Diddy Trial: Jane Doe AKA Victim 2 Is Back On The Stand After Lunch On Day 19 (Part 4) (6/10/25)

In this letter to Judge Subramanian in United States v. Combs, the defense opposes the government’s request to recall expert witness Dr. Dawn Hughes for a second appearance during its case-in-chief. The defense argues that it relied on the Court’s original framework—reinforced in both the opening jury instructions and pretrial rulings—that each witness would testify only once. They further contend that recalling Dr. Hughes after her cross-examination would be unfair and prejudicial, as the defense structured its questioning with the understanding that it would be their sole opportunity to challenge her testimony during the government’s presentation of its case.The letter also raises concern about the signal it would send to the jury, suggesting that the Court is endorsing the government’s effort to rehabilitate a witness whose methodology and credibility were already subjected to extensive scrutiny. The defense emphasizes that it cannot repeat its prior cross-examination, nor should it be expected to. They argue that such a move is highly irregular and risks altering the fairness of the proceedings. The letter urges the Court to deny the government’s request and preserve the integrity of its prior rulings regarding the scope and structure of Dr. Hughes’s testimony.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.393.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This document records the presentment hearing for Sean Combs (also known by various aliases including Puff Daddy, P. Diddy, Diddy, PD, and Love) held on September 17, 2024, at 2:30 p.m. in the Southern District of New York before U.S. Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky. The case is formally docketed as United States v. Combs, 24 Cr. 542 (RFT). The presentment marked Combs’ initial appearance in federal court following the unsealing of the indictment charging him with racketeering conspiracy and related offenses.During this proceeding, the Court advised Combs of the charges against him and the potential penalties, ensured that he was represented by counsel, and addressed matters related to bail and pretrial conditions. The hearing served as the procedural starting point for the federal criminal case, officially bringing Combs under the jurisdiction of the Court. No substantive arguments or evidence were presented at this stage; the focus remained on formal advisement and setting the framework for future proceedings.to contact me:[email protected]:O9HLComCBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the case of United States v. Combs (24-cr-542), Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team has filed a reply memorandum to bolster their renewed motion for bail. They argue that new evidence undermines the prosecution's case, including claims that video evidence from 2016 depicts consensual interaction, contrary to the government's allegations of abuse. The defense contends that these developments diminish the justification for Combs' continued detention.Additionally, the defense addresses concerns about potential witness tampering and flight risk. They propose stringent bail conditions, such as home confinement with electronic monitoring and a substantial financial bond, to mitigate these risks. Combs' attorneys emphasize his strong community ties and lack of prior criminal history as factors supporting his release pending trial.(commercial at 7:59)to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.80.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In McKinney v. Combs et al., Case No. 24-CV-03931, defendants Sean Combs, along with several associated entities including Bad Boy Entertainment LLC, Sean John Clothing LLC, and Daddy’s House Recordings, Inc., submitted a letter to Judge Buchwald outlining their motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. The defendants argue that the claims lack substantive legal merit and that procedural deficiencies render the case unsustainable. Representing both Sean Combs and the corporate defendants, they emphasize the insufficiency of the allegations and seek dismissal based on the failure to establish a valid cause of action under applicable laws. The filing complies with the court’s procedural requirements and aims to streamline resolution.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.621909.40.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

According to UMG, there is no basis in fact to the allegations and they say that they can prove that in court, but considering that there is no evidence to support the allegations, they say that the case should be dismissed via summary judgement.    In this episode, we take a look at their response and breakdown where things might go from here.(commercial at 7:34)to contact me:[email protected]:Diddy probe: Record label fires back after music producer accuses him of assault | Fox NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The judge overseeing the lawsuit filed by "Jane Doe" against Sean "Diddy" Combs ruled that the plaintiff cannot proceed anonymously. In her decision, the judge emphasized the importance of transparency in judicial proceedings, noting that while privacy concerns are understandable in sensitive cases, they do not outweigh the legal principle of openness in the courtroom. The court found that the plaintiff's request lacked specific evidence of harm that would justify anonymity, especially given the public interest surrounding the high-profile case. As a result, the plaintiff has been given a deadline to refile her case using her real name if she wishes to proceed; failure to do so could result in the case’s dismissal.(commercial at 10:13)to contact me:[email protected]:doe-v-combs-ruling-usdc-southern-new-york.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a recent ruling, Judge Analisa Torres of the U.S. District Court granted the accuser in a high-profile lawsuit against Jay-Z the ability to remain anonymous. The accuser, identified only as "Jane Doe," had filed a lawsuit alleging sexual assault by the rapper and business mogul. Judge Torres acknowledged the significant public interest in the case but determined that the plaintiff's privacy and safety outweighed the need for public disclosure of her identity. The order emphasized the potential risks of harassment, intimidation, and stigma that could arise if her identity were revealed, particularly given Jay-Z's prominence and the heightened media scrutiny surrounding the case.The ruling does not impact the progression of the legal proceedings, as the court will ensure both parties have access to necessary information for a fair trial. However, it sets an important precedent in balancing the rights of accusers in sensitive cases with public transparency. Judge Torres underscored that allowing Jane Doe to proceed anonymously would not prejudice Jay-Z's defense or compromise the integrity of the judicial process.(commercial at 8:42)to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.630244.53.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Following Sean "Diddy" Combs' arrest on charges including sex trafficking and racketeering, Sienna Grace, a former associate, publicly shared her experiences. She recounted attending Combs' lavish parties, describing them as extravagant events with a glamorous facade. Grace alleged that these gatherings often involved excessive drinking and drug use, with Combs at the center of the activities.Grace further claimed that Combs leveraged his power and influence to manipulate and exploit young women, including herself. She detailed instances where she felt pressured to engage in sexual activities and suggested that Combs used his status to silence those who might speak out. Her revelations add to the mounting allegations against Combs, painting a picture of systemic abuse and misconduct.(commercial at 8:06)to contact me:[email protected]:OnlyFans model who partied with Diddy reveals the secret signals rappers use to pick women to sleep with | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this letter to Judge Subramanian in United States v. Combs, the defense opposes the government’s request to recall expert witness Dr. Dawn Hughes for a second appearance during its case-in-chief. The defense argues that it relied on the Court’s original framework—reinforced in both the opening jury instructions and pretrial rulings—that each witness would testify only once. They further contend that recalling Dr. Hughes after her cross-examination would be unfair and prejudicial, as the defense structured its questioning with the understanding that it would be their sole opportunity to challenge her testimony during the government’s presentation of its case.The letter also raises concern about the signal it would send to the jury, suggesting that the Court is endorsing the government’s effort to rehabilitate a witness whose methodology and credibility were already subjected to extensive scrutiny. The defense emphasizes that it cannot repeat its prior cross-examination, nor should it be expected to. They argue that such a move is highly irregular and risks altering the fairness of the proceedings. The letter urges the Court to deny the government’s request and preserve the integrity of its prior rulings regarding the scope and structure of Dr. Hughes’s testimony.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.393.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this letter to Judge Subramanian regarding the United States v. Combs trial, the defense objects to several exhibits the government intends to introduce during Jane Doe’s testimony—specifically, text messages and Notes App entries Jane used as a diary during her relationship with Sean Combs. The defense argues that many of these notes fail to meet the admissibility standards under Rules 801(d)(1)(B) and 803(3) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. They contend that some notes should be excluded entirely because they were written after Jane read Cassie Ventura’s lawsuit and after the government began its investigation, thereby lacking the necessary contemporaneity required under Rule 801(d)(1)(B). The defense also asserts that many of the notes do not meet Rule 803(3)’s standards regarding statements of then-existing mental state and should not be used to improperly guide Jane’s direct testimony or bolster her credibility.Additionally, the defense objects to Exhibit C-251, arguing it contains inadmissible hearsay in the form of messages between Jane and Kristina Khorram from December 2023. They also raise a Rule 106 objection concerning the admission of certain text messages without fuller contextual information that could alter their meaning. Finally, the defense opposes the admission of Government Exhibit E-171 on both hearsay grounds and under Rule 403, asserting that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. The letter urges the Court to prevent what the defense views as improper use of these materials to frame and improperly enhance Jane Doe’s testimony.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.401.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.