I'm Laura Coates, and this is Trial by Jury. It is week seven of the federal criminal trial of Sean Diddy Combs. And yes, the end is in sight. The prosecution actually plans to rest their case tomorrow. And then the defense is going to be able to start and then end their case, we're told, tomorrow as well. That means we're likely going to hear closing arguments later this week. And they might really be on track for a verdict by the 4th of July? Could that be true? Well listen, if Sean Combs is convicted of the charges he's facing, remember there are five felony counts from racketeering or RICO conspiracy to sex trafficking to prostitution related charges, he could face up to life in prison. And in a matter of days. After all we've heard, all the testimony, for weeks on end, that decision of whether to find him guilty or not guilty is going to be in the jury's hands soon. Elizabeth Wagmeister was our eyes and ears in that courtroom today. And she told me that she's got some pretty exclusive reporting to share with us, some tea piping hot coming in, Elizabeth, what'd you learn?

All right, Laura, you missed a very hot day. It was 100 degrees here in Manhattan, but I also have to tell you, I have a hot scoop for you, no pun intended. But brand new reporting, I hear from a source I have confirmed, Sean Combs will not be testifying in his own trial. Now, of course, you, as a former prosecutor have been telling me all along, there is just too much risk involved for him to testify. You were saying, I just can't imagine him testifying, and you were right, per usual. So, even though he's not testifying, this wasn't a given like some people may assume. I do hear from my source that this is a recent decision that Combs and his team, his defense, had been weighing throughout the trial, whether it makes sense for him to testify. But I spoke to our good friend, Joey Jackson today, of course, defense attorney and one of our legal analysts, and he said to me, it makes sense. He said prosecutors could be, quote, brutal and highly unfavorable. He also said that Combs could be confronted by his alleged, quote, troubling, problematic and lawless behavior. And I thought this was interesting. He said that every single move of Combs would be analyzed closely by the jury, whether that's his body language, whether that the way that he speaks. He said, quote the case becomes about believability and relatability of Diddy and his narrative, not about whether prosecutors have met their burden in proving the case. I thought that was so interesting to hear from Joey, because obviously the prosecutors do have the burden of proof to show, but he's saying as a defense attorney, he doesn't think that's the case, he thinks it is how the jury relates to or likes or doesn't like Sean Combs. So he just said that there's not enough upside for Combs to testify that would help explain why he's not. Now, this decision ultimately comes from Combs's team as the trial is really nearing the end. Laura, we have been covering this. We have been in the trenches together for seven weeks now. And we are really seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. And we know the judge has been saying from day one that he wants this trial to wrap up by July 4th. He wants the jury to be able to go and enjoy the holiday and not come back. So we will not know when the verdict will come until the jury tells us. But it is looking like this thing is wrapping up, Laura. So this week and next week are going to be crucial. There's going to huge news coming out of these next two weeks.

'Well, now we know the answer to that million-dollar question, whether Sean Diddy Combs will testify. The answer is no. The baggage that would be present, you know, God, it's hard to try to put that away or for the jury to see anything besides, do I like him? Do I believe him? As opposed to the prosecution having the burden. Really, really unbelievable to think about where we are right now. Elizabeth Wagmeister, thank you as always.

'Hey listen, I have been dying to get the insight from someone who has also been in the trenches with us. I'm talking about the BBC journalist Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty. And she's been unbelievably vigilant in this courtroom. She has her own podcast as well, called Diddy on Trial, for BBC. And she has been right there following every detail. And with closing arguments coming up soon, I had to get her on and get her take — how she views not only the testimony that we heard, but also, like, what has this experience been like inside this courtroom for, as Elizabeth said, seven weeks? Anoushka, welcome. How you doing, friend?

I'm good, thanks for having me.

This has been quite a wild, wild ride. Just knowing where the prosecution started and where we are right now, I wonder if your gut reaction can tell me, have they completed this jigsaw puzzle?

I think one of the biggest missing pieces and we all have a question mark over this is you remember victim three?

When we spoke at the beginning and we were saying where on earth is victim three because she is referenced in the superseding indictment and we were told by the prosecution that they were going to continue to prosecute the crimes they allege are related to victim three? That hasn't happened. Another question is, where is victim five? Another question, is where is Kristina Khorram? So there are a lot of blank spaces within what the prosecution have presented. And some legal analysts have said that it feels like they've had to do a lot of rejigging as the case has gone on. They perhaps aren't living up to what they promised at the beginning of putting their case forward. But I do feel like what you have with federal cases is they need to hit the elements of each crime. And sometimes that can be a little tedious when they're walking people through it step by step. But if you listen to what they've said and then you listen to their what is going to be a four hour long closing argument, you are gonna hear them say, do you remember when we said this? Well, that speaks to this element of this crime. It's almost a box ticking exercise. And I think they did that really well with Cassie in relation to the sex trafficking. I think that they did really well with forced labor as well, specifically in relation Mia, um, who's using a pseudonym to testify. I'm not sure how it will work with RICO, because he's still the only one there, and I feel like for a lot of the jurors it's going to be like, we keep hearing about Kristina Khorram, his chief of staff, you are the federal government, you're the big dogs of the United States of America, why is she not on the stand?

'They've even, at one point, referenced her, although she has denied any criminal wrongdoing. We do not know that she has, and in fact, we are told she's not been federally charged with the crime. And yet, they referred to her at one time, in front of the jury, I believe, as a co-conspirator. And remember, this is a RICO by conspiracy case, in part, which, if you add up all these charges in New York, could lead to a life in prison. So I think the spidey senses of any juror are going to be up, wondering about the holes you've identified. Let's break down a couple of them. For one, the idea that the government has a named victim, that they did not have appearfor trial, that's going to be very, very difficult for the prosecution to try to explain away and a moment for the defense to seize on it and say, hold on, you're saying that they could not get this person here? Why aren't they here? And they'll leave that sort of innuendo, right, of would they have given favorable testimony in favor of Sean Diddy Combs or otherwise? That could be a really big moment. But I want to go on Kristina Khorram, because we haven't heard from her. We haven't heard from other real inner-circle people besides Capricorn Clark for weeks now. How will that play with the jury, you think?

Well I think if the prosecution do their job in closing arguments they can remind the jury of some of the real moments that we had from some of his staff members. I mean, the most recent one we've heard from is Brendan Paul and he was on there for what, an hour? I hate to say it but members of the public in our overflow room they were like is that it? I would like people to cast their minds back to, if I were on the prosecution, people like George Kaplan, a former assistant of Diddy, who referred to him as a god amongst men. And for me, that was one of the biggest takeaways from this. We had such impactful testimony from alleged victims. But that small comment that he made...

Because this is speaking to an environment where somebody has been almost deified. And I can start to understand, if I was a member of the jury, how somebody could be allowed to commit crimes in front of others and be enabled to do so if you have a power structure where the person placed on top is untouchable, you can't criticize them, and you are almost a follower of them. And it speaks also to some of the testimony we've heard of Vashta, who was his head of HR, in an onboarding meeting, pointing to a picture of Diddy on the wall and saying, you know, he's the king and we serve him. This is his empire. Using that kind of terminology and that kind of language, I feel like if they can remind the jury of that in closing arguments, we can start to see a clear picture of how the prosecution's narrative could play out, that this wasn't just a criminal enterprise. This was an enterprise that placed Diddy above all, and his wants and needs were almost like the word of the law. So some of that stuff was the most impactful to me, which I didn't imagine myself finding that to be the most impact testimony. But I think when somebody doesn't say it as satire, doesn't it as a joke and doesn't react to themselves referring to another person as a god in any way other than, well, this is the truth. He is a god amongst men. Even after all of this, even after seeing the CNN video, even after being called into a federal court and this man being accused of all his crimes, he's still got up on that stand and said that. And I feel like if you can remind the jury of this, this is what the prosecution alleged how this enterprise was operating. Then they've done a good job. They've gone some way in showing how somebody could be enabled to allegedly commit these crimes.

I think it's so insightful to look at George Kaplan as but an example of somebody who could have witnessed violence, because recall, he left because he said he couldn't tolerate what he was seeing in terms of violence on an airplane, or afterwards as well. And to see that somebody like him would still glorify Diddy, even years later, I think inviting him to his wedding at one point in time, it does paint an interesting split screen for those who were romantically involved with him. Cassie, of course, an employee, so would have been akin to George Kaplan in the idea of knowing what enablers look like and what could be the consequence of going against who they call the king. I wonder if it translates, though, for somebody like Jane, a pseudonymed victim who testified for days on end. Do you have the same thought about that power structure, seeing how the prosecution and looks at this?

So I think for the prosecution, the first thing that they would point out in the same way as did he pay George Kaplan's wages as the same way of him having control over Cassie's career, he had financial control over Jane's housing situation. And the money, you know, she was on a monthly allowance and he'd pay for furniture and he take her places and he buy her things.

He still pays for things.

'Yes, he does. And wasn't that quite the bomb in court? Completely unexpected when that was said, but we got in the same sort of takeaway from Jane that we got from Cassie, which is that this man has financial control over her. And she is alleging, because of what the freak-offs took, physically took out of her. She lost work opportunities. So I think the prosecution would be quick to remind people of that, that element of financial control, and in essence control of her career because of what he was, they will say, coercing her to participate in that literally meant she had to be on an IV drip, or she'd be up for 36 hours straight.

'One thing I am constantly wondering about, if I were a juror, have I seen too much or too little of the violence? Have I seen to much or to little of the sexual deviance, for lack of a better phrase? I wonder if the prosecution was intending to make everyone by the end clutch their pearls, and just look at you and I, the fluency in which we speak about freak-offs now. A month and a half ago would have made the average person blush. Now the words baby oil and freak-offs and king nights, they come out in polite conversation. And I wonder if that will have an effect on the jurors to almost desensitize and normalize it in a way the prosecution didn't think.

Well, exactly, and you know, for a lot of legal analysts who looked at the case, they were saying it's not a coincidence that Frank Piazza and these video analysts are going through that CNN footage over and over again, and it is beneficial to the defense because once you see something a hundred times, you are never going to be as shocked as you were the first time you saw it. And sometimes that does have the effect of desensitizing you to what is an act of violence. I think when we speak about Jane and we talk about a through line thematically of violence, jane instigated the first act of violence with Diddy.

Slamming his head on the countertop, I believe.

Throwing those candles at him, throwing glass at him. Now, she pointed out that that didn't hit him. She said he got wax on his clothes. But completely differently to Cassie, where she said, he got violent with me rather early on. And then we see an incidence of violence. We've seen it so many times now. It's not the same for Jane. So it will be, I think, whether the jury can demarcate those two women in their minds and go, well we might feel one way about Cassie and we might feel another way about Jane. And I think we're hearing that that might be the way that this plays out because I don't think you can say that both their experiences entirely mimic each other from what Jane told the court when she was on the stand.

'And, of course, there's the timing. The chronology of what has transpired really matters, because Jane was aware of the Cassie Ventura video at one point. She was aware of settlements at one time. She had text messages that reflected on how she believed that she saw herself in the experience that Cassie talked about in that civil lawsuit. And these civil lawsuits, more broadly, they have become a kind of star witness for the defense. At least they hope they have, because "money grab" was the phrase that the defense wanted to linger in the air for these jurors from the get-go. They talked about owning the violence, but they wanted people to suggest that everyone wanted something from Diddy, and they would get something from him, almost as if regret was what was driving the different witnesses, as opposed to non-consent. And I wonder about the money grab. The obvious public nature of some of these civil lawsuits. How do you think the jury is even reflecting on that? Because we are in a post-MeToo world, or at least maybe after it became a phrase; I don't think it would really be post-MeToo. But how do you see those money grab comments playing?

'Yeah, so we had this introduced from day one. Cassie was in a tricky financial situation when she filed that lawsuit. She'd moved back in with her parents and she said, I wasn't because of money, that was just something that we would did at the time. I think you can parry that very easily with saying, sir, you settled after a day of that lawsuit being filed, a day, for what we learn now was $20 million. And I think if you say, well, this was a cash grab from Cassie, why'd you settle after a day? Reputational damage? Well, she sent it to you beforehand. You didn't read her book. You had the chance to have a mediation and speak to her beforehand and you didn't do that. So I think you can parry that argument there. I think it's tricky for jurors who have been aware of just the sheer volume of civil lawsuits that have been filed. And some of them, let me tell you, some of them are not proper lawsuits. And I'm being very tame when I say that here. Some of these 87-page-long... the chronology doesn't make sense. It's just factually inaccurate. It's impossible they're saying people are there who are not there. I think if you're in the world, you knew about this going on beforehand, you may have entered into the trial as a juror with the perception that, well, okay, some stuff might have happened, but this man is also being unfairly targeted by people who are trying to cash grab. And that is where we have another central tension of this trial. Is Diddy able to receive a fair trial because of the amount of media frenzy that there was beforehand with the filing of these civil lawsuits? So I think in reference to Cassie, you can sort of parry the claim that this was a cash grab.

'What a fascinating perception and the way that you have strung that together, because I think it makes me question in my mind not only what is there, but what is not there. And that's one of the big things. I know when I used to try cases, we were always going against what I call the law and order effect, which was everyone was looking for the television show where you'd find a suspect, a trial, you'd have the verdict, you have everything sewn up in 47 minutes, and you had time for a snack break. And I wonder about that from the perspective of — people know Diddy from white parties. We haven't heard much about those. They know them from the civil lawsuits and about forced drugs being alleged to have used to force somebody to continue engaging in sexual behavior. A lot of that wasn't part of this trial. And people might wonder what's not there, which is why the jury instructions are gonna be so important. And the prosecution has got to make sure that they have made their case beyond a reasonable doubt and the defense will have to attack that. I want to get that back, though, because I wonder, how has this trial and this experience, being there day after day, seeing not only the testimony, the witnesses, the defendant, the rows of counsel, but also the general public who is also watching, who's coming in giving a very real-time court of public opinion verdict — how has it felt to you to be covering this? Because there's just some very tough graphics, violent allegations that is not for the squeamish.

Yeah, well, this is the first trial I've ever covered. This is the big thing I've every done for the BBC.

This was, yeah, baptism by fire.

Like, I'm 24. For me, personally, you know, I knew of Cassie. I kind of just missed the 2000s R&B girl, Ciara, Cassie era. I know of it now almost as like a, I don't want to say a vintage asthetic, because I feel like that's very offensive.

Let's call it a cautionary tale, shall we? Because I'm older than you. Go ahead.

'But like, it's like a throwback. But unfortunately, much of my perception of her in particular, and she's the star witness, which is why I'm focusing on her, was as Diddy's girlfriend. And that was her identity. And so when Cassie got up on the stand, 75 months pregnant, she got up the stand as a mother-to-be of three children, as a wife, as an artist, as a friend. As somebody who's made mistakes, she's said that she's done things that she is not proud of. And aside from everything else that she was talking about, and unfortunately, the tricky thing with this trial is it has salacious stuff baked in. Aside from all of that, watching somebody kind of bravely reclaim their identity and tell their story and the story of a rather naive 19-year-old girl and what she alleges happened to her was really impactful. And then interrogating my own perception of Cassie and going, Well, damn, like, you were just Diddy's missus. I mean, they weren't married, forgive the British expression, but you were his girl. That's what I knew you as. And so I had reduced your identity. And a lot of the other young journalists, and just all of us in general, were like, well, yeah, after a while, she just became almost an extension of him. So that was one of the most impactful moments was watching somebody tell their own story, but also just claw back their identity. And I hope that whatever way the verdict goes, we can see that that was an extremely brave thing to do.

I love hearing your perception and hearing about how you viewed it, because I think it's so powerful. So many of us, I certainly was a young woman during that era of her heyday in particular, and that's how many people looked at the arm candy of who we called rap icons. And we belittled, we dismissed, we judged, and we assumed. And if all that translates to how a jury perceives the actual content of the evidence. I'm very curious to see how they resolve this issue. But I think you're so right, and the reason I was so focused on this case, and I know you are as well, this trial certainly has a defendant named Diddy. But really, there's a lot more at stake in the judgment and the mirror we hold up in this world. And that's why I think it's been so compelling to have people there day in and day out. We'll see what the jurors say. Anoushka, thanks.

Thank you.

This episode was produced by Emily Williams, Graelyn Brashear, Alexandra Saddler, and Rachid Haoues. Our technical director is Dan Dzula, and the executive producer of CNN Audio is Steve Lickteig, with support from Andrea Lewis, Mike Figliola, Hank Butler, Robert Mathers, Alex Manassari, and Lisa Namerow. I'm Laura Coates, and I'm here for it.