Sean “Diddy” Combs was accused in a lawsuit on Wednesday of gang-raping a 17-year-old girl in 2003, marking the fourth sexual assault allegation lodged against the producer in recent weeks.
The plaintiff, identified as Jane Doe, alleges that she was flown on a private jet from Michigan to Combs’ recording studio in New York, where she was raped by three people, including Combs and Harve Pierre, the president of Bad Boy Entertainment.
According to the suit, Combs and his associates plied her with “copious amounts” of drugs and alcohol. The suit alleges that Combs raped her over a bathroom sink while she went in and out of consciousness, and that Combs then watched as a third man also raped her.
It’s wild that you can bring these lawsuits 20 years later. How is he supposed to defend himself when the Jane Doe only needs a preponderance of evidence? How can he produce an alibi after so long? Is there corroboration? I don’t know how I feel about these super-old lawsuits.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/preponderance of the evidence
Removed by mod
Makeing the accusations public can help gather converting evidence. People will know if they have some information in support or defence of the allegations that they can come forward.
It also makes it easier for others that have been a victim of a similar crime by the accused and his associates. It’s likely if this crime happened, it happened more than once and to many victims.
Correct. That’s why there’s a process called “discovery”. The plaintiff brings their evidence to the table. The judge spends time deciding if the evidence is sufficient enough to go to court.
You’re right, but at the same time publicity can make other victims come forward.
If there’s something that needs to change, it’s the media’s fervent need to tell us what they did and paint people as monsters, but at the same time not really caring when they’re found innocent. There isn’t really a way back to that initial state for anyone involved.
Removed by mod