The lawsuit claimed that an unnamed girl was drugged and raped by both Jay-Z and Combs at a party after the MTV music awards in 2000.
Always believe the woman, of course.
The suit alleged that Jay-Z and Sean “Diddy” Combs raped a a 13-year-old girl at a party in 2000. Combs and Jay-Z denied all allegations after the lawsuit was filed in late 2024, and the case was voluntarily dismissed in February 2025.
Filed, erm, 24 years later? When there’s no possibility at all of any evidence?
Erm, right. Difficult, right? So, erm, why should we always believe the woman?
It’s quite conceivable that now some 24 years later she vividly remembers every detail of it happening.
It’s also quite conceivable that 20 years ago she had zero memory of it happening, because it didn’t.
She might have had one of those hypnosis regression wossnames.
Did her boobs get any bigger ?
To be fair, it’s entirely possible (if less likely) that evidence exists in cases like this, and not that surprising that a 13-year-old girl didn’t want to shout about it at the time.
That said, there apparently was no evidence, and the system seems to have worked in that the case collapsed.
It seems to me that something should be done about false allegations (including more robust penalties for false accusers), but there should also be a means by which rape, even old rape, can be sanctioned.
I think a large part of the solution would be to return to the old (English law) system under which defendants in such cases were granted the same anonymity as complainants.
That would remove a lot of the stress and pain for unjustly accused men, and also make it far less likely that a woman might try it on, hoping for a settlement to keep her (false) allegation quiet for fear, on the part of the man, of the no-smoke-without-fire factor.
The women who falsely accused Alex Salmond of rape (he was Not Guilty on every charge) are STILL anonymous by order of nonce judges – on penalty of jail if you even hint at their identities.
The main obstacle to justice is judges. The entire legal profession is thoroughly rotten and ripe for disruption by AI.
Nope… You make the *lawyer* involved in the case face some serious scrutiny, including disbarment and possible legal counteraction.
They can’t be Anonymous, and they are *not* in it because of their bleedin’ ‘eart for the putative “victim”..
Doubly so if they’re offering “No Cure, No Pay” services. ( which should be outlawed to begin with… Pro Deo or bust, mateys….)
Give a lwyer a loophole, especially a lucrative one, and…..
This is similar to the Trump case
In which Mr Beyonce Knowles proves to be smarter than the entire British Royal Family:
“I can’t take a settlement – it ain’t in my DNA,” he said. “First of all, first I had to tell my wife. Let’s back up. I know the weight that this is going to bring on our family. I can’t do it. I would die.
Everyone thinks it’ll stop it being a big story, but a settlement makes people think you’re guilty.
Prince Andrew was ruined by this. Virginia Giuffre was all over the place. She only made accusations against him soon after the photo surfaced. Funny that. She made accusations against Alan Dershowitz, and later said she might have been mistaken. Right, how close was he at the time he was allegedly abusing you?
I’m no fan, but he always struck me a pretty normal shagger. His public relationships were mid-20s women.
I want to know what the heck a thirteen year old kid was doing at a party like this.
Maybe I’m just old and naive, but wouldn’t a kid seem a bit out of place there?
Never met the Teen Slag Jailbait ladies, have you?
Also… early 1970’s … in New York… In the Nightclub/Artsy Scene…
Y’know…. the one where Warhol, Woody Allen, and several others were King….
At the time? Not even the exception to the rule… More par for the course…
One of the reasons the Playboy Lounge there had such a solid reputation then was that they *checked* the Waitresses, and made sure the girls *knew* what was and wasn’t expected of them, so that there was very little risk of….Surprises…
A similar case in BBC News today, the headline says it all (and highlights the incompetence of the interviewer). Read past the headline and the only response can be “Fuck off, lady”
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c05dz39m6qgo