The Mega Edition: Diddy Moves To Quash The Cassie Tapes And Hollywood Fixers (3/27/26)

With its two juicy beef patties and three slices of melted cheese topped with tangy big

arch sauce, the big arch is what happens when you start making a McDonald's burger and

never stop.

The big arch, the most McDonald's McDonald's burger yet for a limited time.

With verbose last minute deals, you can save over $50 on your spring getaway.

So whether it's a mountain escape, city break, or a week at the beach, there's still

time to get great discounts.

Look your next day now, average savings of $72, select homes only.

What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the Diddy Diaries.

In this episode we're going to continue on with the court documents and we're going

to take a look at Diddy's motion in Lemanay to exclude video footage related to the March

5th 2016 incident at Intercontinental or in the alternative for a hearing.

Case number 124-CR-00542-AS United States of America vs. Hong Kong's

Introduction.

There is no longer any dispute that CNN footage from the March 5th 2016 at the Intercontinental

Hotel offered by the government at three separate bell hearings is wholly inaccurate,

having been altered, manipulated, sped up, and edited to be out of sequence.

As indicated below, CNN paid for footage, copied that footage in unknown ways, presented

that footage out of order, and destroyed the original.

Accordingly all the footage from CNN is inaccurate and inadmissible.

As for the two items of footage filmed by an iPhone 6, those pieces of footage are inaccurate

and inadmissible as well for the reasons set out below.

As a result pursuant to federal rule of evidence 901, 102 and 403, Mr. Colm seeks to exclude

all available video files related to an incident from March 5th 2016 in the Intercontinental

Hotel.

Those exhibits include an edited manipulated version of hotel surveillance footage, B,

two cell phone video recordings of surveillance, video footage taken by redacted, and C, and

four video files provided by CNN in response to a defense subpoena.

The need for a hearing.

For deciding this motion, we ask that the court hold a pre-trial hearing to allow Mr.

Colm's to present testimony and video evidence from a forensic video analyst, Conor McCourt,

so that the court can better understand the ways in which each of the available videos

are unreliable and not a fair and accurate reflection of the actions depicted.

The arguments presented herein and in the attached affidavit of Conor McCourt are best

illustrated by the testimony of Mr. McCourt, combined with the visual demonstration of

the inaccuracies of the challenge video evidence.

We understand and appreciate that the court may be disinclined to devote time and resources

to a hearing at this juncture, but we are constrained to ask for that because the admission

of any of these inaccurate unreliable video files would unfairly confuse and mislead the

jury at Mr. Colm's expense and because their admission would, infinitely, be more

prejudicial than probative given the unreliability.

In an effort to avoid making this request, undersign councils spent hours with Mr. McCourt

trying to understand whether we could create a video file that would be an accurate portrayal

of what occurred on March 5, 2016.

Unfortunately, as explained below and in the accompanying affidavit of Conor McCourt,

as each of the available video files has inherent reliability problems, that is simply

not possible.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, a video is worth a number well over the court's

word limit.

Because our issues with the video footage relates to how the footage looks, a hearing

where Mr. McCourt can display the footage, slow it down, display it alongside other footage,

and point out the inaccuracies that one can see will, we believe, be more helpful to

the court than merely writing about these things.

For these and forgoing reasons, we ask the court to exclude the government's proposed

video evidence from Mr. Colm's trial, or in the alternative to permit Mr. Colm's to

present evidence at a pre-trial hearing regarding the unreliability of the government's proposed

video evidence before the court decides this motion.

Background

On May 17, 2024, CNN published a video, the CNN compilation, purporting to show a March

2016 incident between Mr. Colm's and redacted, in the intercontinental hotel based on surveillance

footage CNN purchased from redacted, the video immediately and dramatically turned the

tide of public opinion against Mr. Colm's.

But on bonones to the viewing public, the video was heavily and deceptively edited by

CNN.

CNN turned approximately ten and a half minutes of footage into a forty-eight second

out of order clip that ended with Colm's appearing to drag redacted to a hotel room.

See declaration of E. Estavo, Example A.

The edited version painted Mr. Colm's in the worst possible light.

The government relied on the CNN compilation as evidence and support of its motion for

detention in multiple bell proceedings in this case in September, October, and November

of 2024.

In fact, the holy and accurate footage was the only exhibit the government used to support

detaining Mr. Colm's in September of 2024.

The government failed to disclose that the footage had been manipulated.

After conferring with the government multiple times on the topic of the CNN compilation,

on November 13, 2024, the government produced two additional iPhone videos, iPhone videos

that were in the possession of redacted, also partially depicting the incident.

The Replyant Support of Mr. Colm's renewed motion for bell at 8 ECF number 80, Declaration

of Tenny Garagos.

The iPhone video appears to be recordings of surveillance footage of the hotel incident,

i.e.

re-recordings, but they differ materially from the CNN compilation.

The cell phone footage records scenes from the incident that were not in the CNN compilation,

Declaration of A. Estavo.

Upon receiving the iPhone videos, and noting the myriad ways they differ from CNN

compilation, Defense Counsel retained Conor McCourt, a career law enforcement officer,

with years of experience performing forensic analysis of videos to compare the iPhone videos

to the CNN compilation.

See letter from Mark Agnafilo November 21, 2024, at 1 ECF number 82, Mr. McCourt confirmed

what the government has since been forced to admit that none of the government videos

are the original, raw surveillance footage of the hotel incident, that the CNN compilation

was manipulated, either through copying or conversion, and that it lacks any metadata

to confirm the manner in which it was manipulated.

In an effort to obtain the original footage, Colm's and a Brady request to the government

and a subpoena to CNN, Declaration of A. Estavo, Example F, i.e. 10, ultimately as a result

of the subpoena, Defense Counsel obtained four additional videos, CNN's compilation

and three videos with footage obtained by CNN from three single cameras in the intercontinental

hotel.

I.D. at Example 1, the CNN video files.

The CNN video files counsel learned from CNN's counsel were not the original files that CNN

received from its source, redacted. Instead, CNN paid their source for the CNN video files,

apparently copied those video files, and subsequently destroyed the original files they received.

The government later confirmed the counsel in a letter dated January 31, 2025, that redacted

defense investigation, has been unable to identify the CNN employee who received the surveillance

footage from the intercontinental hotel, the employee who converted and manipulated that

footage, or the employee who destroyed the footage.

CNN, for their part, has been publicly reporting on an ongoing federal sex trafficking

investigation for months prior to their knowing destruction of the evidence.

To defense counsel's knowledge, the government has not investigated CNN, nor redacted for

destroying evidence related to this case during the pendency of the investigation,

in short, the only available versions present in an accurate view of the incident.

At the last hearing where the video files were addressed, the court suggested that a possible

solution would be to slow it down and put it in the right sequence or provide any other context

based on the materials. We have uncovered, based on our experts analysis, so that when the video

went before the jury, it would be an accurate portrayal. After extensive discussions with Mr. McCourt,

however, there are several reasons why all available video files are inaccurate and unreliable,

and cannot be modified to be accurate. First, the CNN videos are one significantly sped up,

have a David of Mr. McCourt, two, do not accurately represent human movement as a result of being

converted from one file type to another, three, and accurately display timestamp seconds,

including jumping back in time, thereby misleading the viewer about the timing of events,

and four, are missing a considerable amount of footage.

Second, the iPhone videos distort the events depicted in other ways, one the Aspect Ratio

and the iPhone videos differs from the CNN video. Such that Mr. Combs appears to be stockier

and shorter than he appears in the CNN video, causing Mr. Combs to appear more domineering.

Two, they inaccurately display timestamp seconds when depicted, 19 through 20, 22 and 23,

misleading the viewer about the timing of the events. Three, they do not show the timestamps in

the majority of the videos, and four, they do not depict the entire incident, idea 26.

In other words, the iPhone videos reflect what the person holding the video phone camera

focused on when watching the footage, at times the iPhone video zoom in on details,

like a particular person's shoes, cutting out portions of the event depicted in the CNN videos.

And I've learned exactly how to recharge in that time.

Some folks grab coffee, I hit a quick good lookspin.

Next thing you know, the break is just as fun as land down the track.

A better break makes for a better take. Need a break? Let's jump up.

No purchase necessary, VGW Group void were prohibited by law, 21 plus TNC supply,

sponsored by Chamba Casino.

Further, the iPhone videos were created by using a handheld camera to film a static image.

The iPhone videos contain double images and blurred images,

distorted artifacts, that are the result of amateur rerecording.

Thus, neither the CNN video nor the iPhone video accurately depict the incident.

The government alleges that the iPhone videos accurately depict the way the raw

hotel surveillance footage of the hotel incident appeared on March 5, 2016, when redacted

recorded the footage. In the iPhone videos, but the government's claim rests entirely on redacted

words which is contradicted by forensic analysis. There is simply no way to obtain or create

an accurate version, the only version that exists are inaccurate and highly prejudicial.

All right, we're going to wrap up right here and in the next episode we're going to pick up

where we left off and that's what the argument. All of the information that goes with this

episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone and welcome to another

episode of the Diddy Diaries. In this episode we're diving right back in to Diddy's motion,

trying to get that CNN video footage of him beating the crap out of Cassie tossed.

Argument. The CNN and iPhone videos must be excluded because the government cannot provide

sufficient evidence to authenticate the CNN and iPhone videos. The CNN video and iPhone video

must be excluded because the government cannot provide sufficient evidence of their authenticity

as required by federal rule of evidence 901 because recorded evidence predictably has a dramatic

impact on the jury. The second circuit rightfully holds the government to a higher standard

to establish that video recordings as opposed to other kinds of evidence that are less susceptible

to tampering and manipulation are authentic before allowing their admission at trial.

See United States vs. Null. Second circuit 1967. The government cannot meet that burden here.

Relevant evidence must be authenticated before it can be admitted. See fed our evidence 901

US vs. Vainer 2014 second circuit. The requirement of authentication is a condition precedent to

admitting evidence. The burden rests on the proponent of evidence to produce evidence sufficient

to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is that our evidence 901A.

Though some items of evidence are self-authenticating meaning they require no extrinsic evidence of

authenticity in order to be admitted, video recordings are not self-authenticating. See fed our

evidence 902. Exclusion of video recordings from self-authentication is entirely justified

in view of the potential for unreliable or even seriously misleading material being presented in

this format. The type of evidence the government hopes to present to the jury here. Leo vs. Long

Island. SDNY 2015. The burden on the government's high. Although the requirements under rule 901

are typically satisfied if sufficient proof has been introduced so that a reasonable juror could

find in favor of authenticity or identification. Courts in this circuit have articulated a higher

standard for authenticating records. Because recordings are susceptible to alteration as the videos

were here and often have a persuasive sometimes of dramatic impact on a jury. As these videos no

doubt will, it is incumbent on the government to produce clear and convincing evidence of authenticity

and accuracy as a foundation for the admission of recordings. US vs. Null 2nd Circuit 1967.

Quoting United States vs. Matten 2nd Circuit 1939. Indeed, 2nd Circuit law requires that the

government produce clear and convincing evidence of authenticity and accuracy as a foundation for

the admission of video recordings. According to United States vs. Ida, 1997 WL122753. SDNY March 18, 1997.

The government is not offered any competent evidence through which it could authenticate these

videos. In the normal course, evidence may be authenticated through such means as testimony of

a witness with a personal knowledge, evidence that the preferred exhibit has distinctive characteristics,

demonstrating genuineness, and evidence that the preferred exhibit is the result of a process or

system that produces accurate results and showing that it produces an accurate result.

But this is not the normal course and these methods do not apply here. Rather in the absence of

the testimony by the editor or someone else with personal knowledge to determine how the videos

had been edited, admitting the videos here would be grossly unfair and potentially highly misleading.

Though the 2nd Circuit is not published to test with factors for courts in this district to apply

with respect to video evidence where a foundation is called into question. In United States vs.

Kimball, the 8th Circuit set forth a number of factors for courts to consider when deciding whether to

admit recorded evidence. We consider whether a party is established that one the device was

capable of recording. Two, the operator of the recording device was competent. Three, the

recording is authentic and correct. Four, the recording has not been changed. Five, the recording

has been preserved. Six, any speakers in the recording are identified in seven. The conversation

was voluntary. To be able to identify a speaker in a recording, a witness only needs to

have heard the voice of the alleged speaker at any time. All applicable factors weigh against

admission here. With respect to the first factor, we have no information about the device that was

used to make the CNN videos because the original videos were converted from an unknown file type

to another obscuring critical metadata about the original device. As to the iPhone videos,

we know only that the device used to make them was an iPhone 6 that the defense has not had the

chance to examine. Though we can reasonably infer that the devices were capable of producing some

kind of recording, the government has not profored any evidence, which demonstrates that either

device was capable of reliably and continuously recording events. With respect to the second

factor, whether the operator of the recording device was competent, the government has not

profored any evidence whatsoever regarding the competence of the operator of the device that

created the original video. Redacted, the government is likewise profored no evidence as to the

competence of the operator of the iPhone video. Regarding the third factor that the recording

is authentic and correct, this cannot be established for any of the available videos. As explained,

all the video files are distorted, likewise the fourth factor that the recording has not been

changed cannot be met for any of the video files. The iPhone videos distort the depicted subjects

and fell to fully depict the events captured by the original videos. The CNN video files on the

other hand are changed in speed, in frames, and in the way they depict the subject's movement

among other things. The fifth factor the recording has been preserved strongly ways in favor,

excluding the available videos. Through no fault of the defense who employed every investigative

technique at its disposal to obtain the original video, the original video has already been

destroyed, both by redacted and by CNN, and the government is refused to use its power to

investigate the obstruction. Section 2 The available video files are not the

originals. The government did not make a competent effort to locate the originals, and therefore

the files must be excluded under the best evidence rule. As discussed above, and in the next

declaration of Anna Estavio, the affidavit of Conor McCourt, none of the files are original despite

the defense good faith efforts to investigate and locate the original files. Here, by the time

that council was able to subpoena CNN's video files after the government's December 31st, 2024

deadline, the redacted and CNN had already destroyed the original video. Redacted to find out one,

whether the original video still exists, two, how this individual removed files from the hotel

server in order to retain them on a hard drive, and three, whether this individual knew of the

ongoing federal investigation into Mr. Colms. The government has not even taken possession of

the hard drive that the footage was on to see if it could recover the deleted files.

The same is true of the government's failure to investigate CNN. The government's unwillingness

to take any of these logical steps to obtain reliable video evidence and its decision to rely on

inaccurate, unreliable duplicates, calls into question its motives. But more importantly,

the government's failure to investigate means it cannot satisfy the best evidence rule,

and its inaccurate duplicates should not be admitted. Authentication requires additional safeguards

to ensure validity, where the preferred exhibit is a duplicate of evidence rather than the original

item, or narrowly the federal rules of evidence require that the proponent of an item of evidence

introduce the original evidence, rather than a copy of it, see FedR evidence 2002.

An original recording is required to prove its content unless these rules of federal statute

provides otherwise. The requirement of the original known as the best evidence rule

may give way when the proponent of a duplicate is admissible to the same extent as the original,

unless a genuine question is raised about the originals, authenticity, or the circumstances

make it unfair to admit the duplicate. Noting a duplicate is admissible where fraud or

imposition reasonably is not to be feared. An electronic re-recording and electronic recording

of a recording is a duplicate under rule 1014, United States vs. Averis 404F.3D 2005.

Here a genuine question has been raised regarding authenticity, and it would be unfair to admit

the government's proper duplicates. Thus, the government only means of admitting the evidence

is federal rule of evidence 104, which permits the use of a duplicate if all the originals

are lost or destroyed, and not by the proponent acting in bad faith, or the original cannot be

obtained by any available judicial process. The government's conduct negates admissibility

under either a prong. It is repeatedly refused to investigate as not questioned key witnesses

regarding the original recordings, and refuses to use available judicial process,

even to confirm whether the originals still exist.

Hoping that the court will permit it to use far more inflammatory evidence that will unfairly

bolster its arguments, and prejudice calms case. Indeed, at the time, CNN destroyed the original

footage, it knew about and widely reported on the government's investigation into calms,

yet destroyed the evidence anyway. The government has no basis to claim the originals are lost or

destroyed because it has not attempted to find out. It has therefore ratified CNN's bad faith,

and it should not be rewarded. None of the available files are originals, none of the

available files are reliable duplicates, and there is no amount of further editing that can be done

to make any of the video files acceptable secondary evidence. To the contrary, the alterations include

taking events out of sequence, speeding events up, removing frames, and adding frames, which present

grave reliability and accuracy concerns. The facts here thus counsels strongly in favor of

exercising discretion to exclude the government's unreliable and accurate recordings under the

federal rules of evidence 901, 2002 and 2004, particularly in the face of the government's

refusal to use its power of process to investigate the destruction of the original video.

The government has not even tried to ensure the accuracy of the proper evidence

and the evidence should be excluded. 3. The CNN and iPhone video should be excluded under

federal rule of evidence 403 because the dangers of misleading and confusing the jury and unfair

prejudice substantially outweigh their probative value. The available video files the iPhone 6 video

and CNN's subpoena response videos must be excluded as these altered videos will undoubtedly

have a misleading and prejudicial but highly persuasive and dramatic impact on the jury.

The court should therefore exclude the videos under federal rule of evidence 403.

Though the government will no doubt argue that tampering affects the weight of recorded evidence

and not its admissibility, here that is not the case. The manipulation of the videos was

specifically designed to inflame the passions of CNN's viewing audience, and that is what the

government is hoping to leverage in this case. The videos are sped up to make the violence look

more violent, the sequence is recorded to leave the viewer with the impression that the woman

has been dragged back to the hotel room. And the clips delete footage that provides important

context making clear that the events are not as horrific as the government will suggest.

As the second circuit has observed recorded evidence is likely to have a strong impression

upon a jury, and here that impression will come in the form of shock and awe, United States

vs. Pointes, second circuit 1977. The government has a myriad, other less prejudicial ways of

presenting evidence concerning the events allegedly depicted in the videos it wishes to admit.

The government already intends to present testimony from one or more persons depicted in the videos.

Here where the available video files are not genuine, not accurate, and not originals,

it's impossible to make the available video files accurate. None of the inaccurate, unreliable

videos should be admitted. Ultimately, if the government has a witness available to testify

to the events of March 5, 2016, such testimony would likely be admissible.

However, the testimony and not the inaccurate prejudicial distorted footage should be the evidence

that jury considers. Conclusion. For the four going reasons, Mr. Kalms requests this court

hold a hearing, and ultimately conclude that none of the available video files of the hotel

incident be admitted into evidence at Mr. Kalms' upcoming trial. This document was signed by Mark

Agnafilo, and it was dated April 2, 2025. All of the information that goes with this episode can

be found in the description box. Drew McIntyre here from WWE,

wielding the Claymore can be a life of chaos. When I'm not dominating in the ring,

Chumba Casino is how this warrior takes a rebrate. With hundreds of online social games and new

weekly releases, there's always something fresh to try. And those daily boosts, next level,

even my free time feels like foul-halling. So when life feels like a battle, kick up your feet,

have some fun, and let's Chumba. No purchase necessary, VGW Group,

void were prohibited by law, CTs and Cs, 21 plus sponsored by Chumba Casino.