The Diddler

mrk said:
Or, as the rumours seem to consistently point to, he was indeed abused and which is why many of these celebs are deleting their online footprints left and right as of late since diddy's arrest.
Click to expand...
Well that was just covered in my reply. Apart from I'm not reaching for conclusions on who's been abused or not, thats not really the sort of conversation to be having.

Any legal youtube malarkey is as grand as any gaming youtuber breaking down the trailer of a video game. No one knows whats actually happened, will happen, context etc etc etc, until it gets to court.
 
sidimmu said:
Any legal youtube malarkey is as grand as any gaming youtuber breaking down the trailer of a video game.
Click to expand...
Except it isn't, because a game trailer only shows a cherry picked range of stuff from the game, which usually is enhanced for the trailer anyway and not reflective of the released game as shown time and time again, whereas submitted court documents are pretty black and white and can only be read in a certain way. Watch the Legal Eagle video.

We now know the nature of the court filing and the raids, we know the 3 charges brought on and the maximum prison terms they have against them if convicted. The only thing we don't know is the extent of the evidence collected and the witnesses who will be testifying, that comes during the publicised trial.
 
mrk said:
Watch the Legal Eagle video.
Click to expand...
I'm okay.

mrk said:
Except it isn't
Click to expand...
But it is.
Selected and restricted information that allows for the public/buyer to make up their own mind on a tiny amount of factual evidence/gameplay without full context of the finished product/outcome of trial.

Not saying Diddy is innocent here, but on the basis of what you have said, they are guilty as of charges and court appointment, not post court proceedings.
You've seen said court orders, watched a youtube video on it and pretty much mark him as guilty right?
 
Why would I need to quote your post to reply to when my reply is directly below it? Any more bright insights? :p

And fyi the video is by an actual trial lawyer so has more merit than yours or anyone else's opinion on the court documents.
 
mrk said:
Why would I need to quote your post to reply to when my reply is directly below it? Any more bright insights? :p

And fyi the video is by an actual trial lawyer so has more merit than yours or anyone else's opinion on the court documents.
Click to expand...

Not all of us sit here reading the forums all day, if I wasn't on lunch I would not of seen your reply until much later in the convo.

A trial lawyer that's not involved in the case, yeah I'll pass, it's all speculation.
 
Last edited:
You still get a notification of a reply, again, why does it require a quoted post when the reply is directly below your post and you still get a notification of thread replies which you'd see the next time you log back in.

Doesn't need to be involved in the case, you've said you haven't even seen it so have no idea what you are actually talking about in this context because you've already formed an incorrect opinion based on a presumption.
 
mrk said:
You still get a notification of a reply, again, why does it require a quoted post when the reply is directly below your post and you still get a notification of thread replies which you'd see the next time you log back in
Click to expand...
Only if you turn them on. I don't have them enabled.

mrk said:
Doesn't need to be involved in the case, you've said you haven't even seen it so have no idea what you are actually talking about in this context because you've already formed an incorrect opinion based on a presumption.
Click to expand...

Oooo in your view, what opinion have I formed?

I don't see a problem with wanting to ignore YouTube videos trying to capitalise on an impending case involving celebrities, not to mention the hundreds of videos there will be during the case.
 
mrk said:
You still get a notification of a reply, again, why does it require a quoted post when the reply is directly below your post and you still get a notification of thread replies which you'd see the next time you log back in.
Click to expand...
I didn’t even know that was thing on these forums.
 
Resident said:
I saw a post earlier today on the subject, chastising all those that are coming forward now

"If you saw something, if you knew something and said nothing, did nothing then you are not an witness, you are an accomplice"
Click to expand...

I think it's nuanced. There will be people who were manipulated and abused but also somewhat cooperative because they wanted the Diddy lifestyle. And there will be people who happily took the payday to be involved in this too while claiming they were 'abused'.
 
ANDREW GREEN said:
I think it's nuanced. There will be people who were manipulated and abused but also somewhat cooperative because they wanted the Diddy lifestyle. And there will be people who happily took the payday to be involved in this too while claiming they were 'abused'.
Click to expand...

I suspect that this is probably the categories of those involve that the statement was aimed at

There's also a possible 4th, people who weren't involved, knew nothing but are now claiming they were one of the abused to gain some limelight.
 
Resident said:
I suspect that this is probably the categories of those involve that the statement was aimed at

There's also a possible 4th, people who weren't involved, knew nothing but are now claiming they were one of the abused to gain some limelight.
Click to expand...

And all of that becomes the case for the defence. The sense of agency, of the people involved and consenting individuals. Having said that, a few criminal defence lawyers who've looked at the case have said that this 100% isn't going to work for him. So he's almost certainly going down. The Federal cases success rate is ridiculously high.

I think what Diddy did to his music artists was generally ethically worse, but not illegal. He essentially got them to sign all their music rights worth millions over for a pittance.
 
ANDREW GREEN said:
And all of that becomes the case for the defence. The sense of agency, of the people involved and consenting individuals. Having said that, a few criminal defence lawyers who've looked at the case have said that this 100% isn't going to work for him. So he's almost certainly going down. The Federal cases success rate is ridiculously high.

I think what Diddy did to his music artists was generally ethically worse, but not illegal. He essentially got them to sign all their music rights worth millions over for a pittance.
Click to expand...

It's over 90% success rate for sure. I can only find info for 2022 that's accurate

P4es6aD.png



As for the rights, unfortunately it's typical of the music industry
 
mrk said:
Or, as the rumours seem to consistently point to, he was indeed abused and which is why many of these celebs are deleting their online footprints left and right as of late since diddy's arrest.

I would suggest people actually read or watch the legal youtuber videos where they break down the court documents which outline exactly why he's been taken to trial as the documents highlight the body of evidence they have collected for years and at this stage point to a method of connecting many dots that were flying rumours for years.

Legal Eagle's video is the most concise:

Click to expand...

I'll watch this later, this is also good and another criminal lawyer saying he's 100% going down

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom