when she testified, I didn't really want to do it. I didn't really want to do it. But I want to focus you on one part of her cross-examination. It's page 5643. It's questioning by Ms. Geragos and the question is: "Q.

And you had agreed to do it, right? "A. Unfortunately, yes. "Q. You keep saying unfortunately, but you had agreed to do it, right? "A. Yes. "Q. You regret now that you agreed to do it; is that fair? "A. I resent him for knowing how much I loved him and knowing I couldn't say no to him. "Q. My question is, you regret that now, right? "A. I resent him for it, yes. "Q. You resent him for the fact that you did the sobriety party? "A. I resent him for all of it. "Q. And you regret it, right? "A. I believe resent and regret lie in the same feelings." Here is why I'm reading this to you because I think you could really see this as a very, very, very important dynamic in this case. People do things because they wanted to at the time. And when she said, you know, when Ms. Geragos said: Did you agree to do it, she says, unfortunately, yes. She's regretting that she made a choice; that maybe years later she would have made a different choice. Or maybe she wouldn't. Maybe she just regrets it.

But we can't look at things, like, you know, criminal conduct looking backwards. You know, it's going on at the time. What's going on at the time. She's agreeing to it. He is hearing her agree to it. That's it, really. That's really it. She's agreeing to it. He sees her agree to it. She regrets it. She resents him for it. That all comes later. Regret is not the same as intent at the time. It doesn't work that way. You can regret things later, and I think typically you regret things that you wanted to do. I think that's just a very human nature sort of response; that you don't -- you don't regret things when someone truly made you do it. There's nothing to regret. It had nothing to do with it. When you made choices, when you made choices as a matter of your personal responsibility, and then later you wish you made a different choice, that's called regret. And that's what she said, resentment, regret, as she said, it's basically the same thing. So, bottom line is, she agreed to it.

That's all you need to know. We can be done with it. A few other things I'm going to talk about, a few other things then I'm going to talk about June 18-19 of 2024. I touched on the house. You know, talk about dammed if you do, dammed if you don't, and no good deed goes unpunished. She has a crappy, crap -- I mean, we heard someone come in here and say he had the world's best lawyer. I think she had the world's worst lawyer. I mean she had a back lawyer. I don't know whoever cut the deal with her child's father. That's a pretty crappy child support deal in my opinion. She probably deserves more, and guess who's giving her more? The one who has no responsibility for that woman's child at all. So you had talked about like who's doing the right thing, and who's doing the wrong thing? There is only one way to look at the house that he is paying for, is that he is doing the right thing. He is picking up the ball for someone who seems to have dropped the ball with his own kid. Okay?

So the house -- forget the house. The house is a gesture of kindness and decency and niceness. And as to his credit, when she was on the stand, he hasn't changed it. He hasn't changed it. Oh, you're going to come testify at my racketeering trial? You know what? He made a deal and he kept it. Good for him. There should be more people like that. So forget the house. If they are going to get up here on rebuttal and say the house leads to sex trafficking, just don't go that way because that's not right. One other thing that we see with Jane that we didn't see with Cassie, I don't think, certainly not as much. So Jane and Mr. Combs watched a lot of pornography, and I think Jane said they watched something called Black on You Porn or something. I want to pretend like I never heard of these things. I don't know what they're called. So, you know, and they found Kabrale. They found Kabrale. And they also found Antoine, okay? And that became their thing.

They were a little bit more, like, into the porn scene, you know, really directly, like, as a commitment that they made. They were going to watch porn. They were going to watch porn actors. And Jane was very clear. She was the one who kind of found and really reached out and made this sort of a reality for, as she kept saying, my lover and my partner, who she really does seem very consumed to try and take care of that way, you know, to her credit. But she would sort of reach out to Kabrale. Kabrale would come over. They would be with Kabrale. Antoine, she met Antoine the same way. Antoine would come over, and they had a real strong kind of homemade porn bent in the way that they got along. She got him a screen for his birthday one year so that, you know, she says so he can watch more porn and make less porn. I think that's one of the things she said. I'm not sure it really works like that. You know, I think once you've made the homemade porn commitment, I wouldn't know, you're there.

You're there, right? Okay. So I think that is just -- but that's like their thing. Let's talk about June 18, June 19. This is a very, very important incident, so I'm going to go through it in a lot more details. There are a lot of pictures, a lot of things to show you. You've seen them all. I'm not going to do it that way. I'm going to give you a timeline because it's important. There's a photograph. I'm sure you remember there's a photograph of eight glasses on a table; two sets of four glasses. There's like a big wine glass, kind of like a champagne flute, champagne wine glass, and two shot glasses. She takes that picture at 7:01 p.m., the picture on her counter. At 7:03, she takes a selfie of herself. At 7:35, there's a picture of Sean Combs sitting on a chair, and he has the big wine glass, the glass that holds the most liquid. I would say it's more than half full of wine. There's a couple like strawberries in there too, but it's a lot of wine.

It's not like, you know, a little, cheap pour at a nice restaurant. It's a really good heaping pour of wine, and he's sitting on this chair with this glass of wine. Then at 8:31, you probably remember this, Combs is standing and the room already has a red light in it and Combs is sort of standing in the corner of the room. Then at 8:34, and this is going to be significant, I'll tell you why, 8:34 p.m. Combs is standing near a window, and what's important about that is you could see out the window that it's twilight. So the times seem accurate, you know what I mean? Sometimes UTC time, what time is it, it's the way Los Angeles would look on June 18 at 8:34 at night. So you know the times are right just from that alone. And what does Jane say? Jane says that about half hour after she took that picture, something really, really inapplicable happens.

And I really want to focus on the inexplicable part because when something is inexplicable, you have to ask yourself why, because most things aren't inexplicable. Most things are explainable. Truly nothing happened. I mean, so many times Jane gets upset because, you know, Combs posts or somehow gets in the news that he's somewhere with Gina or he's somewhere with Yung Miami, somewhere with someone else. Nothing happens this night. They've never been physical a day in their lives. Nothing happens. And what does she do? He's tying his shoe. So he's bending over, and she takes the back of his head and slams it into the counter. She doesn't really give an explanation for doing this. And I think all of this is significant. Why did she do this? She doesn't say she saw something. She doesn't say he said something. She said he was tying his shoe, so his head was forward, and she took this as an occasion to take the back of his head and slam it into the counter without any explanation at all.

She then says she starts throwing glasses at him. She's throwing glasses at him. She throws a candle at him. She says the candle wax gets on him. The best she said was "I was just resentful," but a half hour earlier you're taking this sort of beautiful picture of him against sort the twilight sky, and a half hour later you're waging holy war on the guy. I mean, slamming someone's face into a -- it doesn't get much more aggressive than that. And then doing these things, and she starts saying: I hate you. She starts calling him a pedophile. And, you know, so what she's mad about is this woman named @Olie. And the government is very clear, and she was very clear, she's not underage. She's just younger than Jane is. I don't know what 21, 22, something like that, but Jane was 36, 37? Olie is younger than Jane, so she's using this word, and there are some words, I submit to you, that like, you know, water off a duck's back. You know, I'm a jerk, whatever.

You start calling someone that word, that's why is she doing that? Is she looking to get a rise out of him? Is she looking -- I mean, she slams his head on the counter, throws glasses at him, throws candles at him, and now is calling him this word over and over and over and over. And then she retreats into the bedroom. He kicks the door open. Goes into the bathroom; kicks the door open. Goes into the closet; kicks the door open. Doesn't hit her. I'm not saying he should. I'm saying he doesn't. He doesn't. I mean, I don't know what we kicks the doors in but he doesn't hit her. That's what she says: Didn't hit me. Didn't hit me. She gets to the front, she goes out, okay. And so I submit to you she's right, that's a half hour after the photograph at 8:34. We're in the neighborhood of 9:00, 9:05, 9:10 if her timing is right. Here is what we do know. We see a text message from Jonathan Perez at 9:46. So now it's 9:46 and the text message is that they're fighting. Okay?

So obviously probably Combs, I can't imagine who else it would have been, Combs must have called somebody or called Perez directly to say we're fighting. That's 9:46. 10:14. Another text message from Perez. Just normal being jealous. So now he's gotten some more information, and someone has told him Jane is just normal being jealous. 10:24, heard from PD; don't come all good. Okay. Let's look at this timing for a second. Let's look at the timing that is sort of documented in the timing of text message. 9:46 Perez says they're fighting 10:24 literally the all good sign. So there's a fight that happens, if Jane is right, somewhere around 9:00, 905, that ends, ends at 10:24. At 10:24 we get the all good sign from Jonathan Perez. So let's go through the actions. What Jane says is after the doors are kicked in, she is in the closet and she takes this opportunity to change. Now -- but she doesn't change -- she changes into another dress. I mean, you know, I don't know.

You know, we know she's an active person. Ms. Geragos brought out she's active. She works out. She's in her closet. No sweats? She's really planning on running, but she has a different dress. It doesn't make -- there is so much about this evening that makes no sense. And I'm not able to make sense out of any of it. It's going to make no sense when I'm done too, I have news for you. So she says she changes into another dress, and she runs out. Combs stops her. I think he kicks her, she falls. He gets her in some kind of around the neck, he pulls her up. But then she leaves. He doesn't strike her, he doesn't do any of that. She leaves. She says she goes and hides behind a wall. She doesn't have a phone or shoes. She goes and hides behind a wall for two hours, but she doesn't have a phone, so she doesn't know how long it is. I submit to you, that's not possible. It's not possible given the timeline that we see from the text message. I submit to you, it's much quicker than that.

It's not two hours. She's wrong or lying. I don't know why she would lie about it, honestly. I think she's just wrong. I think that's not an accurate fact. She says she comes back. And when she comes back, Combs is sort of in the street and kind of like intercepts her before she gets into the house, but there's no violence then either. So look at all that's happened. I mean, I told you everything that happened. She runs out, comes back, still no violence. They go up to the patio. They're in the patio, and she's very clear, she punches him in the face or in the head, and I think -- and let's just put it out there the way it is. She has you look at that picture of her from the video. She has something going on with her left eye. She has something going on with her left eye, it looks likes she got hit in the left eye and something up here. What it looks like is she got hit twice, okay? I don't know. I mean, he's a strong guy.

If he hauls off, I don't -- I think it might look worse than that, but that's what's there. There's obvious physical contact, and if we're going to keep true to what we said in the opening, there's physical contact, clear as a bell. He hit her twice, okay. She hit him. He hit her twice. And then she says that he drags her into the yard and keeps hitting her. I don't know if the injuries look like that. You know, I mean, what you see, and you can play, you know, the best, bestie, bestie. I mean, you know, she's like, no, I wasn't doing, like bestie, bestie. I mean, you know what that was. She was documenting her injuries because she has injuries. So that all happens. So now it is seven hours from the all good message from Jonathan Perez. It's 5:19 a.m., and there's a 43 second call between Jane and Antoine. Now there were calls made before that that didn't seem to go through because I think they come up as zero in the sort of timeline, but this one is 43 seconds long, and it's at 5:19.

So you have seven hours from the all good signal, the all good message at 10:24 until 5:19 when she calls Antoine or Antoine calls her. Okay. So there's a lot about this night that just doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense how things escalated so badly. It doesn't make sense why she decided to be so physical in such an extreme way. And the Antoine thing is interesting because let's talk about Antoine for a second. Antoine is a porn star. She found Antoine. She brings Antoine in. Okay? Over January of 2024, Combs and her are not really seeing each other, and she goes to Las Vegas, and she told you about this. And she's in Vegas with someone who you guys know who it is, you know, a rapper of some prominence, and his wife or girlfriend. And lo and behold, who is in the hotel room having sex? Antoine. Antoine is in the hotel room, the same Antoine she knows, the same Antoine she brought into their life happens -- coincidence of all coincidences is in the hotel room in Vegas, okay?

So here is what she says she does, and we didn't question her. And we didn't question her more than a couple questions, and that's because I guess it matters and it doesn't matter, but let's look at what the evidence was. She says she's in a hotel room with, I don't know, about six, seven people. Antoine is there. Antoine is having sex with somebody. She's watching this with the other people the question is: What did you do? And she said I showed my breasts. I mean, it sounds like spring break, you know; not that I would know. But so what does that mean? What's going on here? Like why is Antoine there? She showed her breasts? Is she worried there's like a photo of it? Why would she even say that? And then something really interesting happens. And it's not for the reasons I say that she says it. The rapper and his wife go up to her and ask her questions about kind of the swingers lifestyle, and she gives them Kabrale's phone number. She gives them Kabrale's phone number.

So if we take all of these events, and we package them together -- I know what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, and it certainly did here, but what happened in Vegas? And you're not going to really -- you're just not going to know because I don't think any of you thinks this story makes sense. So let's say this didn't happen, and something else happened in Vegas, something else happened with Antoine in Vegas that she's not saying. Is it just a coincidence that the Antoine from Vegas is the one who comes to the apartment later that morning, because he does, of all people? Antoine? The same one that she met in Vegas? That's just -- coincidences sometimes do happen, but usually it's not -- a lot of people say I don't believe in coincidences, and I don't think you should believe in this coincidence.

You guys, there's something she didn't say about Vegas that you would need to know to make more sense out of what happened on June 18 and June 19 because it doesn't make sense that that happens to be the same person that she saw in Vegas and that Combs didn't know about. I mean, this is all stuff he didn't know. Remember, you saw in the text messages. You know he keeps saying: You went to another's freak-off. You went to another man's freak-off. That's what he kept saying. So he didn't know about this. This is something she did in secret and kept the secret from him, but the one that shows up at her house is Antoine. Now, I submit to you that what she says about the events of that morning after Antoine gets there makes no sense. Antoine comes -- she calls -- she knows he's coming. If Antoine is coming over, it's for one reason, and one reason alone. Antoine is someone that she found as a porn star.

And if Antoine is coming over to the house, you've got to believe it's probably to have sex. And so knowing that, she puts on clothes, she gets in her car, she drives to the back gate, she goes, and she lets Antoine in. She makes that choice. There's no force. You know, I think they had a fight. I think there's a lot of ways you could look at this. I think one of the ways you could look at this is, you know, by this point it's June of 2024. She knows there's an investigation into Sean Combs. Did she do this? Did she prompt this? Did she want this to happen? She doesn't say that. And why would she? Maybe she would. Maybe she has designs on something in the future. But the one thing that you really are just left with is that her story -- and you all need to go further than this maybe, her story makes no sense. The whole night makes no sense of why she was so violent and sort of so persistently violent and so extremely violent. And you know what I submit makes no sense?

Is she says: I didn't -- I didn't want to do it, but she went and let Antoine in. So I submit to you, they were trying to get past the evening. There was a fight. There was some kind of fight. A long time passed, and they were trying to get past the evening. And what she says is there was oral sex. There wasn't penetrative sex, and, you know, but I think one of the things that you'll see is that Combs leaves early. And what she must have said a hundred times on the stand is, part of what I really liked, what I liked most of all, she would say, from these nights, from these hotel nights, which then became nights in her home, is that I would get to snuggle with him afterwards. We know he left early because at 9:22 there's a message to pick him up, and presumably he was picked up. So that's the problem. You know she's upset about it. I get it. But at the end of the day, her story has such, such holes.

I mean, the role of Antoine is just a mystery, and it's still a mystery, and it just makes no sense. So I think where you settle in, there's some things you can't answer. I think there's a view of these facts you take away and say, you know what? I think she prompted it. I think she maybe wants something in her pocket. You know, I think -- he gives money to other people. I wasn't getting what I wanted, what I needed from a financial standpoint, and I'm just going to have something -- maybe I'll never use it. Maybe I'll never use it, but I'm going to have it because that -- to a certain extent, that's the only way the unprovoked extreme violence makes sense. It's the only way it makes sense. And she doesn't explain it. She doesn't. She doesn't try to. There's nothing even coming close to an explanation. So it doesn't really matter though. It really doesn't. What really matters, I submit to you, is they had a fight. They had a physical altercation, one that she really started.

They had a breathing space of seven hours, and they wanted to get past it, and that's, what I submit to you, the evidence shows about that. I want to talk to you for a minute, not longer than that, about dawn Hughes, the expert, okay? You guys are here because you're perceptive about human nature. You guys are here because you have life experience. You guys are here because you've lived full lives. You're here because you have friends or kids or parents who have lived full lives. So you guys are here because you know how people work. That's why you're here. You're chosen on this jury because you are good judges of people. And we obviously both thought so because you're all here. So you can look at the witness stand, and you could see a witness testify, and you could use all of your tools to determine: I think this is true. I think this is false. I think this is an exaggeration. I think this person has an agenda. I think this person has a bias.

I think this person seems to favor the prosecution and not the defense. I think this person seems to favor the defense and not the prosecution. You don't need any help. You do not need any help. And you certainly do not need a hired gun to come in here, whose job it is to basically tell the same story at every trial. The cross-examination was a little bit long ago because it was a little bit in the early middle part of the trial, but, just remember, that's all I need you to do, just remember the cross-examination and what the cross-examination really showed you is that she is just -- she just tells the same story. She doesn't interview anybody. She doesn't know anything. And one of the things that was very clear from her testimony is that when she has to give actual advice and help to real live human beings, she meets them, she talks to them, she listens to them, she understands their story. She understands the details.

She'll know whether someone went to a plaintiff's lawyer or called the cops or didn't do anything at all. She would see how people react. She would do all the things you guys do sizing up a witness, but she would do that in a more intense degree because she has more interaction with them. And in her clinical life, that's what she does. But when she comes in here at a matter of grave importance like a trial and speaks to a jury, she doesn't do any of that. What I am asking you to do is trust yourselves. You don't need her. She doesn't help you. You use your own eyes and ears and experience, and you determine yourself by whatever metric and what you think is appropriate about what the witnesses are saying and importance of it. I'm going to talk about the Mann Act transportation for prostitution. The government put up a poster. I couldn't count all the guys in it, but it was likes 30 something, something, a lot of guys, okay? They called two. They called two.

Now, they prove their case, they don't prove their case any way they want. They called two. And the two that they called were Daniel Phillips and Sharay Hayes. They could have called everybody. They could have called anyone they wanted. And you see how this works. If they want to give a witness immunity, you've see that happen in this court. It happened more than a few times. I don't want to testify. Well, too bad. We're giving you immunity. Get on the stand, and you're going to testify. Okay? They called two people. Here is the fascinating thing about the two people that they chose to call. Neither of them -- both of them utterly disavowed being a prostitute. Both of them utterly disavowed having sex for money. So when the company gets up here and says not sex for money, bah, I'm not even going to talk about it. They chose those witnesses. They put those witnesses on the stand. Those witnesses said: I'm not a prostitute. I'm not engaged in prostitution. I don't have sex for money.

That's a government witness. And you didn't hear any examination of that. That's ridiculous. Of course, that's what you are. They called these witnesses as government witnesses. They got on the stand. They told you that story, and they got off the stand and left. And didn't hug anybody. Only one person did that. So now they say -- they're walk -- and so when I said at the trial of two trials, this is a perfect example. This is the best example I think I've got in the whole case of the trial of two trials. They call witnesses who get on the stand and say I'm not a prostitute. I don't have sex for money. They let him walk out that door, and then they say, everybody's having sex for money. Well, you need evidence. You need witnesses to say that. Were these the two best of the 30? 27? 39? These were the two best. The two guys who (A) didn't travel anywhere, and (B) were not prostitutes and did not have sex for money. They were very clear. There was no discussion of sex for money.

There was no negotiation of sex for money. There was no agreement of sex for money. Phillips said: I never asked for a dollar. That was his testimony. I never asked for a dollar. He said: I wouldn't have thought twice that this was prostitution. This is a government witness. Didn't cross my mind that this was prostitution. So is it supposed to cross his? I mean, there are three people in this room: There's Cassie or Jane, there's one of these guys, and there's him. And no one is saying it's prostitution. No one. It's almost like saying, we want to put on all this evidence but maybe we really don't because if we say too much, then they're going to ruin our second trial, the fake one, the one where we just want to say stuff to the jury without evidence because what their witnesses said is that they're not prostitutes. Sharay Hayes said the same thing. He says: I come to create a sexy screen. That's what he said. I'm not involved in prostitution.

Hunk-O-Mania is not involved in prostitution. I am not involved in prostitution. One of the things he says that's interesting is that one time he came, he got $500, and he left and there was no sex. And this happens quite a bit. There's a lot -- there's a fair amount of evidence of that. And so this ridiculous notion of money for time that they wouldn't even talk to you guys about yesterday, that's what their witnesses are saying. That's what their witnesses are saying. If you get paid because you did spend some time and you didn't have sex, what are you getting paid for? You're getting paid for your time. Now, let's talk about Cowboys4Angels. Cowboys4Angels, there's documents and evidence. There's text messages between Bridget Collins and Mr. Combs. It is an ongoing successful thriving business, okay? It's been around for awhile. It's around today. And if anybody wanted to order a cowboy tonight, operators will take your call. Okay? They are open for business. They are doing fine.

They don't seem to be going anywhere. Okay. Why is he supposed to know more than them? Why is -- if they're in business, and they are sending escorts, do a lot of the escorts have sex? I think so. I don't know. I wouldn't know. I think so. But if it's that you're paying for time, and if the two adults meet because you're paying for time, and they choose to have sex, it looks like that's not illegal because there are all these companies around the world doing this, and Cowboys4Angels is one of them. How is he supposed to be the only one in the room knowing, oh my goodness, this is prostitution. Well, if it's prostitution, how are they in business? How are they around? Their very existence is actual evidence in his mind, in his mind — and that's the mind we're talking about — in his mind that this is okay, all right? And at one point there's this text message exchange with him and Bridget, and he's mad that the cowboy couldn't perform and he complains. I'm a long-time user.

You know, I'm a frequent flier. I'm not getting the treatment I want, all right? Sean Combs, okay not getting the treatment I want, all right? And she's like, dude — she didn't call him dude — you're paying for time. What you do is on you. You want to go skydiving, go skydiving; that's on you. That is like the CEO of the company. How is he supposed to know that's somehow not right? He's not supposed to know. There is no evidence, evidence from a human being witness that there was negotiation of sex for money. There is literally none. There is no evidence of that. Think about what a different case this would be if someone got on that witness stand said: Hi I'm a male prostitute. I had a conversation with Sean Combs that I was going to come over and have sex with his girlfriend for money, and he said that sounds good to me. That's very different evidence than the evidence we have.

And one of the things that will be in the judge's instructions is that you are to decide this case based on the evidence and the lack of evidence. And there is just lack of evidence that there was a negotiation of sex for money. There is just nothing about it in the entire case. They could have proven their case any way they wanted, and this is how they chose to do it. One other thing on this is homemade pornography. So much of this, I think it was Sharay Hayes who said: I felt like I was an actor. I think on one of the videos, if not more than one, Jane is saying to Kabrale, asking: How do you do it on set? It's homemade porn. And in every porn movie I'm assuming that the actors get paid to have sex. Or else it wouldn't be a good porn movie. How is that not prostitution? I don't know. And he doesn't either. And you don't either. So there's just no actual evidence of prostitution. There's no actual evidence of sex for money. All right. We're going to talk about the racketeering count.

And I'm going to read something to you. The Judge is going to read you a lot more when the Judge gets to the charge. Enterprise, very important concept. The judge will tell you how it works. One part from page 14 of what I think the charge is going to be: An enterprise is a group of people or entities that have associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct. This group, in addition to having a common purpose, must have an ongoing organization, either formal or informal, and structure, and it must have a core of personnel who function as a continuing unit. You're going to get this. You don't have to write it down. That is what an enterprise is. Now, let's look at what we know. What we know is that Sean Combs was indicted by himself. No one else was charged. He's indicted by himself. There's no one else on the indictment. Here is what else we know. Nobody came into this courtroom.

No one came into this courtroom and said: I was a member of an enterprise, and let me tell you how it worked. Lack of evidence. You decide the case based on the evidence or lack of evidence. Imagine how different it would be if someone gets on that witness stands says: Hi, my name is so and so. I was the number two person at Combs Enterprises, but I'm a criminal. And while it looks like my job was to make records and apparel and run these businesses, what I actually did each and every day is I made sure that Mr. Combs was able to sex traffic. I made sure that Mr. Combs was able to commit kidnapping. I made sure every day that Mr. Combs was able to obstruct justice and commit bribery. The only issue then would be is that person telling the truth. No one -- there's no -- there's a lacking in the evidence. They don't have that person. So who do they have? They called a bunch of witnesses. Do any of the witnesses say anything about committing crimes for Mr. Combs? None of them do.

This is the greatest divide in the tale between -- of the two trials because they don't have a single witness. They don't have a single witness who says, yes, there was an enterprise. I was a member of an enterprise. Here is how the enterprise worked. This is what the enterprise did. This is how the enterprise made money. This is how the enterprise maintained itself. Here is how the personnel of the enterprise worked. Here's what the racketeering acts were that we all engaged in together as a group. They don't have it. And when the judge charges you that you make your decision based on the evidence or the lack of evidence, there is a gaping lack of evidence of anything to do with the racketeering charge, the racketeering conspiracy charge. So let me tell you in a nutshell how it works. I'm going to try and do it more from the evidence standpoint, but the Court is going to give you the instruction. I read what I think the Court is going to say about enterprise.

The enterprise is this ongoing organization and the enterprise exists through the commission of racketeering acts. And the racketeering acts are a lot of things that we've been discussing at this trial. It's the arson. It's the kidnappings. It's the forced labor. It's the drugs. It's the sex trafficking. It's the prostitution. So what the government is basically charging is that this enterprise existed and continued to exist through the commission of these racketeering acts, and I'm going to get to the conspiracy part in a minute because. For the moment I'm still talking about the racketeering part of the enterprise. Is that what the evidence in this case remotely sounds like? I mean, doesn't it seem to you that this is a concept from a different case? Like who, where's the evidence of any of that? Where is the evidence that Sean Combs was trying to maintain an enterprise through what? Through having sex with his girlfriend in a hotel?

I mean, it's his personal life, and there was always this tension, I submit to you, when the personal assistants were on the stand. The government was saying, well, you know, you get paid this way, and you get paid this way, and maybe the company paid for the baby oil, maybe it paid for the Astroglide. And they're like, you don't understand. This is one percent of my job. The rest of my job is doing all these things actually in the furtherance of the business. This is one percent of my job, they would say. So what the government is trying to do, they're just trying to change everything -- but the government's changing it. They don't have evidence. They don't have evidence that any of these things are true. This is his personal lie. I mean, listen, this is supposed to be simple. And if you find that you're in the weeds of this great complexity, maybe it's because it just isn't there. And what's there is, you know, he's -- this is the sex he has. He uses drugs.

He does these things, you know, and it is what it seems to be. You know, most things in life are really what they appear to be. And this is one of those things that really are what they appear to be. It's his personal life. It's not about an enterprise. And there is no witness who says it is. It's not about racketeering activity in the furtherance of an enterprise. And there's no witness to say that there is. All right. Now, they didn't charge racketeering. They charged racketeering conspiracy, okay? So they need a racketeering co-conspirator. And they just don't have one. They need somebody — and the Judge is going to charge you on this — who has conspired with others to operate the affairs of the enterprise by committing at least two acts of racketeering, not like -- assault is not an act of racketeering.

MR. AGNIFILO: The acts of racketeering are the things that are charged in the indictment as acts of racketeering. It's the kidnapping. It's the arson. It's the sex trafficking. Those things are actually charged. So it's not just any one. You know, domestic violence is not an act of racketeering. Assault is not an act of racketeering. It has to be an act of racketeering. So what co-conspirator would they possibly be able to put up to say there's the co-conspirator who's agreed with others to commit two acts of racketeering in furtherance of the enterprise. And the one that they keep kind of coming up with is K.K. OK. K.K. The evidence at this trial, the actual evidence at this trial is not what the government says to you but what the witnesses say to you. K.K. is, like, the singlemost helpful person. Everyone should have a K.K. All right? K.K. is, like, the singlemost helpful person anyone's ever met. Everybody loves K.K. They love K.K. I just think that K.K.

thought Jane was bad for business (inaudible). Everybody else loves K.K. They love K.K. Remember something, because this is important, because things get spun and they shouldn't get spun. When Combs goes to Cassie's house and he's beating on the door with a hammer, Cassie and Kerry Morgan call two people. And the two people that the government's really most focused on is co-conspirators. But let's look at the number that she calls. This is Kerry Morgan. And Cassie. Kerry Morgan testified that she called it. Cassie, we can see from the phone records that she made the calls. So both of them presumably made calls. They call K.K. and they called D-Roc. Now, a co-conspirator would kick the door in. Right? I mean if, God forbid, if John Gotti was at your door, would you call Sammy the Bull Gravano to get rid of him? No, because they're actually racketeering co-conspirators. OK? So they call. They call K.K. and D-Roc because K.K. and D-Roc would help them out.

And that's exactly what happened. You'll see this in the text messages. The government has a chart with all the texts in it. D-Roc says: I'm on my way. K.K.'s like: I'm going to get him. K.K. gets there first, and I think at 2:30 p.m., K.K. says: I got him. We're in the elevator going down. Problem alleviated. It worked, not because they're co-conspirators. They're just nice and friendly and helpful. The only -- and, did anybody come in this courtroom and say, other than someone who works at the United States Attorney's Office, and say that K.K.'s a co-conspirator, D-Roc's a co-conspirator? Of course not. Tale of two trials, people. Didn't happen. And I think one of most important things that the judge said, he said, I think, before we actually started the trial, what the lawyers say is not evidence. What the lawyers say is not evidence. So you know what? There's only one trial. There's not any other trial. The trial is the witnesses. The trial is the evidence.

You show me a single piece of evidence. You show me a single piece of testimony that K.K. is a co-conspirator. You heard her with Mia in that text. She's worried about Mia. That's just who she is. She's a very, very nice person. That's what the testimony has been. D-Roc is a very, very nice person. And the government, I submit, makes it sort of sinister that he has security. Of course he has security. Who, at his level, who doesn't have security? So is it a surprise that he has security? None of the personal assistants thought so. They thought it was absolutely necessary for the safe functioning of him and his family and his property. So of course, he has security. Pay attention. The witnesses and the evidence will give you everything you need to know. Don't listen to the other trial, which is the fake trial. Listen to the real trial. All right. Real quick. Just a couple of things on D-Roc. I didn't speak as much about D-Roc as I did about K.K.

This is Cassie's testimony from page 645: "Q. You mentioned you went to D-Roc's house later that day. Can you explain to the jury why you went to D-Roc's house? "A. Well, living in L.A., I really didn't have a whole lot of people, especially family, and D-Roc and his wife were just always there for me, so I ended up going over there to feel safe." I think the prosecutor said yesterday something like D-Roc was hiding her or taking her or some -- they're friends. She's going there because they're friends. She says that a few times. 1349: "Q. D-Roc was like a member of your family, right? "A. Like a big brother. "Q. You were very close with D-Roc? "A. Yes. "Q. In fact, you had a conversation with D-Roc that was completely independent of Mr. Combs? "A. Yeah." OK. So there's just there are just no co-conspirators co-conspirators require evidence, and there's just no evidence that anyone is a co-conspirator. All right. A number of things are not charged. This is very, very important.

A number of things are not charged. The firearms are not charged. He's not charged with gun possession, and that's a good thing, because homeland security could not tell you where the guns were found. OK? So it's good that he's not charged with it, because they don't know where it was. Whatever happened with Suge Knight, not charged. Just not charged. Something interesting to think about. I wonder if that young man really did drive that car with guns to go get Suge Knight. I don't know about that so much. You don't have to think about it too much because it's not charged. Anything concerning Dawn Richard -- remember her? Ms. Westmoreland cross-examined her. Not charged. None of it's charged. Nothing about that is charged. Kerry Morgan coat hanger incident. Not charged. Just not charged. The violence, now I understand the government's theory is that the violence on Cassie played a role in the sex trafficking, and that's their theory.

The violence as a standalone assault count or something like that, not charged. Not racketeering activity. I'm getting there. I'm almost done. Couple of things. I want to make a few comments about the government's summation yesterday. The government yesterday in its summation said the following, 7674: Let's just pause for a moment and talk about the videos themselves. You've seen clips of some of them and some of them are in evidence. And in them you don't see weapons. You don't see the defendant hitting Cassie. Of course, he probably wouldn't hold on to a video like that. Do you think that's fair? What are they doing? They're putting a little seed in your head based on no evidence at all. That what? Mr. Combs had weapons at a freak-off? That Mr. Combs hit Cassie in the middle of sex in a freak-off and then destroyed the tape? Why did they do that? Do you think that's a fair argument? Do you think that's evidence? Because what they're trying to do is they're trying to get you thinking.

This is what they said to you. They're trying to get you to convict Sean Combs based on "you don't see weapons, but that doesn't mean there weren't weapons." That's a little sinister. Why are they doing that? You absolutely have the right to ask yourselves that question. Why did they say that? Another thing they said, in summation, 7667, talking about Mr. Combs: One time he made her carry his gun in her purse to a club. She described the defendant using guns as a scare tactic. Well, there's actual testimony about this, and let me read that to you. Question of Cassie: "Q. Who handed you a gun? Who handed a gun to you? "A. I don't know specifically who, but it was some security in the car." Whoa. Glad I caught it. What's up with that? Is that on the level? Maybe it's a mistake. First one mistake? Let's go to the next one, 7672: Sometimes the defendant called the escorts to urinate on her and sometimes he did too. Sometimes the defendant told escorts to urinate on her. Question of Mr.

Phillips on page 269: "Q. Other than oral sex and intercourse, what other acts, if any, do you remember Mr. Combs asking you to perform on Ms. Ventura? "A. I don't -- I don't recall anything else. "Q. How many times, if any, were you asked to urinate on Ms. Ventura? "Q. What, if any, bodily fluids other than ejaculate do you remember there being in these rooms? "A. So, Cassie was actually the one that asked me to urinate on her." Another mistake? Huh? You know, at some point, you can ask yourself the question, when am I going to stop trusting them? Same goes for us. You can ask yourself when I do I stop trusting the defense. But you can ask yourself when do I stop trusting the government? And I think you have reason to seriously consider not trusting the government. Do you think it's really an honest answer that that Department of Homeland Security can't possibly know where the guns were found? This is a serious case. He's charged with racketeering and sex trafficking.

Is that really the best that the government could do? They could -- they're searching Sean Combs's house, and they can't put a witness on the witness stand who can tell you, yeah, the guns were all safely locked in a safe, or the guns were under the kids' bed. Where were the guns? How is it that we had a trial -- they brought out a big nasty, scary gun to show you. For what purpose? To make you think he's a bad person, who has big scary guns. And if they're going to do that, don't you think they have an obligation to put a witness on the stand to tell you where they were? Rather than a witness, we can't possibly know, we can't know. The SRT team -- I don't think they're nuts. We don't control them. I asked him, couldn't you have followed them with a -- no, you can't follow SRT with a camera. So does this really mean that every time the SRT is involved no one is able to tell an American jury where the stuff was found? That can't possibly be true. So is that them doing their best?

It's not, and that could be reflected in how much you trust them. Did you hear anybody yesterday mention DNA? Yeah, I know it's a partial sample. I know it's consistent with a female contributor. It's DNA consistent with a female having DNA material on the glass bottle in the Porsche. Don't you think that's important for you guys to have in the front of your minds? Yeah, they knew I was going to bring it up. They're the government. They're the United States government, and you should have -- you should trust them. They should want you to trust them. Do you really think it's OK that the fire examiner got prints and doesn't know anything to do with them, doesn't know where they came from? Is that really them doing their best? Is that them being trustworthy? And I'm not picking on them personally. I'm talking about the quality of the evidence. That's what matters.

The quality of the evidence matters, and if you start thinking I can't really, really trust the people who gathered this evidence and who presented it to me, that is a very serious thing that you have to think about, because you should be confident. This is a very, very -- every case is important. And this one is too. And so my question to you is at what point do you stop trusting the government? I'm going to talk to you for about another five minutes and then I'm never going to speak to any of you again. Not personal. So here's what I want to say to you. It takes a lot of courage to acquit. It takes A lot of courage to get a jury summons and come into a United States courtroom, where one side is the government of the United States and the other side is some person, and listen to the evidence, especially in a long trial, and acquit. It takes a lot of courage to acquit. This trial is like any other trial and very different from any other trial.

I think that the evidence shows, and you can conclude, that the government targeted Sean Combs. I think you can see that in the evidence, and let me show you why. Nobody came to law enforcement. I wouldn't be able to say that to you if Cassie came to the Department of Homeland Security and said I am the victim of sex trafficking, or if Jane came to the Department of Homeland Security and said I'm the victim of sex trafficking. But that's not what happened. The Cassie lawsuit comes out and these guys went and wanted to make a case because it's Sean Combs. It's not like -- it's not like every other case. It's not like every other case. And you are a critical part, you are such a critical part of this process. This is not -- one of the great things that America's done really, really right is they have, between every single person and the consequences of a criminal conviction, a jury of his or her peers. It's one of the great things we have done as a country.

And today, you guys are the United States of America. This is your courtroom. This is your house. You should feel bold. You should feel the courage that you will need to call this as you see it. And I am asking you to summon that courage and to do what needs to be done and to do the right thing. And I'm asking you to acquit Sean Combs of all the counts in this indictment. He is not a racketeer. He is not a conspirator to commit racketeering. He is none of these things. He is innocent. He sits there innocent. Return him to his family, who have been waiting for him. I thank each and every one of you from the bottom of my heart.