Brian Buckmeyer

You're going to see things in this case where you're going to say, he's not a good person. I don't like him. He did a horrible thing. And Garagos said a thing that most defense attorneys don't say, that the actions of her client are indefensible.

You're going to see things in this case where you're going to say, he's not a good person. I don't like him. He did a horrible thing. And Garagos said a thing that most defense attorneys don't say, that the actions of her client are indefensible.

But she drew a very fine line between what he did, saying if this was a domestic violence case, we would not be on trial, and what he's accused of, saying that these were isolated incidences of domestic abuse and not a 20-year-long criminal enterprise of coercing, forcing or using fraud to traffic individuals. That Sean Combs may be guilty of some things, but not the things that he is accused of.

But she drew a very fine line between what he did, saying if this was a domestic violence case, we would not be on trial, and what he's accused of, saying that these were isolated incidences of domestic abuse and not a 20-year-long criminal enterprise of coercing, forcing or using fraud to traffic individuals. That Sean Combs may be guilty of some things, but not the things that he is accused of.

Because at the end of the day, there's a video that the defense cannot get away from, but must instead explain in a way that does not convict Sean Combs. And that seemed to be at the heart of the defense's opening statements.

Because at the end of the day, there's a video that the defense cannot get away from, but must instead explain in a way that does not convict Sean Combs. And that seemed to be at the heart of the defense's opening statements.

I was somewhat surprised by the defense's opening statements, because I thought this would have just been an easy, open and shut, nothing to interpret type of defense, where they simply just say, these people are lying, I challenge your credibility, they're making stuff up.

I was somewhat surprised by the defense's opening statements, because I thought this would have just been an easy, open and shut, nothing to interpret type of defense, where they simply just say, these people are lying, I challenge your credibility, they're making stuff up.

But instead we're going to have to look at these facts in the case and say, well, is this an isolated incident of domestic abuse between two people, according to the defense, that are in a violent relationship? Or was this a pattern in order to coerce, force, or use fraud to control and traffic individuals?

But instead we're going to have to look at these facts in the case and say, well, is this an isolated incident of domestic abuse between two people, according to the defense, that are in a violent relationship? Or was this a pattern in order to coerce, force, or use fraud to control and traffic individuals?

It's a much deeper question to think about than I thought I would have to in a trial like this.

It's a much deeper question to think about than I thought I would have to in a trial like this.

So for example, this defense was so interesting because while we've seen that intercontinental video so many times, the defense's interpretation of it was that Cassie had seen something on Sean Combs' phone and that this was a violent interaction in which Sean Combs was trying to take back his phone after some sort of jealous argument.

So for example, this defense was so interesting because while we've seen that intercontinental video so many times, the defense's interpretation of it was that Cassie had seen something on Sean Combs' phone and that this was a violent interaction in which Sean Combs was trying to take back his phone after some sort of jealous argument.

Now, we've all seen that video, but we've never seen it in that light. And it made me think, do I need to go back and look at this video to better understand it? And if you can get someone to that point where they can slightly change their perspective of probably the most damning piece of evidence, to me, as a defense attorney, you might be on the right path.

Now, we've all seen that video, but we've never seen it in that light. And it made me think, do I need to go back and look at this video to better understand it? And if you can get someone to that point where they can slightly change their perspective of probably the most damning piece of evidence, to me, as a defense attorney, you might be on the right path.

Now, could Cassie testify in a way that obliterates that argument? Could we look at that video and not see it in the way the defense is arguing? Absolutely. But if you can get a jury to second guess, to look again and think, could there be something? In most worlds, that's the beginning of a good defense. There were two witnesses that testified at the end of the first day of trial.

Now, could Cassie testify in a way that obliterates that argument? Could we look at that video and not see it in the way the defense is arguing? Absolutely. But if you can get a jury to second guess, to look again and think, could there be something? In most worlds, that's the beginning of a good defense. There were two witnesses that testified at the end of the first day of trial.

First, a former security guard at the Intercontinental who interacted with both Sean Combs and Cassie. And what we saw in that very violent interaction was on that security camera footage.

First, a former security guard at the Intercontinental who interacted with both Sean Combs and Cassie. And what we saw in that very violent interaction was on that security camera footage.