Federal prosecutors just revealed in court they have two videos of Diddy beating Cassie in a hotel hallway in L.A. ... including a recording of the original hotel surveillance footage.
Category
✨
PeopleTranscript
00:00There is a HUGE mystery in the Diddy prosecution, and it all revolves around the 2016 tape video
00:12that was shot at the Intercontinental Hotel.
00:15This video showing Diddy beating his then-girlfriend Cassie, beating her badly in the hallway.
00:22And the mystery has to do with CNN's obtaining that video.
00:29And what they did with it.
00:30And what they did with it, because there are two radically different stories.
00:34Very different versions of what happened to this video, whether you're talking to Diddy's
00:41defense team, or you're talking to CNN's spokespeople.
00:46So when we last spoke to you, which was yesterday, we told you that there was a letter filed,
00:52a joint letter between the prosecution and the defense in the upcoming Diddy trial, the
00:56prosecution.
00:57And in that letter, there is reference made by the defense claiming that CNN destroyed
01:04the only known version of that tape, destroyed it after allegedly editing it and taking parts
01:15of it out of sequence.
01:17That they did that, aired it, and then destroyed it.
01:20That was according to this letter.
01:21And we were baffled, as I'm sure the rest of the world was.
01:24And the consequence of that is, if that were true, and if there isn't another original
01:29version and this is the edited version, it could make it difficult for it to be admissible
01:34in court.
01:35Absolutely.
01:36And that completely changes the complexion of this prosecution against him.
01:39So this is where the mystery comes in.
01:42After we broke that story, CNN got back to us, and this is what they had to say in response.
01:49CNN never altered the video and did not destroy the original copy of the footage, which was
01:56retained by the source.
01:59CNN aired the story about the video several months before Combs was arrested.
02:04Okay, so they are flatly denying, but we're going to get into the exact words they used
02:10in a minute.
02:11So hours later, Diddy's defense team doubled down, and here's what they said.
02:18They said, our written and oral communications with CNN's counsel were clear.
02:25They destroyed the original video file they received from their source.
02:29Okay, so you're looking at this saying, somebody's lying, somebody's telling the truth.
02:36I think you could say, not so, but there's another version of this.
02:42So when you look at all of the evidence, CNN acknowledges they got this video from
02:49a source, and presumably it's somebody who worked at the Intercontinental Hotel, which
02:57no longer exists.
02:59It's been changed, now they have new ones.
03:01So there's no anything with the Intercontinental anymore.
03:06So somebody at that hotel, presumably, took that surveillance video, took the hard drive,
03:13made it for several years, made a copy, it seems, and then made a copy to give to CNN.
03:20Go back to the CNN quote.
03:23Look at this.
03:24The central part is-
03:25CNN never altered the video and did not destroy the original copy of the footage, which was
03:32retained by the source.
03:34So what they're saying, the original copy of the footage, their source, whoever their
03:38source is, that person-
03:40Still has it.
03:41Still has the original copy.
03:43But the problem is this.
03:44So of course they didn't destroy that because the source has it.
03:47They never got it.
03:48Right.
03:49They don't have it in their possession to destroy.
03:51They got a copy of the original copy.
03:55They got a copy of the original copy.
03:58So the question is, did they destroy the copy?
04:03Because the statement just refers to what the source kept.
04:07And what you just said, did they destroy the copy that they have?
04:11If you go back to the quote from Diddy's attorneys, that is what they are saying.
04:16They destroyed the original video file they received from their source.
04:21Which is the copy of the copy.
04:22Exactly.
04:23Which is the copy of the copy.
04:24I wish they didn't use the word original there.
04:27Right.
04:28Because it throws things off.
04:29We've been trying to get in touch with CNN about this to find out if they destroyed the
04:33copy of the copy, which they had.
04:36We have not heard back from them yet.
04:37They referred us back to the original statement.
04:40But that kind of takes you in a circle.
04:42Harvey, let me jump in here for a second.
04:44We have breaking news, updated news.
04:46Our head of our news desk, Jamie Schramm, just came to me and told me that prosecutors
04:51just stated in court that they have not only the CNN video, but they have actually obtained
04:56the original video.
04:57Jamie, am I getting that right?
04:59A copy.
05:00A copy.
05:01Of the original footage.
05:02Of the original footage, is the way prosecutors said.
05:05They now have a copy of the original footage.
05:08Not just what they got from CNN.
05:09Bring Jamie over to your microphone real quick.
05:12We didn't know this.
05:13So bring Jamie over to the microphone.
05:15This is happening.
05:16Hey, Jamie.
05:17Well, hold on.
05:18He's got to get a earpiece in.
05:20Oh, right, right, right.
05:22Or we could just yell across the room.
05:23No, we're not going to yell across the room.
05:24And you're going to get blown out.
05:25I mean, that's the question I want to ask Jamie is, how did they get that?
05:30How did they get that?
05:31How did they get it?
05:32And does it show anything materially different from what CNN?
05:37Maybe the Intercontinental Hotel somehow kept that hard drive, even though the hotel told
05:44us they don't have it.
05:46The person who recorded it initially, I think what Jamie's going to tell you is the person,
05:50what they have is the original recording.
05:52He's jumping in right now.
05:55Harvey, so what the AUSA, the federal prosecutor, just said in court is that they have the CNN
06:04video and a recording of the original footage.
06:08OK, the original footage.
06:10So the question, Jamie, is it's really interesting.
06:13So the original footage, is that from the source?
06:18Because CNN is not revealed to the sources.
06:20Or is it from the Intercontinental Hotel that may have actually kept the hard drive?
06:24Do we know?
06:25Well, they haven't revealed that yet in court.
06:28So it's it's ongoing right now.
06:31What do you think?
06:32I mean, you've been you've been all over this case.
06:34How would they have gotten that original?
06:36Because that doesn't sound like a copy.
06:38It sounds like the prosecutor saying they actually have the original, which would have
06:41been the surveillance video footage.
06:43So is there any sense of how all of a sudden they got that?
06:48There's there's no sense.
06:50They haven't revealed that just yet.
06:53But, you know, more to come as a as the hearing unwinds.
06:58You know, you know, what's weird about this is just yesterday they filed a joint letter
07:05and there was no reference.
07:06They didn't reference that at all.
07:07They didn't reference it at all.
07:08I'm speculating here, but here's what I think happened.
07:11Jamie's words, according to the prosecutor, were they have a recording of the original.
07:15I would suspect that what happened is they learned who the source was.
07:20The CNN source was probably because the person came forward voluntarily, who has the recording
07:25of the original, which the prosecutor said they don't say they have the original.
07:28They said they have a recording.
07:30So that may be the source took the recording with his or her cell phone.
07:34And that's what the prosecutors now have.
07:36You know, do you think that happened in the last 24 hours?
07:39Because our intel was the prosecutors hadn't even subpoenaed the video, which shocked me
07:47as of yesterday, and that they were surprised at what the defense said, that their their
07:53team got word from CNN's lawyer that it was destroyed.
07:58So was this in the last 24 hours?
08:00Yeah.
08:01I mean, I don't know if it's within the last 24 hours that that information has been provided
08:07in court yet.
08:09But, you know, the speculation is that it came from possibly a security guard or someone
08:15who works in the security office or how did they how did they locate him?
08:20Because this person who did it was certainly, you know, not revealed.
08:26But maybe the prosecutors didn't bring it up because they didn't even know that until
08:30the defense started, until Diddy's team started putting this out there, that it's been altered
08:37and that and they have this information that it was destroyed.
08:40The video was never in question.
08:44So the prosecution is like, they're not even going to address that.
08:47Well, it wasn't.
08:48I mean, they need to subpoena the original.
08:51Right.
08:52Harvey, just because there's an allegation that the video was altered, sped up, you know,
09:01spliced together.
09:03I mean, it really doesn't take away from the fact that Diddy beat the crap out of everybody.
09:08Well, he did, undeniably.
09:09But what becomes relevant, the reason this is so important is if that video is Cassie
09:17trying to escape a freak off in that hotel.
09:20Totally relevant to the case.
09:22It's highly relevant.
09:23Right.
09:24And would clearly be admissible.
09:26Clearly be admissible because it would show it would show a lack of consent, which is
09:30part of the crime that he's charged with.
09:33So it's really the beating would be relevant.
09:34Now I'm less concerned about the destruction of the video.
09:38I'm more concerned whether it's been altered because if there's something in the original
09:43video that makes it clear this is not about her fleeing from him, fleeing a freak off.
09:49Well, now the video has less relevance and probably isn't admissible.
09:54And without that video, that's I don't know, it seems like a you're a keystone to the case.
09:59Yeah.
10:00And I'm from Missouri.
10:02Even if the CNN edited or sped up the video, the world saw what we saw and it caused Cassie
10:08so much damage.
10:09So even if they sped it up or edit it, we saw what we saw.
10:13We should just underscore one quick thing.
10:16He's not being prosecuted for the beating.
10:19That would have been a state crime.
10:21And the statute of limitations has run on that crime.
10:24As awful as it is to see it.
10:25And I know I know why people are trying because they want to say that she should be guilty
10:30because of that.
10:31Right.
10:32It's just not what he's on trial.
10:33But but if it can be connected to her escaping the freak off, then it's highly relevant.
10:37And that's where what you just said is really important.