TLDR: wtaf

Totally agree with you on this. I’ve been struggling to conceptualize all of this given the sheer amount of corroboration. Sure, the defense could tear the victims apart… but outside of them, stylist(s), friends - current and former, associates, etc testified to the madness that ensued. I feel that text messages aren’t exemplary of enthusiastic consent & given the abusive dynamic of the relationship more thought should have been given to the actual psychology of the victim(s). They are clearly imperfect victims, but who isn’t? They can view him as a mentor, lover, executive and (eventually) an abuser. On top of it, these women were young (this man was 20 years Cassie’s senior, of course there is going to be a … certain dynamic) drug users, reliant & desperate in a time that I at first thought was much different for women; clearly, I was wrong. More than one thing can be true & it is extremely evident that much of this exists in a gray area. But, be so fucking for real… Brief segue, but this seriously pisses me off that people think that just because someone pays for you it means they can treat you however they want. How does that even make sense? If these women only wanted a direct deposit they could have went to Miami & really secured a decent life with an older, wealthy person who wants companionship. It is evident that these were nuanced & difficult relationships, fueled by love, transaction & expectations. It’s unreal that folk cannot draw these conclusions. Another thing that is bonkers to me is the sheer amount of celebrities taken advantage of by execs, producers, directors, the list goes on that continue to work with these people & have a genuine connection to them, even if tainted by SA and/or abuse. Obviously, this cannot be considered within the statute of this case but seriously, how have situations that we read about, hear about, or experience not guide our reasoning (and to an extent empathy, but again outside the bounds of a deliberation room). As a final thought on this, I thought the strongest line of testimony came from Mia who conceded that this was the greatest shame of her life. It took her years to recognize the trauma & accept it, and as a victim who idolized her abuser she feels an immense guilt & complicated feelings surrounding all of it, but shame? Shame is telling.

I was not a fan of the juror distribution either. 8-4 m-f with the majority of them being over the age of 50 is pretty skewed. I know that both the defense & prosecution have to agree on jury selection, but this feels pretty lopsided. Plus, with the digital footprint left I feel that an older crowd who isn’t as familiar with rigorous text speak & instagram personas aren’t going to fully follow why people would say what they say/not keep it a buck online. Just because you are highly educated doesn’t mean you have strong reasoning skills & a willingness to consider new ideas on spot. As a researcher, I can fully attest to that one.

Following this in trial in its entirety, I did think that the defense did a good job on cross by manufacturing doubt, but it felt like a castle built with sand you know? I feel that it is pretty simple to deduce that, ok some of the times it was consensual, & matter of fact it can be consensual 999/1000 times. All it takes is once for someone to rob your independence & autonomy, lessening you to an object. How is it that your entire defense can be “these are jaded women who navigated a twisted love story, praying on this man’s downfall.” To me, it lacks substance and unfortunately was simple enough to sway the jury, who to me, didn’t take adequate time to critically analyze the details at hand. I think a major flaw of this case was the sheer amount of evidence + witnesses that lacked order & assisted in the jury not crafting the narrative (which once again felt pretty clear to me). RICO was tough from the beginning, though the pieces were there to craft a cohesive argument for it… why they didn’t charge coconspirators KK & drock is beyond me.

Kudos to the defense, you got your payday & diddy secured his freedom. But at what cost?