Aurelia Butler

More stories

  • 163 Shares24 Views

    in Music

    A prosecutor argues Combs’s use of coercion to compel freak-offs proves sex trafficking.

    A federal prosecutor summed up the government’s case against the music mogul Sean Combs on Thursday, weaving strands of evidence from his seven-week trial on sex-trafficking and racketeering charges to portray him as the head of a criminal enterprise who “used power, violence and fear to get what he wanted.”The prosecutor, Christy Slavik, focused much of her closing argument on the methods Mr. Combs used to coerce two women he dated — Casandra Ventura (the singer Cassie) and a woman who testified under the pseudonym “Jane” — to have sex with hired men while he watched in drug-fueled sessions known as “freak-offs,” “hotel nights” or “wild king nights.”Here are four takeaways from the prosecution’s closing argument:The prosecution said proving that women were coerced into one ‘freak-off’ was enough for a sex trafficking conviction.A key point of contention has been whether Mr. Combs coerced the two women at the heart of the case into having sex with hired men, or if they were willing participants. In cross-examinations during the trial, the defense highlighted text messages in which the women expressed enthusiasm or excitement for the sessions.Ms. Slavik clarified for jurors that the government is not arguing that all of the sex nights with male escorts constitute sex trafficking. She said the women had initially been willing to engage to please Mr. Combs, but later became unwilling participants who complied either because they feared he would hurt them physically or cut them off financially.Christy Slavik, one of the prosecutors, delivered the government’s closing argument in Mr. Combs’s federal trial.Ted Shaffrey/Associated Press“If there is one time — one single freak-off that jurors find were the product of force, threats of force, fraud or coercion, Mr. Combs should be found guilty of sex trafficking,” Ms. Slavik said.To underscore her point, she laid out several examples for each woman.Those included a time in June 2024, Ms. Slavik said, that Jane and Mr. Combs physically fought before he directed her to have sex with an escort. Jane testified that she repeatedly said “I don’t want to,” but Mr. Combs — his face close to hers — asked “is this coercion?”Ms. Slavik also pointed to Mr. Combs’s 2016 assault on Ms. Ventura at a Los Angeles hotel that was captured on surveillance video. “He was using force to cause Cassie to continue engaging in a freak-off,” Ms. Slavik said.The prosecution laid out its theory of how Mr. Combs’s employees operated as a criminal enterprise.Much of Ms. Slavik’s summation in the morning was devoted to arguing that Mr. Combs did not merely lead a typical celebrity entourage but instead ran an enterprise responsible for years of crimes.To convict Mr. Combs on the racketeering charge, jurors need to find that he knowingly joined an unlawful conspiracy, and that Mr. Combs agreed that he or a co-conspirator would commit at least two criminal acts on that list to further the enterprise.Ms. Slavik said an loyal inner circle of Mr. Combs’s employees carried out various crimes over more than a decade, most of them aimed at facilitating the freak-offs or covering them up. Those crimes, she said, include drug distribution, kidnapping, arson, bribery, sex trafficking, interstate transportation for prostitution and even forced labor.She identified several employees as being part of the criminal enterprise, none of whom have been charged with a crime or testified. They included Kristina Khorram, Mr. Combs’s former chief of staff, often referred to as “K.K.,” and a group of security officers known as D-Roc, Faheem Muhammad, Uncle Paulie and Roger Bonds.Examples of drug distribution alone, Ms. Slavik argued, were sufficient evidence to convict Mr. Combs of the racketeering charge because she said the trial testimony had established that he directed his employees to transport drugs several times for use in the sex sessions.The evidence also showed instances of kidnapping by the group, Ms. Slavik told jurors. Ms. Ventura, for instance, was taken to a hotel to heal after a beating by Mr. Combs and spent more than a week there, watched over by members of Mr. Combs’s staff to ensure she did not leave.Ms. Slavik also said Ms. Khorram and D-Roc were involved in bribing a hotel security officer to obtain incriminating security camera footage that showed Mr. Combs assaulting Ms. Ventura.Mr. Combs tampered with two witnesses after settling a lawsuit, the prosecution said.For the first time, the jurors heard details of allegations that Mr. Combs had committed witness tampering and obstruction, one of the eight potential crimes that are part of his racketeering charge. Ms. Slavik provided two allegations connected with women who had testified under pseudonyms during the trial.The prosecutor said that after Ms. Ventura filed her bombshell lawsuit that precipitated the criminal investigation, Jane was stunned by its similarities to her experience.Shortly after Mr. Combs settled the lawsuit with Ms. Ventura, Ms. Slavik said, he called Jane twice in an effort to feed a “false narrative” that Jane was a willing participant in the sex marathons with male escorts in hotel rooms.The jury heard recordings of the calls, in which Mr. Combs described the nights as “kinky” encounters “that I thought we both enjoyed.” In the second call, he told her, “I really need your friendship right now,” and assured her that if she “needed” him too, she “ain’t got worry about nothing else.” Around that same time, he texted an employee to ensure that Jane’s rent was being paid.Ms. Slavik said Mr. Combs also tampered with “Mia,” one of his former assistants. Mia testified that after Ms. Ventura’s lawsuit, a bodyguard known as D-Roc called her and began to discuss Ms. Ventura’s relationship with Mr. Combs, saying something to the effect of “they would just like fight like a normal couple.”Mia said D-Roc “sounded nervous” and said Mr. Combs missed her. Mr. Combs tried calling her, but she did not pick up, Mia said. Later, as Mr. Combs’s legal troubles were deepening, D-Roc texted her, “let me know how I can send you something.” She declined.Mr. Combs brought a book to court.Mr. Combs entered the courtroom wearing a baby-blue sweater and a smile, waving to family and friends who filled two rows near the front of the courtroom. The beginning of closing arguments drew perhaps the largest crowd yet to the courthouse over the trial’s seven weeks, and administrators were forced to open four courtrooms to handle those interested in watching the proceedings on closed circuit television.As Ms. Slavik spoke for nearly five hours, presenting Mr. Combs as a violent, abusive man who was used to getting his way and deployed aides to help him secure it, he was an attentive defendant, shaking his head at one point, and often passing notes to his lawyers.He did not have time to focus much attention on a book he had brought into the courtroom with him: “The Happiness Advantage,” by Shawn Anchor, described as “an engaging, deeply researched guide to flourishing in a world of increasing stress and negativity.” More

  • 88 Shares36 Views

    in Movies

    Prioritizing Diversity, Film Academy Will Widen Membership

    The group invited more than 500 actors, directors and others to join. Left off the list was Karla Sofía Gascón, the first Oscar-nominated openly trans actor.The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences said Thursday that it would increase the Oscar voting pool to 10,143 people, a nearly 40 percent rise from a decade ago, when #OscarsSoWhite protests first put intense pressure on the group to diversify.The problem: Despite greatly expanding the membership of women and people of color, the overall makeup of the academy remains overwhelmingly male and white — a reflection of the film industry itself.If all of the 534 artists, technologists and other film workers invited to become members this year accept, the academy ranks will be 65 percent male and 78 percent white, according to data disclosed by the organization. In 2015, when the academy gave all 20 acting nominations to white actors for the first of two consecutive years, inspiring the #OscarsSoWhite movement, the group was 75 percent male and 92 percent white.By the academy’s count, 41 percent of this year’s invitees are women and 45 percent are people of color. About 55 percent are from overseas, which would lift the academy’s overall international contingent to 21 percent.Before the academy began to diversify its membership by race, gender and nationality, it limited annual invitations to as few as 115, contending that small classes kept the professional caliber of members high. In 2018, the academy invited 928 people. Last year, the number was 487.Invitees this year include past Oscar winners and nominees like Mikey Madison, Ariana Grande, Fernanda Torres, Monica Barbaro and Kieran Culkin. The list also has stars like Danielle Deadwyler, Aubrey Plaza, Naomi Ackie, Gillian Anderson and Jason Momoa.Left off the list was Karla Sofía Gascón, the first openly trans actor to be nominated for an Academy Award. She was among the best actress nominees at the most recent ceremony for her performance in “Emilia Pérez.” But she became a lightning rod after a journalist resurfaced a series of derogatory, years-old posts on X. In them, she denigrated an array of people, from Muslims to George Floyd, and even the Oscars ceremony itself. Gascón apologized but was largely shunned by the Hollywood establishment in the lead-up to the Oscars.The academy typically invites every nominee to become a member. (Others must be sponsored by two members for consideration.) But an invitation is not guaranteed; the rules state that academy committees must review candidates and make recommendations to the organization’s board, which has final say on invites.“Membership selection is based on professional qualifications, with an ongoing commitment to representation, inclusion and equity remaining a priority,” the academy said in a news release listing the invitees.The academy declined to comment on Gascón’s exclusion. More

  • 188 Shares36 Views

    in Music

    What are the ‘freak-offs’ and ‘hotel nights’ at the core of the Sean Combs case?

    A federal prosecutor summed up the government’s case against the music mogul Sean Combs on Thursday, weaving strands of evidence from his seven-week trial on sex-trafficking and racketeering charges to portray him as the head of a criminal enterprise who “used power, violence and fear to get what he wanted.”The prosecutor, Christy Slavik, focused much of her closing argument on the methods Mr. Combs used to coerce two women he dated — Casandra Ventura (the singer Cassie) and a woman who testified under the pseudonym “Jane” — to have sex with hired men while he watched in drug-fueled sessions known as “freak-offs,” “hotel nights” or “wild king nights.”Here are four takeaways from the prosecution’s closing argument:The prosecution said proving that women were coerced into one ‘freak-off’ was enough for a sex trafficking conviction.A key point of contention has been whether Mr. Combs coerced the two women at the heart of the case into having sex with hired men, or if they were willing participants. In cross-examinations during the trial, the defense highlighted text messages in which the women expressed enthusiasm or excitement for the sessions.Ms. Slavik clarified for jurors that the government is not arguing that all of the sex nights with male escorts constitute sex trafficking. She said the women had initially been willing to engage to please Mr. Combs, but later became unwilling participants who complied either because they feared he would hurt them physically or cut them off financially.Christy Slavik, one of the prosecutors, delivered the government’s closing argument in Mr. Combs’s federal trial.Ted Shaffrey/Associated Press“If there is one time — one single freak-off that jurors find were the product of force, threats of force, fraud or coercion, Mr. Combs should be found guilty of sex trafficking,” Ms. Slavik said.To underscore her point, she laid out several examples for each woman.Those included a time in June 2024, Ms. Slavik said, that Jane and Mr. Combs physically fought before he directed her to have sex with an escort. Jane testified that she repeatedly said “I don’t want to,” but Mr. Combs — his face close to hers — asked “is this coercion?”Ms. Slavik also pointed to Mr. Combs’s 2016 assault on Ms. Ventura at a Los Angeles hotel that was captured on surveillance video. “He was using force to cause Cassie to continue engaging in a freak-off,” Ms. Slavik said.The prosecution laid out its theory of how Mr. Combs’s employees operated as a criminal enterprise.Much of Ms. Slavik’s summation in the morning was devoted to arguing that Mr. Combs did not merely lead a typical celebrity entourage but instead ran an enterprise responsible for years of crimes.To convict Mr. Combs on the racketeering charge, jurors need to find that he knowingly joined an unlawful conspiracy, and that Mr. Combs agreed that he or a co-conspirator would commit at least two criminal acts on that list to further the enterprise.Ms. Slavik said an loyal inner circle of Mr. Combs’s employees carried out various crimes over more than a decade, most of them aimed at facilitating the freak-offs or covering them up. Those crimes, she said, include drug distribution, kidnapping, arson, bribery, sex trafficking, interstate transportation for prostitution and even forced labor.She identified several employees as being part of the criminal enterprise, none of whom have been charged with a crime or testified. They included Kristina Khorram, Mr. Combs’s former chief of staff, often referred to as “K.K.,” and a group of security officers known as D-Roc, Faheem Muhammad, Uncle Paulie and Roger Bonds.Examples of drug distribution alone, Ms. Slavik argued, were sufficient evidence to convict Mr. Combs of the racketeering charge because she said the trial testimony had established that he directed his employees to transport drugs several times for use in the sex sessions.The evidence also showed instances of kidnapping by the group, Ms. Slavik told jurors. Ms. Ventura, for instance, was taken to a hotel to heal after a beating by Mr. Combs and spent more than a week there, watched over by members of Mr. Combs’s staff to ensure she did not leave.Ms. Slavik also said Ms. Khorram and D-Roc were involved in bribing a hotel security officer to obtain incriminating security camera footage that showed Mr. Combs assaulting Ms. Ventura.Mr. Combs tampered with two witnesses after settling a lawsuit, the prosecution said.For the first time, the jurors heard details of allegations that Mr. Combs had committed witness tampering and obstruction, one of the eight potential crimes that are part of his racketeering charge. Ms. Slavik provided two allegations connected with women who had testified under pseudonyms during the trial.The prosecutor said that after Ms. Ventura filed her bombshell lawsuit that precipitated the criminal investigation, Jane was stunned by its similarities to her experience.Shortly after Mr. Combs settled the lawsuit with Ms. Ventura, Ms. Slavik said, he called Jane twice in an effort to feed a “false narrative” that Jane was a willing participant in the sex marathons with male escorts in hotel rooms.The jury heard recordings of the calls, in which Mr. Combs described the nights as “kinky” encounters “that I thought we both enjoyed.” In the second call, he told her, “I really need your friendship right now,” and assured her that if she “needed” him too, she “ain’t got worry about nothing else.” Around that same time, he texted an employee to ensure that Jane’s rent was being paid.Ms. Slavik said Mr. Combs also tampered with “Mia,” one of his former assistants. Mia testified that after Ms. Ventura’s lawsuit, a bodyguard known as D-Roc called her and began to discuss Ms. Ventura’s relationship with Mr. Combs, saying something to the effect of “they would just like fight like a normal couple.”Mia said D-Roc “sounded nervous” and said Mr. Combs missed her. Mr. Combs tried calling her, but she did not pick up, Mia said. Later, as Mr. Combs’s legal troubles were deepening, D-Roc texted her, “let me know how I can send you something.” She declined.Mr. Combs brought a book to court.Mr. Combs entered the courtroom wearing a baby-blue sweater and a smile, waving to family and friends who filled two rows near the front of the courtroom. The beginning of closing arguments drew perhaps the largest crowd yet to the courthouse over the trial’s seven weeks, and administrators were forced to open four courtrooms to handle those interested in watching the proceedings on closed circuit television.As Ms. Slavik spoke for nearly five hours, presenting Mr. Combs as a violent, abusive man who was used to getting his way and deployed aides to help him secure it, he was an attentive defendant, shaking his head at one point, and often passing notes to his lawyers.He did not have time to focus much attention on a book he had brought into the courtroom with him: “The Happiness Advantage,” by Shawn Anchor, described as “an engaging, deeply researched guide to flourishing in a world of increasing stress and negativity.” More

  • 100 Shares18 Views

    in Movies

    ‘Sorry, Baby’ Review: Life and Nothing but, Beautifully

    In her tender, funny feature directing debut, Eva Victor tells the story of a woman, the trauma that changed her and the life she kept on living.In its intimacy and naked truth-telling, “Sorry, Baby” is the kind of independent movie that can seem like a gift. It’s an outwardly unassuming story of a woman, Agnes, grappling with the aftermath of an assault that has rearranged both her head and her world without destroying either. The movie has moments that can make you wince, but it’s often wryly and tartly funny because life is absurd and complicated, and people are, too. Something horrible happened to Agnes, and that horrible thing remains in her, body and soul. It changed how she lives, has sex and sleeps. Yet every morning it’s still Agnes who gets up; she’s still here.“Sorry, Baby” is the striking feature directorial debut of Eva Victor, who also wrote and stars as Agnes. Quick-witted and sharp-tongued, Agnes is a tenured English lit professor when the movie opens, teaching in a university in a New England town. She seems relatively happy or at least settled, though also unsettled. With her cat, she lives in a pleasantly ordinary, two-story house with white clapboards that could use a paint job. It’s cozy inside, with comfortable chairs and stacks of books. Sometimes, when the wind blows, the house’s bones creak, prompting Agnes to see what’s outside. And then she locks the door.Arranged nonchronologically in titled sections, “Sorry, Baby” opens in the present with Agnes eagerly expecting a visit from her close friend Lydie (an excellent Naomi Ackie). The two used to live together in the house when they were grad students at the same school where Agnes now teaches. Nothing particularly eventful occurs during Lydie’s visit, although everything that these two women say and do — their unforced ease, how they readily laugh together and exchange loving, knowing looks — adds detail and texture to the emerging story, as does the unexplained sight of them both tucked into Agnes’s bed when they’re sleeping.It’s easy to like Agnes and Lydie, and want to fall into their little circle and, by extension, the movie. The performances are natural and nuanced; the characters attractive, with bright smiles, sharp minds and a tender, easy way of sharing space and quiet, a feeling of comfort that comes from a deep, shared history. Victor slips exposition into the realistic dialogue, but for the most part she doesn’t overexplain. Instead, she uses everyday chatter, glances, pauses and intonations to flesh out the characters and their relationships. When at one point Lydie asks — her face now still and serious, her voice briefly coloring with discreet emotion — if Agnes ever leaves the house, this seemingly simple question takes on great weight.The heaviness of Lydie’s question, what’s behind it and why she’s posed it, emerges gradually. Not long after Lydie returns home — don’t leave, Agnes says, jokingly but not — the movie shifts back several years to when they were both in grad school. Rearranging time, deploying flashbacks and flash-forwards, can be a lazy filmmaking tic, but it’s integral here. The assault separated Agnes’s life into distinct periods: a before and an after. Real life may not be a series of tidy chapters that’s framed by a once upon a time and a happily every after, but shaping time into stories that we share, revisit, revise and keep reworking is how we make sense of life. And, as Victor gently insists throughout, this is a story about a life, not its trauma.American independent film is rife with tragedies and characters suffering nobly or messily, with cascades of tears and snot and sometimes splashes of blood. Such stories can be obviously moving and at times a relief, especially when compared with mainstream cinema’s stubborn, Hollywood-style insistence on happy, heroic and triumphant endings. Shoulders will invariably be squared, eyes thoroughly dried. Characters will move on so that the audience can make it to the exit in one reassuring piece (and come back for more entertainment). Our movies are filled with extraordinary violence that grievously victimizes characters. Yet nobody, filmmakers very much included, likes a victim. It carries a taint, like loser.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 138 Shares38 Views

    in Movies

    ‘Dune’ Director Denis Villeneuve to Take On Next James Bond Film

    Amazon MGM Studios announced earlier this year that it had gained creative control over the Bond franchise after a family had held those duties for more than 60 years.Four months after Amazon MGM Studios announced that it had gained control over the James Bond franchise, the movie studio said on Wednesday that Denis Villeneuve, the director behind the current “Dune” series, will direct the next Bond film.“Some of my earliest moviegoing memories are connected to 007,” Villeneuve said in a statement. “I grew up watching James Bond films with my father, ever since ‘Dr. No’ with Sean Connery.”Villeneuve, who also directed the action thriller “Blade Runner 2049,” admitted that the fictional superspy who has spawned 25 movies and earned billions of dollars at the box office was “sacred territory.”“I intend to honor the tradition and open the path for many new missions to come,” he said. “This is a massive responsibility, but also incredibly exciting for me and a huge honor.”The next Bond film, for which no lead actor has been announced, will be executive produced by Tanya Lapointe. Amy Pascal and David Heyman will serve as producers.The announcement may not be a total surprise. Villeneuve said in an interview with The Playlist in 2017 that he had conversations about directing a Bond film but the timing was an issue.Villeneuve, who is from Quebec, has emerged as one of Hollywood’s leading directors, particularly with the critical and commercial success of the “Dune” series. “Dune: Part One,” released in 2021, earned six Academy Awards and Villeneuve was nominated for best adapted screenplay. Last year’s “Dune: Part Two,” which returned stars Timothée Chalamet and Zendaya, won two Oscars and more than $700 million in worldwide box-office sales. The third installment in the series, also directed by Villeneuve, is set to be released in December 2026.Amazon’s director announcement marks an incremental, but crucial step to getting Bond back onscreen. “No Time to Die,” the last Bond film, was released in 2021. It marked the end of a five-film series with Daniel Craig in the lead role.In February, it was announced that the family that had cautiously steered the Bond franchise for more than 60 years had agreed to relinquish control to Amazon. And this spring, the studio announced that a new video game featuring Bond, 007 First Light, would be released next year.The deal came after a standoff between Barbara Broccoli, who inherited control of Bond from her father, and Amazon, which gained a significant ownership stake in the franchise in 2021 as part of its $8.5 billion purchase of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer. Before the deal, Broccoli and her brother, Michael G. Wilson, another Bond producer, had held a tight grip over creative control, including when new films would be made and other important casting decisions. More

  • 113 Shares36 Views

    in Music

    A prosecutor lays out the racketeering evidence against Combs.

    A federal prosecutor summed up the government’s case against the music mogul Sean Combs on Thursday, weaving strands of evidence from his seven-week trial on sex-trafficking and racketeering charges to portray him as the head of a criminal enterprise who “used power, violence and fear to get what he wanted.”The prosecutor, Christy Slavik, focused much of her closing argument on the methods Mr. Combs used to coerce two women he dated — Casandra Ventura (the singer Cassie) and a woman who testified under the pseudonym “Jane” — to have sex with hired men while he watched in drug-fueled sessions known as “freak-offs,” “hotel nights” or “wild king nights.”Here are four takeaways from the prosecution’s closing argument:The prosecution said proving that women were coerced into one ‘freak-off’ was enough for a sex trafficking conviction.A key point of contention has been whether Mr. Combs coerced the two women at the heart of the case into having sex with hired men, or if they were willing participants. In cross-examinations during the trial, the defense highlighted text messages in which the women expressed enthusiasm or excitement for the sessions.Ms. Slavik clarified for jurors that the government is not arguing that all of the sex nights with male escorts constitute sex trafficking. She said the women had initially been willing to engage to please Mr. Combs, but later became unwilling participants who complied either because they feared he would hurt them physically or cut them off financially.Christy Slavik, one of the prosecutors, delivered the government’s closing argument in Mr. Combs’s federal trial.Ted Shaffrey/Associated Press“If there is one time — one single freak-off that jurors find were the product of force, threats of force, fraud or coercion, Mr. Combs should be found guilty of sex trafficking,” Ms. Slavik said.To underscore her point, she laid out several examples for each woman.Those included a time in June 2024, Ms. Slavik said, that Jane and Mr. Combs physically fought before he directed her to have sex with an escort. Jane testified that she repeatedly said “I don’t want to,” but Mr. Combs — his face close to hers — asked “is this coercion?”Ms. Slavik also pointed to Mr. Combs’s 2016 assault on Ms. Ventura at a Los Angeles hotel that was captured on surveillance video. “He was using force to cause Cassie to continue engaging in a freak-off,” Ms. Slavik said.The prosecution laid out its theory of how Mr. Combs’s employees operated as a criminal enterprise.Much of Ms. Slavik’s summation in the morning was devoted to arguing that Mr. Combs did not merely lead a typical celebrity entourage but instead ran an enterprise responsible for years of crimes.To convict Mr. Combs on the racketeering charge, jurors need to find that he knowingly joined an unlawful conspiracy, and that Mr. Combs agreed that he or a co-conspirator would commit at least two criminal acts on that list to further the enterprise.Ms. Slavik said an loyal inner circle of Mr. Combs’s employees carried out various crimes over more than a decade, most of them aimed at facilitating the freak-offs or covering them up. Those crimes, she said, include drug distribution, kidnapping, arson, bribery, sex trafficking, interstate transportation for prostitution and even forced labor.She identified several employees as being part of the criminal enterprise, none of whom have been charged with a crime or testified. They included Kristina Khorram, Mr. Combs’s former chief of staff, often referred to as “K.K.,” and a group of security officers known as D-Roc, Faheem Muhammad, Uncle Paulie and Roger Bonds.Examples of drug distribution alone, Ms. Slavik argued, were sufficient evidence to convict Mr. Combs of the racketeering charge because she said the trial testimony had established that he directed his employees to transport drugs several times for use in the sex sessions.The evidence also showed instances of kidnapping by the group, Ms. Slavik told jurors. Ms. Ventura, for instance, was taken to a hotel to heal after a beating by Mr. Combs and spent more than a week there, watched over by members of Mr. Combs’s staff to ensure she did not leave.Ms. Slavik also said Ms. Khorram and D-Roc were involved in bribing a hotel security officer to obtain incriminating security camera footage that showed Mr. Combs assaulting Ms. Ventura.Mr. Combs tampered with two witnesses after settling a lawsuit, the prosecution said.For the first time, the jurors heard details of allegations that Mr. Combs had committed witness tampering and obstruction, one of the eight potential crimes that are part of his racketeering charge. Ms. Slavik provided two allegations connected with women who had testified under pseudonyms during the trial.The prosecutor said that after Ms. Ventura filed her bombshell lawsuit that precipitated the criminal investigation, Jane was stunned by its similarities to her experience.Shortly after Mr. Combs settled the lawsuit with Ms. Ventura, Ms. Slavik said, he called Jane twice in an effort to feed a “false narrative” that Jane was a willing participant in the sex marathons with male escorts in hotel rooms.The jury heard recordings of the calls, in which Mr. Combs described the nights as “kinky” encounters “that I thought we both enjoyed.” In the second call, he told her, “I really need your friendship right now,” and assured her that if she “needed” him too, she “ain’t got worry about nothing else.” Around that same time, he texted an employee to ensure that Jane’s rent was being paid.Ms. Slavik said Mr. Combs also tampered with “Mia,” one of his former assistants. Mia testified that after Ms. Ventura’s lawsuit, a bodyguard known as D-Roc called her and began to discuss Ms. Ventura’s relationship with Mr. Combs, saying something to the effect of “they would just like fight like a normal couple.”Mia said D-Roc “sounded nervous” and said Mr. Combs missed her. Mr. Combs tried calling her, but she did not pick up, Mia said. Later, as Mr. Combs’s legal troubles were deepening, D-Roc texted her, “let me know how I can send you something.” She declined.Mr. Combs brought a book to court.Mr. Combs entered the courtroom wearing a baby-blue sweater and a smile, waving to family and friends who filled two rows near the front of the courtroom. The beginning of closing arguments drew perhaps the largest crowd yet to the courthouse over the trial’s seven weeks, and administrators were forced to open four courtrooms to handle those interested in watching the proceedings on closed circuit television.As Ms. Slavik spoke for nearly five hours, presenting Mr. Combs as a violent, abusive man who was used to getting his way and deployed aides to help him secure it, he was an attentive defendant, shaking his head at one point, and often passing notes to his lawyers.He did not have time to focus much attention on a book he had brought into the courtroom with him: “The Happiness Advantage,” by Shawn Anchor, described as “an engaging, deeply researched guide to flourishing in a world of increasing stress and negativity.” More

  • 150 Shares32 Views

    in Music

    Combs’s criminal conspiracy included Kristina Khorram, his top aide, the prosecution says.

    A federal prosecutor summed up the government’s case against the music mogul Sean Combs on Thursday, weaving strands of evidence from his seven-week trial on sex-trafficking and racketeering charges to portray him as the head of a criminal enterprise who “used power, violence and fear to get what he wanted.”The prosecutor, Christy Slavik, focused much of her closing argument on the methods Mr. Combs used to coerce two women he dated — Casandra Ventura (the singer Cassie) and a woman who testified under the pseudonym “Jane” — to have sex with hired men while he watched in drug-fueled sessions known as “freak-offs,” “hotel nights” or “wild king nights.”Here are four takeaways from the prosecution’s closing argument:The prosecution said proving that women were coerced into one ‘freak-off’ was enough for a sex trafficking conviction.A key point of contention has been whether Mr. Combs coerced the two women at the heart of the case into having sex with hired men, or if they were willing participants. In cross-examinations during the trial, the defense highlighted text messages in which the women expressed enthusiasm or excitement for the sessions.Ms. Slavik clarified for jurors that the government is not arguing that all of the sex nights with male escorts constitute sex trafficking. She said the women had initially been willing to engage to please Mr. Combs, but later became unwilling participants who complied either because they feared he would hurt them physically or cut them off financially.Christy Slavik, one of the prosecutors, delivered the government’s closing argument in Mr. Combs’s federal trial.Ted Shaffrey/Associated Press“If there is one time — one single freak-off that jurors find were the product of force, threats of force, fraud or coercion, Mr. Combs should be found guilty of sex trafficking,” Ms. Slavik said.To underscore her point, she laid out several examples for each woman.Those included a time in June 2024, Ms. Slavik said, that Jane and Mr. Combs physically fought before he directed her to have sex with an escort. Jane testified that she repeatedly said “I don’t want to,” but Mr. Combs — his face close to hers — asked “is this coercion?”Ms. Slavik also pointed to Mr. Combs’s 2016 assault on Ms. Ventura at a Los Angeles hotel that was captured on surveillance video. “He was using force to cause Cassie to continue engaging in a freak-off,” Ms. Slavik said.The prosecution laid out its theory of how Mr. Combs’s employees operated as a criminal enterprise.Much of Ms. Slavik’s summation in the morning was devoted to arguing that Mr. Combs did not merely lead a typical celebrity entourage but instead ran an enterprise responsible for years of crimes.To convict Mr. Combs on the racketeering charge, jurors need to find that he knowingly joined an unlawful conspiracy, and that Mr. Combs agreed that he or a co-conspirator would commit at least two criminal acts on that list to further the enterprise.Ms. Slavik said an loyal inner circle of Mr. Combs’s employees carried out various crimes over more than a decade, most of them aimed at facilitating the freak-offs or covering them up. Those crimes, she said, include drug distribution, kidnapping, arson, bribery, sex trafficking, interstate transportation for prostitution and even forced labor.She identified several employees as being part of the criminal enterprise, none of whom have been charged with a crime or testified. They included Kristina Khorram, Mr. Combs’s former chief of staff, often referred to as “K.K.,” and a group of security officers known as D-Roc, Faheem Muhammad, Uncle Paulie and Roger Bonds.Examples of drug distribution alone, Ms. Slavik argued, were sufficient evidence to convict Mr. Combs of the racketeering charge because she said the trial testimony had established that he directed his employees to transport drugs several times for use in the sex sessions.The evidence also showed instances of kidnapping by the group, Ms. Slavik told jurors. Ms. Ventura, for instance, was taken to a hotel to heal after a beating by Mr. Combs and spent more than a week there, watched over by members of Mr. Combs’s staff to ensure she did not leave.Ms. Slavik also said Ms. Khorram and D-Roc were involved in bribing a hotel security officer to obtain incriminating security camera footage that showed Mr. Combs assaulting Ms. Ventura.Mr. Combs tampered with two witnesses after settling a lawsuit, the prosecution said.For the first time, the jurors heard details of allegations that Mr. Combs had committed witness tampering and obstruction, one of the eight potential crimes that are part of his racketeering charge. Ms. Slavik provided two allegations connected with women who had testified under pseudonyms during the trial.The prosecutor said that after Ms. Ventura filed her bombshell lawsuit that precipitated the criminal investigation, Jane was stunned by its similarities to her experience.Shortly after Mr. Combs settled the lawsuit with Ms. Ventura, Ms. Slavik said, he called Jane twice in an effort to feed a “false narrative” that Jane was a willing participant in the sex marathons with male escorts in hotel rooms.The jury heard recordings of the calls, in which Mr. Combs described the nights as “kinky” encounters “that I thought we both enjoyed.” In the second call, he told her, “I really need your friendship right now,” and assured her that if she “needed” him too, she “ain’t got worry about nothing else.” Around that same time, he texted an employee to ensure that Jane’s rent was being paid.Ms. Slavik said Mr. Combs also tampered with “Mia,” one of his former assistants. Mia testified that after Ms. Ventura’s lawsuit, a bodyguard known as D-Roc called her and began to discuss Ms. Ventura’s relationship with Mr. Combs, saying something to the effect of “they would just like fight like a normal couple.”Mia said D-Roc “sounded nervous” and said Mr. Combs missed her. Mr. Combs tried calling her, but she did not pick up, Mia said. Later, as Mr. Combs’s legal troubles were deepening, D-Roc texted her, “let me know how I can send you something.” She declined.Mr. Combs brought a book to court.Mr. Combs entered the courtroom wearing a baby-blue sweater and a smile, waving to family and friends who filled two rows near the front of the courtroom. The beginning of closing arguments drew perhaps the largest crowd yet to the courthouse over the trial’s seven weeks, and administrators were forced to open four courtrooms to handle those interested in watching the proceedings on closed circuit television.As Ms. Slavik spoke for nearly five hours, presenting Mr. Combs as a violent, abusive man who was used to getting his way and deployed aides to help him secure it, he was an attentive defendant, shaking his head at one point, and often passing notes to his lawyers.He did not have time to focus much attention on a book he had brought into the courtroom with him: “The Happiness Advantage,” by Shawn Anchor, described as “an engaging, deeply researched guide to flourishing in a world of increasing stress and negativity.” More

  • 125 Shares30 Views

    in Music

    How Prosecutors Have Charged Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs With Racketeering Conspiracy

    Prosecutors aim to show jurors that Sean Combs ran a criminal enterprise responsible for years of sex-trafficking, drug distribution and other crimes.Among the five charges Sean Combs is facing at trial is one count of racketeering conspiracy, based on a federal law that was originally written to combat organized crime but is now used by prosecutors much more widely.To convict Mr. Combs on that charge, prosecutors must prove that he did not merely lead a typical celebrity entourage, but instead ran a criminal enterprise responsible for years of sex-trafficking, drug distribution and other crimes.The federal law — the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO — was once seldom used, but has been central to recent cases against R. Kelly, Young Thug, Wall Street executives, street gang members and President Trump.The charge allows prosecutors to present a sweeping narrative that includes accusations about a defendant’s misdeeds that could stretch back decades, sometimes long past the statute of limitations.In the wake of the #MeToo movement, the racketeering statute increasingly has been used by federal attorneys to prosecute a series of high-profile men accused of sexual abuse.To convict a defendant of a racketeering charge, jurors need to find that they knowingly joined an unlawful conspiracy and agreed that they or a co-conspirator would commit at least two criminal acts to further the enterprise.In Mr. Combs’s case, those crimes include allegations that in 2011 he kidnapped an employee to help confront a rival and then his alleged co-conspirators set the rival’s car on fire weeks later with a Molotov cocktail, as well as accusations that he dangled a woman off a balcony after she witnessed his abuse.The racketeering charge is sometimes used against a pool of defendants — as in the case against Mr. Trump that accused him and his allies of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia — but can also be used against individuals who prosecutors deem leaders of an operation, as in the R. Kelly prosecution.Mr. Combs was the only person known to have been charged with racketeering in his case, but the prosecution listed several others it said were part of a conspiracy, including his former chief of staff Kristina Khorram, his bodyguards and other lower-level staff described as “foot soldiers.”Mr. Combs has pleaded not guilty to all the charges against him. The defense has denied the existence of any criminal conspiracy and argues that he is not responsible for what the government has outlined as crimes. More