The Diddy trial continued on Monday (June 2), entering its 14th day in court with more cross-examination from defense attorney Brian Steel. The witness testimony on the stand was from an anonymous alleged victim referred to as "Mia," who was Sean Combs' former assistant.
According to Matthew Russell Lee for the Inner City Press, Steel's line of questioning touched on various messages Mia sent to the Bad Boy mogul. In one of them, she said she had a dream that R. Kelly was chasing her, and that Combs saved her.
This is notable because of the allegations against both Diddy and R. Kelly, and because Steel questioned the former assistant's consent. His argument is that there is a disconnect between how Mia characterizes the relationship now and how she engaged with it back then.
For those unaware, the alleged victim claims that the New York executive sexually assaulted her and abused her on multiple occasions, amid other accusations. Also, she detailed his alleged abuse of Cassie Ventura throughout their relationship, which has been a big media focus of the trial.
Who Is Mia In The Diddy Trial?
However, Diddy's efforts to dismiss trauma bonds proved unsuccessful. Judge Arun Subramanian refused to strike testimony from Dawn Hughes, a psychologist with expertise in trauma bonds. The judge characterized the defense's argument as this: "Any testimony regarding the common behaviors of sexual abuse victims is pseudoscience."
"[This is] an indictment on the entire field of psychology that the Court rejects and the defense cites no case for this proposition," Judge Subramanian ruled. As such, Hughes took the stand.
She spoke on the various reasons why many abuse victims stay in relationships, such as financial dependence and violent threats. Hughes also stated that it's common for victims to engage in coping mechanisms like substance use and forget details of their abuse.
Amid much discussion about Diddy's alleged victims, both sides of the court must work hard to stick to the facts. As the case and its elements grow more complex, seemingly innocuous details become larger than life. Furthermore, more cross-examination and witnesses will be crucial to defining the jury's eventual decision.
