Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Laura Coates And Guests Discuss The Latest In The Federal Trial Of Sean "Diddy" Combs; "Freak-Off" Escort Speaks Out; Defense Wins Key Ruling In Challenging Car-Bombing Narrative; Manhunt In Arkansas As "Dangerous" Ex-Police Chief Escapes Prison. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired May 27, 2025 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: You can find tickets on sale at primeministerdoc.com.
Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." You can catch me any time on your favorite social media X, Instagram, and TikTok. In the meantime, "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Acclaimed with kidnapping at gunpoint, lie detector test, and an alleged mafia-style East River death threat. Plus, the male escort known as "The Punisher" live tonight on a special edition of "Laura Coates Live: Diddy on Trial."
Good evening and welcome. I'm Laura Coates right here in New York City tonight. And on day 10 of Diddy's trial, I saw the tearful testimony from a former Diddy employee who has spent years in his inner circle. She claims that he kidnapped her and threatened to kill her.
In just a moment, my team of legal experts and court insiders will go through what we heard from Capricorn Clark. Now her testimony is critically important to the prosecution because her job put her inside the core of Diddy's business empire.
Now Clark testified that she was kidnapped, her words, when Diddy found out that Cassie Ventura was dating Kid Cudi. She also told the jury today about the multiple times that Diddy had threatened her own life, including during her very first day on the job. And she said that Diddy had final approval over every aspect of Cassie's career.
Now Clark, she worked for Diddy on and off for more than a decade, starting first as a personal assistant in 2004. And what she alleged happened in December of 2011 may be the most shocking. That's when Diddy discovered that Cassie was in a relationship of some kind with Kid Cudi. She said that Diddy banged on her door around 6:00 in the morning, holding a gun and furious that she didn't tell him about Cassie and Cudi.
Clark told this to the jury: Quote -- "He just said, get dressed. We're going to kill this" -- "N" word. And when she tried to protest, she said, Diddy told her, I don't give an "F" what you want to do. Go get dressed.
Now Clark said that she was then swept into a Cadillac Escalade. They drove to Kid Cudi's home, and she claimed that Diddy and one of his security guards then went inside the house. Clark frankly called Cassie to tell her what was happening, testifying that a short time later, Cudi's car pulled up next to them, and then took off. Didi and the security guard jumped back in the Escalade, then she described a short car chase before Cudi got away.
After it was all over, Clark said Diddy gave her an ultimatum. She and Cassie needed to sway Kid Cudi against telling the cops that Diddy was involved in the alleged break in. Clark testified -- quote -- "He says, if you guys don't convince him of that, I'll kill all you MF'effers."
But that wasn't the only time that Clark said that she feared for her own life. She claimed Diddy once accused her of stealing diamond jewelry, so that she suffered through five straight days of lie detector tests inside of a gutted, rundown Manhattan office building. She testified the man giving the tests warned her -- quote -- "I'm not getting a good reading. You need to calm down. You're going to be in the East River if I can't get a reading on this."
Clark even said that Diddy threatened her on her very first day working for him, testifying that it's because she worked at Suge Knight's record label before working for Diddy. She claimed Diddy took her to Central Park with his bodyguard when this happened. "He told me he didn't know that I had anything to do with Suge Knight, and if anything happened, he would have to kill me."
Clark also testified about Diddy's control over Cassie Ventura, saying that he had final approval on everything, from Cassie's hair and makeup to the projects she was working on.
On again with CNN's Elizabeth Wagmeister, who saw all of the testimony in court today. It was quite a day. She testified very emotionally, by the way, for a long period of time. And it was about a very dark parting message that she spoke about today when Diddy fired her in 2012. What did she say happened?
ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: Yes, so Capricorn Clark didn't just testify to what she alleged happened while she was working for Diddy, she also testified and told the jury that after she was terminated, that he essentially blacklisted her from the industry.
I want to read you part of what she said on the stand. She said -- quote -- "That he said that I would never work again, that he would show me that all these people weren't my friends, and he would make me kill myself."
So, she testified to the jury that she was scared because he had the power and the control over her career.
[23:05:00]
She said that her home at the time was paid for by the company. Her car was paid for by the company. All these things went away when she was terminated, and she had trouble getting another job. COATES: She was breaking down in sobs throughout. I mean, it almost was like she was on the -- on the edge of always crying, and she did throughout her entire testimony. But it was when she talked about asking for Sean's forgiveness that she really got emotional. What happened?
WAGMEISTER: Yes. So, the defense during the cross-examination, they brought up a series of emails and text messages showing that Capricorn Clark stayed in communication with Sean Combs even after she was terminated. As recently as 2021, that she had been in communication with him. As recently as 2024, that she had met with him.
Now, she explained this because she said he had all the power and she had nothing. And, again, remember, she used that word "blacklisted." So, her explanation was, I had to work, I had to put food on the table. She said that she has a son with autism, who is nonverbal. She has to provide for him.
And she felt that the only way to continue to work in this industry was to stay in Diddy's good graces because she did say that she went to a few other companies for what she thought were job interviews or meetings, and that she realized that she was blacklisted because she thought, her perspective, that Diddy bad mouth her in the industry.
COATES: She went for interviews. They returned with warnings, apparently.
WAGMEISTER: Uh-hmm.
COATES: A lot to unpack. Let's go over the table. I want to talk to some of our great legal minds who are here as well to break this all down. We've got CNN legal analyst and, of course, criminal defense attorney, Joey Jackson is in the building today. Also, we have the former Westchester D.A., Mimi Rocha, and former Manhattan prosecutor, Jeremy Saland.
There is a lot to unpack today. First of all, she was really emotional throughout the entire day. I cannot overstate that enough. She was on the verge of tears throughout, and sometimes holding her head in her hands, taking off her glasses just to emote even more. I don't mean emote in the way that I didn't believe her, but she was really emotional.
I want to begin with you, Jeremy, because now, we are in week three. Okay? I want to try to reset and remind our viewers about the charges here. You've got RICO, you've got sex trafficking, you've got prostitution. All important. Let's start with RICO, racketeering, essentially. First up, you got the predicate crimes. How does this move the needle towards the prosecution proving RICO? Does it?
JEREMY SALAND, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, FORMER MANHATTAN PROSECUTOR: I don't think they have until recently, and I think it starts in part, in large part with Capricorn. But they moved it until -- Agnifilo did a good job a little bit moving it back because you need that predicate act, and -- and he'll go with kidnapping --
COATES: Translate that, what that means, this predicate act. What does that mean in --
SALAND: So, you need this underlying crime. That's part of this. You need more than one that -- that helped build to the structure for this criminal enterprise, and this is where they were going. And here, you have the kidnapping as a piece of this and sort of furtherance. I don't want to offer any furtherance of this or use the criminal conspiracy.
COATES: Hmm.
SALAND: And what she says is, at one point, is that, you know, she gets into the car and she's forced into the car, and I think she claims that she also told Cassie and Cudi on the call that there was a gun, but they didn't say anything about the gun.
She says something about how she went along possibly to make sure everything was okay and didn't even get into further trouble in substance. She was cross-examined by Marc Agnifilo on that point.
COATES: Uh-hmm
SALAND: Well, then, was she really taken there against her will? You need to establish these predicate acts, again, with the will of kidnapping. Otherwise, you can't get that RICO or conspiracy RICO charge.
COATES: Yeah.
SALAND: Did they move the ball? They had to get there because they haven't gotten there yet. Did they do enough? Not yet.
COATES: So, we're 17 witnesses in. We're still on the predicate part. And, of course, the jurors are not hearing every single day. This is the predicate part of the -- the government's case.
But they got to prove the predicate. But the word "enterprise" is going to be top of mind for them as well. They have to show that there is an enterprise itself. And they, of course, have now an inner part of the circle in terms of this woman, Capricorn Clark.
Now she says, Mimi, that security guards ran lie detector tests. She didn't know who everyone was involved, that they were going to throw her in the East River over allegations that she stole from Jacob (ph), the jeweler. There were mob-like terms, the East River beyond that. Does that in and of itself confirm that there was an inner circle that was an enterprise?
MIMI ROCAH, FORMER WESTCHESTER COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY FOR SDNY: Well, I think we're getting there, and I think they've started to put in the building blocks for that. It wasn't the first piece. Right? The first piece, obviously, were through the first few witnesses, was establishing the sex trafficking and the coercion through Cassie, and then corroborating witnesses.
I think now what we've started to see is how Combs used employees of his business -- of his business to -- I mean, there was a legitimate business, but then these employees were being asked or told to do illegitimate things as well.
[23:10:00]
COATES: Which is part of RICO. Right?
ROCAH: That's the enterprise.
COATES: You could have a legitimate business doing illegitimate acts --
ROCAH: Absolutely.
COATES: -- and so forth. It doesn't have to be a fake entity.
ROCAH: Yes, or just that the people doing it may have legitimate jobs, be employees, receive salaries for that, but they're also doing other things for this purpose, which here is alleged to be essentially the satisfaction of Combs, his desires, his needs, his self-esteem, his power, his control.
It's -- it's going to -- I mean, we have a way more to go, and this is one of those cases that I think is very much going to come down to closing arguments and how the government brings all that together --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
ROCAH: -- to explain the enterprise to the jury. And I think they'll do a very good job here, but I -- I think they're putting in the building blocks of that now.
COATES: You know, that's always my concern. Obviously, closing arguments is not going to be testimony. They're going to have to build all these things. They're going to try to -- you often wonder when they don't ask them one next question. They sort of leave the question lingering. I almost take a mental note and say, ah, they're going to put that in the closing. They don't want the next statement. They want that in isolation.
Joey, you've got the predicate that Jeremy is talking about. You've got the enterprise building blocks that we're talking about in terms of the RICO. What about the area of the pattern of behavior? Because that has to be part of any RICO.
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It absolutely does. Listen. This is a very concerning witness because she checks a lot of boxes. And now, it's not about one witness --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
JACKSON: -- it's about the continuity and the ongoing steps of the testimony. What have we heard to this point? We've heard about guns, we've heard about drugs, we've heard about money, we've heard about sexual and bad behavior. Now, we get to her. And now, there's a couple of things that I'm concerned about, about patterns. Number one, this whole --
COATES: Concerned as a defense attorney?
JACKSON: As a defense attorney, I'm very concerned about pattern issues. Like what? Like the issue of kidnapping as it relates to going over Kid Cudi's house and whether that actually happened or didn't. But it's not only that, it's about a lie detector test. Right?
COATES: Uh-hmm.
JACKSON: And it's about you being held for five days to take this lie detector test. That's more kidnapping. And then you get to the issue of arson because there's corroboration. What arson? The -- the firebombing of Kid Cudi's car. She corroborates that. And so, jurors are not about predicate. What predicate?
COATES: Uh-hmm.
JACKSON: It's going to come down to, was this an organization that did a lot of bad things over a continuous period of time and was there this degree of lawlessness?
And so, if you believe her, right, that is you believe the testimony today with regard to all of these threats, with regard to this break in, with regard to the lawlessness, with regard to her, you know, having and being under his control, that's the reason I came back, you blackballed me from the industry.
Then as a defense attorney, I'm a bit concerned. You got to get that testimony whittled away, and that's going to be the challenge.
SALAND: I'm -- I'm -- I'm sort of biting back here. I'm used to Joey being more on the defense side --
(LAUGHTER)
-- as opposed to advocating for the prosecution. So, I'm a little -- I'm a little flamused here. But --
ROCAH: You are.
SALAND: Yeah, yeah, we both are. But, you know, she came back because she had a big crush on him. She came back because she couldn't get a job. Was she blackballed or she couldn't get the money that she needed? There's a lot of reasons she came back. She came back because she was told she was a protector in part for Cassie, the Cassie that she was jealous of. So, you know --
COATES: Well, she says she didn't really like --
SALAND: She did like --
COATES: I mean, she didn't like Cassie.
SALAMND: She could be jealous --
COATES: She has changed over time and became more of a feisty girlfriend as opposed to sweet model, and then talked about how -- it was -- it was a statement. She said, I'm paraphrasing here, it was almost as if she thought I was getting paid to help her. That was her initial irritation. Right?
WAGMEISTER: Right. And I actually am so curious to know what the jury thinks about that relationship --
COATES: Yeah.
WAGMEISTER: -- between Capricorn Clark and Cassie Ventura, because one school of thought is this really helps give Capricorn credibility because she didn't really like Cassie. But yet, then she also testified that at one point, she actually called Cassie Ventura's mom and said, he is beating your daughter, I am in over my head, I can't do anything about this, you have to do something, please call the cops.
So, I wonder if that gives her credibility in front of the jury because it seems like this isn't someone that she likes, and yet she saw something that was wrong and she called it out.
And Joey, you said something so interesting, which is if you're a juror, you're not thinking predicate, this, that. You're just hearing patterns. They've now heard that this is the second employee who testified that they were put into a car against their will when Diddy had guns and forced them to go somewhere. That's not normal for a boss to do, certainly at a company with H.R.
JACKSON: Yes.
COATES: Well, Mimi, on that point -- and you mentioned H.R., because it seemed pretty clear in the testimony -- I mean, H.R., there may have been stand alone, but Diddy would be informed by H.R. There wasn't, like, the total cone of violence. It didn't seem like the testimony.
But does it give her more credibility to essentially admit that it wasn't all copacetic with people like Cassie, that she didn't like her at certain times, that she was struggling and may have had a crush before, although she wouldn't admit fully about that? Does it give her more credibility to a jury?
ROCAH: Absolutely, because she's not -- you know, Cassie's mom, you could explain away.
[23:15:02]
It's her mom. Of course, she's going to say something to corroborate her. You know, here is someone who doesn't have that personal interest. The other thing that gives --
COATES: But she needed him for work. I mean, Diddy is the ultimate gatekeeper --
ROCAH: Right.
COATES: -- this trial. ROCAH: Well, what I was going to say is, even now -- I mean, what gives really all of them but especially her credibility is, why would anyone want to get up there at this point still and tell damaging lies about Sean Combs? That's a pretty risky thing to do.
And what are you getting out of it? Like, what -- what is she getting out of it? I mean, I -- I guess with Cassie, you can make -- you know, I'm sure they'll make the arguments that she's -- I don't know. She got -- she got money, but she already got money.
(CROSSTALK)
JACKSON: Payback time.
COATES: But what about -- but what about Clark? Explain more.
JACKSON: So, when it comes to the issue, right, of credibility, it's also about consistency. And if you look at her testimony, there were some inconsistencies with regard to what she said. It's important whether or not you were taken by gunpoint or you went voluntarily. Those are two big different things.
If you told the prosecution one thing it was by gunpoint, but yet you told attorneys you met with last year, well, I went there, why did I go there? Because I wanted to protect him and things not going sideways. Those are really major discrepancies there.
The other issue is that --
COATES: It's going to undermine the ability to show a predicate crime.
JACKSON: Absolutely.
SALAND: Absolutely.
JACKSON: And so, the fact is that. And if you feel that you have an axe to grind now, then you might come in and say something that -- I'm going to stick it to you now. And so, that, to me, is an underlying motivation. There was a time that you had the power, Mr. Diddy. But, right now, I have the power. I'm going to let the jury know exactly what it was. It may not be true, but to the extent it sticks to you and gets you convicted, I feel vindictive.
COATES: You know what's interesting? When you're in that courtroom and you're -- and you're watching that testimony and seeing what she's saying, it almost -- I don't know if you felt this way, too. It almost felt like she was trying to -- on the one hand, answer the questions, but also talking to Diddy. Like, she wanted him to know. I mean, he was -- she has been shut out.
This is not somebody who's still in the good graces. She's begging for forgiveness. You know, you've forgiven everybody else, but why not me? The stakes are so much higher for me now. It was almost like she was explaining her affinity for him, her love of his professionalism, his -- it was a business school for her to go to, she lost her parents. Didn't you get that impression that she was, like, talking to him still?
WAGMEISTER: I did, and I've gotten that impression from every former employee --
COATES: Right.
WAGMEISTER: -- that has testified. There seems to be a through line. First of all, that power dynamic, as Joey said, has completely flipped. Right? Because when they worked for him, you have Diddy up here and everyone else is -- is down here. And now, Diddy is the defendant who is incarcerated right now, and they are telling their truth or they should be telling their truth, they're under oath.
But the other thing is every single former employee has had continued communication, and they have all explained the reasons. He's in power. I want to stay in his good graces. I need a job. Or, you know, I actually really learned a lot, and this is complicated.
And I wonder, does that actually help the prosecution even though the defense is saying, why are you in continued communication? When you hear from every single person, it was complicated. I actually learned a lot from him, and yet all of these terrible things happen.
COATES: Quickly, Jeremy, does it?
SALAND: It does, but I want to close with this right now --
COATES: Just like a lawyer.
SALAND: I got to close with this. So -- so, when -- when she finished up, she said that she wasn't -- she, meaning Clark, said about Cassie, Cassie is not Whitney Houston. She's not Mariah Carey. How do you think she got to where she is? She got there because she wanted to be there. She needed that. And she couldn't have Jay-Z, so she got Sean Combs.
There was reference to that in the close -- pardon me, in the cross- examination. There was an agenda here. There's an end game here. She was there willingly, and that's a risk she was willing to take to better her future.
COATES: That is actually how the defense opened the case, by the way. Not the Jay-Z part, but everything else. Stand by, everyone. Much more to get to tonight, including some potentially contentious testimony we expect to get tomorrow as the defense prepares to call into question a key element of Kid Cudi's car bombing story.
Plus, he is nicknamed "The Punisher." It's the male escort who told the jury about those alleged "freak-offs" at the heart of the prosecution's case. And tonight, well, he's here in studio, ready to tell you what he saw and what it was like taking the stand, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, his stage name, "The Punisher," to the jury, Sharay Hayes is his real name, and one of the few witnesses to give an uncensored look inside Diddy's "freak-offs."
In 2012, the exotic dancer allegedly received a call from a woman requesting a strip tease for someone named Janet, AKA Cassie Ventura, and her friends. Hayes says he believes Cassie found him through his getpunished.com website.
At their first meeting, Hayes said Cassie told him her and her husband liked to create a sexy scene, one that her husband would eventually come out to watch. And during that first encounter, Diddy allegedly gave mostly subtle directions. The compensation for that rendezvous, 2,000 bucks.
Under cross-examination, Hayes testified that Cassie did not appear uncomfortable during their encounters. He -- quote -- "did not get any cues that there was a discomfort with what was going on over the eight to 12 interactions they all had."
Sharay "The Punisher" Hayes joins me now, and he's also the author of "In Search of Freezer Meat." He joins us now. Sharay, welcome. It has been a week since you testified. First of all, I -- I'm just wondering what the reaction has been like in your life knowing that this is such a high-profile case and here you are in the spotlight in this way.
[23:25:00]
SHARAY HAYES, EXOTIC DANCER WHO TESTIFIED AT DIDDY TRIAL: Yeah, it's -- it has been like a whirlwind. You know, constant outreach from media outlets like this and just friends and family, people from junior high school actually --
COATES: Really?
HAYES: -- reaching out just randomly, you know, to check in and speak up. it has been -- it has been very interesting trying week.
COATES: You've reflected, I think, in some time about what your testimony said and what it was like in that courtroom. Can you tell me a little bit what it was like to be on that stand a few feet away from Sean "Diddy" Combs, who you obviously had been around before in these sexual encounters, but he was more of a voyeur at those times? What was it like being in the room in the courtroom?
HAYES: Yeah. So, I have to say, I -- I thought going into it. I was pretty prepared and confident. But literally, when I walked in a room, I -- I got complete anxiety. Like, my entire body was shaking. Whatever I envisioned or what I thought, because obviously you can't see anything, it was the -- the tension and the magnitude of the moment was much, much deeper. So, it was -- it was, to some degree, terrifying. Like, I -- I just could not -- whatever I envisioned, it was just so much more, that it was -- I was not mentally prepared.
COATES: What were you afraid of? HAYES: So, my testimony, which I wasn't sure how it was going to go, it -- it -- having that weight to be a deciding factor and such so impactful to so many people's lives, with such a huge decision, just being involved in an impactful way was kind of --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
HAYES: It very intimidating. It's a lot to -- to have. It's a big weight on your shoulders.
COATES: Did Diddy ever look at you during your testimony?
HAYES: So, I purposely, for almost the majority of the time, I avoided even looking in his direction. You know, obviously, I'm showing up to --
COATES: Yeah.
HAYES: -- testify for the prosecution. So -- and who knows what I'm going to say? Who knows what details I'm going to give? So, I assumed there was going to be some sort of a negative tension. So, I didn't even look for it. I just wanted to be at peace and be able to -- to give the testimony, give the -- the facts of my involvement as clearheaded as possible. So, I avoided it to the very end.
COATES: You know, I mentioned that he was a voyeur during the sexual encounters. You were involved with Cassie Ventura directly in those rooms, as you've testified. Were you ever involved with Sean "Diddy" Combs? Did you -- did you two ever have an interaction in those sexual encounters?
HAYES: No. Actually, not one conversation, not even eye contact.
COATES: Really?
HAYES: Yeah.
COATES: Did that surprise you?
HAYES: Well, it was told to me immediately, like, on the first encounter, that I was instructed to not look at them, not acknowledge them, not have any interacts with -- interactions with --
COATES: By Cassie?
HAYES: Yeah, by Cassie. So, those were their instructions. So, I did my best to follow them to the best of my ability because, you know, initially, I did not know who they were. And so, I just saw it as an opportunity. I see this stunningly beautiful woman and, you know, $2,000 for this type of interaction was, you know, kind of like a no brainer in terms of it. So, I wanted to follow the directions as much as possible. So, there was literally no interaction. No -- I didn't even look directly at them.
COATES: So, normally, you are a dancer, and this was an interaction that would have resulted in sexual intercourse. HAYES: Exactly. So --
COATES: Okay.
HAYES: Yeah. So, this -- this is nuance. It's not something that happens. You know, I've done thousands of parties. This is the only time I was propositioned with something like this, and it was in such magnitude. Like, in the Trump Hotel, it's like this -- these huge suites, and -- and you can tell this is a very high-profile couple.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
HAYES: So, I just wanted to be as professional for the sex scenario as I would assume was required.
COATES: Did you ever travel outside of New York with them?
HAYES: I did not.
COATES: When you were engaged in this encounter and -- and intimate with Cassie Ventura, as you've said on the stand, you were -- you were asked about whether you had any notice or any idea how she felt about the interaction, whether she was consenting, whether she was uncomfortable in any way. You testified you did not feel as though she was uncomfortable at all. Can you explain?
HAYES: Yeah. So, there was always, like -- before the sexual activity, there was always, like, downtime. So, I would be greeted by Cassie, kind of put in a room, and we would have casual conversation.
COATES: But how long did that last?
HAYES: Ten, 15 minutes, you know. And -- and it will be, you know, consistent. How's work going? How's the parties? How's things? So, it seemed like a very cordial laid-back situation.
And I actually believe that the scenario was real. It was like her birthday. This was something they were doing as a couple that wasn't normal. I mean, that wasn't their norm, and I honestly thought I was the only person they were engaging with.
So, I had almost a belief that I was, wow, like, this is a cool thing. Like, I'm the person they're choosing for this kind of fetish type of environment and --
[23:30:00]
COATES: Nothing seemed illegal to you or anything out of sorts?
HAYES: Not even close. Like, I -- I didn't even get any thought of anybody being, like, under the influence of any drugs or anything.
COATES: Hmm.
HAYES: It was -- it seems like a very -- for the circumstance. Everybody was just normally in their right state of mind, and this was just something they did for sexual pleasure.
COATES: You never saw any violence?
HAYES: Nothing close.
COATES: You mentioned that you didn't realize that there had been anyone else involved. When did you realize that you were one of many, perhaps, other people involved in these encounters?
HAYES: It was pretty much after things wrapped up, and I -- I decided to kind of confide with somebody that I worked with in the club. And it was, like, shocking to me because I was like, hey, man, for a while, I was being called, and the guy was like, oh, yeah, they -- they called a bunch of guys.
COATES: Really?
HAYES: Yeah. So, it was kind of, like, it was a common rumor, a common knowledge for people that a person named Mr. Black would call.
COATES: And you said he -- oh, he called. You said Frank Black. Someone named Frank Black.
HAYES: Yeah, yeah. So, I'm getting this, like, casual conversation. Like, yeah, there's an alias. They call Mr. Black, and they -- they have been hiring guys for some time. So, I was, like, wow. And this was probably 2015 -- late 2015, 2016, when I decided to share it with somebody.
COATES: Hmm.
HAYES: And so, I found out that way, after the fact. It was kind of like a common thing.
COATES: You know, interestingly, you say you haven't seen any violence, you didn't see anyone under the influence of drugs, and you didn't have any idea that she was not consenting in some way. Why do you think you were called to testify?
HAYES: I'm still trying to figure that out because after the fact, I'm -- the only thing that I can kind of maybe think is, you know, there was direction. Right? It was -- it was -- in my testimony, it was cleared that it was him, I guess, somewhat in control. You know, not overwhelmingly. I mean, it was said to me that this scene we were creating was for her husband, AKA him.
So, the only thing I can say is maybe they were trying to show another element of control. And even though, in my case, it wasn't forceful or -- or aggressive, but it's still another dynamic that maybe they were trying to establish.
COATES: Did you ever see cameras or anything being filmed?
HAYES: I did not. The rooms were always extremely dim and dark, just candle lit. So, it was -- it was -- if there were cameras, it would have to be some sort of infrared, low light scenario because it was very dark.
COATES: Who paid you?
HAYES: Always Cassie.
COATES: Did you ever see where the money came from?
HAYES: I did not. Only one time. Like I said in my testimony, we were actually engaging in sexual activity --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
HAYES: -- and he threw a stack of hundred-dollar bills on the bed that Cassie turned to him and asked him if everything was fine. He just said, I'm -- I'm enjoying it in so many words. And I know that money was collected after the fact and given to me. So that would be the only scenario where, I guess, money came directly from him, by way of, you know, slamming it on the bed, like -- almost, like, how would somebody do that? Like a -- like at a strip club.
COATES: Hmm. How -- when you reflected black on your --- back on your testimony, do you think that your testimony was helpful to the prosecution or the defense in any way?
HAYES: I mean, going into it, I -- I always thought that because I saw no violence or any outward aggressive -- aggression, I always wondered if this was more beneficial to the defense. But I just -- I don't understand the angle of how they're trying to --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
HAYES: -- take my testimony and -- and connect it to what -- what they're trying to prove, you know. It's very nuanced what constitutes a RICO in racketeering, and I just -- I don't know enough yet. I haven't heard enough to see if my testimony aligns with what they're trying to prove.
COATES: One thing that Cassie said on the stand was that she wanted Diddy to know that people were not disposable. And it almost sounded like she was talking collectively about everyone involved in these sexual encounters and these so-called "freak-offs." Did you yourself ever feel as though you were either disposable or that you yourself were being trafficked in some way or prostituted?
HAYES: No. Not trafficked in some way or whatever. I -- there was always pressure in terms of being disposable because, obviously, I'm there to create something like a scene, to create an environment.
So, at times, there was sexual pressure, you know, because it's -- it's out of my norm. I -- I did have a feeling of, okay, it's -- I'm one -- you know, scenario where if I don't perform in the right way, if I don't create the right ambiance, then maybe I won't get called back.
But that's -- that's the most pressure that I had. There was no indication of of -- I really believe they were just a happy couple and this is a sexual fetish that they had.
COATES: Did you ever see them be affectionate during these "freak- offs" together?
HAYES: I did not. They -- they would never actually interact in front of me.
[23:35:00]
There was, like, a kind of a queue where if he needed to speak to her or have some sort of direction, he would just stand up and leave the room. And if she saw that, she would follow him out. They would be gone five, 10 minutes. Then she'll come back, and we'll resume for the most part, but no interaction in front of me. Not even conversation other than his directions, which were subtle, move the light, turn your body, maybe put more oil, those type of gestures in communication.
COATES: Hmm. You said you wanted to, after testimony, feel at peace with what you've said. Knowing what you do now, about what Cassie Ventura has said about how she has felt about these "freak-offs," what would you say to her, if you could?
HAYES: Um, I would apologize. I would apologize because I had no idea, no indication what she was going through.
And if -- you know, obviously, my involvement kind of furthered her suffering, you know. So, just me knowing that as a man, you know, being raised by a single mom and a grandma, you know, just the thought of partaking in a scenario where a woman is possibly being abused is -- is tough to hear.
So, you know, I would just apologize to her and, you know, tell her that I was really remorseful and regret if I contributed to a bad experience for her.
COATES: Sharay Hayes, thank you so much for joining.
HAYES: Oh, thank you for having me. I appreciate it.
COATES: Still ahead, Diddy's defense team notching a small but potentially important win. What a fire investigator will be allowed to say tomorrow on the stand that could cause some problems for the prosecution's case.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Tomorrow in the trial of Sean Combs, prosecutors say they expect to call as many as four witnesses. This is quite a fast paced. And a contentious issue could be resolved by the judge.
My panel is back with me right now. All right, let's talk about tomorrow's testimony and this focus on the fire, the so-called car bombing of Kid Cudi's car.
Joey, the defense wants the judge to throw out the testimony that Kid Cudi is saying essentially that he thinks Diddy was lying about that firebombing of the Porsche. The judge could blow out tomorrow. Why would the -- does the defense want that out?
JACKSON: Now you're talking about the defense regarding the Porsche and the firebombing, etcetera. Listen. From my perspective, when you're talking about a RICO case, right, issues relating to arson, particularly when you're running a racketeering organization, very important. And so, therefore, from a prosecution's perspective, I think it's compelling to connect the arson to what Diddy did.
At the same time, there's an indication that there's female prints, right, connected to the car and, therefore, wouldn't establish that Diddy did it.
COATES: Well, by the way, that came up at one point when -- during the direct across -- excuse me, the cross of Kid Cudi. And there's objection. They didn't want it in there. There was any even intimation that it was not Diddy's fingerprints.
And they're going to call tomorrow, Jeremy, an L.A. Fire Department investigator to testify about this alleged firebombing. There's actually no physical evidence linking Combs to it, as Joey is talking about as far as we know, and no one has been charged in this. So, is it odd to you that this would be maybe a predicate crime?
SALAND: It's not necessarily odd to me because you can establish it through other means. Not every -- not every predicate crime has to be a conviction where someone sentenced to prison and, you know, you're the bad guy.
But what's something that has to be done is the prosecution has to get out in front of it because, to what you just said moments ago, is that there are -- there is no DNA of -- of Combs or even a man or suspected DNA of a woman.
So, all of a sudden, we hear the story and these these repeated stories going back to Capricorn about how she was -- she was at gunpoint or were there guns present. Was -- what did she tell Cudi about the gun? Or did she not tell Cudi about the gun?
Now, we have firebombing. Could someone else not have liked Cudi? Is this a predicate act? Well, you know what? We got a female prince. Was it Cassie? Who knows? There could be a lot of different things. But you got to keep on peppering in that -- that reasonable doubt, throwing wrenches in that story.
COATES: They're going to plant that seed. They're going to water that seed.
SALAND: Oh, yeah, they will.
COATES: They're going to try to watch it grow. You know that. Mimi, there's also -- we know now that a third victim is not going to testify in this matter. The prosecutors said they've had a hard time locating her after the jury selection which, of course, I'm, like, you had a hard time locating? I -- I -- okay. But that's --
ROCAH: It could mean a lot of things.
COATES: It could mean a lot of things.
ROCAH: It could mean that she doesn't want to testify.
COATES: It could mean that.
ROCAH: It's confusing and, you know.
COATES: Another seed they're going to plant and try to grow if you're the defendant saying, oh, where is this witness? Where is this victim?
But they are going to hear from another alleged victim that goes by the name of Mia. That's what they're calling her. It's a pseudonym, of course. This person was a personal assistant to Diddy. And they say that he sexually assaulted her as well. How critical is this person's testimony given you've already heard from Cassie Ventura?
ROCAH: I think it's pretty critical in the sense that it would be enough if there was one victim, if it were just Cassie. And so, I think as a matter of law, they don't need to prove coercion or sex trafficking as to this victim, but it makes it a -- it makes it harder for the defense that they're arguing here of, oh, this was just this tumultuous relationship between the two of them to stand up.
[23:45:03]
Right? So, it, one, sort of puts an arrow in that defense because now there's another person, allegedly, involved in this kind of conduct. And two, it just gives the jury this impression of victims instead of victim. And again, one victim is more than enough both legally and, you know, from a sympathy point of view, but --
COATES: Does it matter that she has a pseudonym?
ROCAH: Bad?
COATES: Does it matter to the jury, you think? The jury -- the jury was attracted to getting the trial --
ROCAH: Yeah.
COATES: -- but they will have a pseudonym and not to give any greater or less weight as a -- as a result.
ROCAH: I mean, I think, if anything, it kind of gives her an added sympathy. It makes it seem like there's something she's afraid of still. What -- you know, why can't she use her real name? Why won't she use her real name? Was she underage at the time? Is she afraid of him still? So, there -- it's -- it's -- it's kind of an added layer of fear.
SALAND: From the defense, it's another woman making another accusation that has not been founded, that he has not been charged with.
JACKSON: Correct.
SALAND: It's another money grab with the other countless --
ROCAH: Charged with it now.
SALAND: No --
COATES: You mean no standalone rape charge.
SALAND: That's what -- that's what I'm referring to. Right? It's in terms of a separate crime that predates -- that he has been charged with. It's one after the next. It's one after the next. And at some point, it's a bunch of disgruntled employees who have an angle, who want -- either want money or revenge, and they're sick of his garbage because you know what? If you believe the testimony, he's a bad dude and he deserves to be punished.
JACKSON: Yeah. But the other issue briefly is that there's a pattern. Right? Or there's not a pattern. And remember, there are multiple counts. And so, some of the victims go to some counts of sex trafficking, the other goes to the other. And it's always about quality of the testimony, not the quantity.
But in this particular situation where you're missing a potential victim, who could have given explosive testimony, not only would it go to a sex trafficking independent count, but it would corroborate the Cassie count. This is who he is. This is what this guy does. So, the absence of that witness becomes, in my view, problematic.
COATES: Thank you so much, everyone. There's still a lot more to unpack. Don't worry. This trial is still ongoing.
You can hear much more of our trial coverage on my new CNN podcast, "Trial by Jury." Listen to it on CNN.com or wherever you get your podcasts.
Up next tonight, an all-out manhunt underway for the one they call the "Devil of the Ozarks." He's a former police chief convicted of murder, who is now running free after a shocking escape from prison. So, how did he do it? And how dangerous is he? The prosecutor who originally locked him up will join me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Former Arkansas police chief serving 30 years for first-degree murder, 50 years for rape, except, tonight, he's on the loose. A manhunt now underway for the man that you are looking at right now, 56-year-old Grant Hardin. Police say that he broke out of the high security Calico Rock Prison in Arkansas on Sunday afternoon. He had been locked up there since 2017. So, how did he do it? Well, the Arkansas Department of Corrections says that he was -- quote -- "wearing a makeshift outfit designed to mimic law enforcement," releasing the photo you're looking at right now. Now they say it shows Hardin escaping through a secure gate while wheeling a cart with a box and pieces of wood. Law enforcement across the state now putting out this wanted poster describing Hardin as -- quote -- "extremely dangerous."
Joining me now is Nathan Smith. Now he is the former prosecutor for Benton County, Arkansas who prosecuted both the murder and rape cases against Hardin. Nathan, welcome. Thank you for joining. What an unbelievable story we're following here. What was your first reaction when you heard the man you prosecuted, Hardin, had escaped?
NATHAN SMITH, FORMER BENTON COUNTY PROSECUTOR: Laura, thank you for having me. I appreciate you covering the story. Hopefully, the publicity of it will make it easier for law enforcement to capture him.
Grant Hardis, as -- as they've said, is a very dangerous man. When I heard about it, it was shocking. My reaction, honestly, went to the victims and their families, having to relive all of this because, as you know, part of the goal of the justice system is to bring some measure of closure to victims and their families. And so, the folks in this case expected that these -- these dispositions in his cases would be the end of it. And so, my heart really goes out to them in dealing with this.
COATES: It must be very triggering, very scary, unnerving for all the reason you described for that families -- the families to know this person is on the loose. You said he's very dangerous. Can you describe his personality to us?
SMITH: Yeah. Well, the troubling thing about Grant Hardin, it -- when you look at his crimes, you know, many times, even though every murder is a heinous and vile act, sometimes, you can look back and understand what a person was thinking, why they might have done it. Prosecutors, as you know, don't have to prove motive, but we always want to know.
And his case is the answers for why he committed not only the murder but, obviously, the rape in 1997, really are very unclear in terms of justifying both of those acts.
And so, you're looking at a -- at a person who, in my opinion, never really expressed remorse, and the reasons for him doing what he did were never clear. And at the same time, you have this being a person who raised his hand and took an oath to protect and to serve, and betrayed public trust as well.
COATES: What you described is so terrifying. There's something I know as a prosecutor that can be perhaps comforting, if lack of a better word, to the victims and the community, if you have some reason. Maybe you feel safe for yourself if you feel as though that reason will not apply to you.
But the randomness of it, what you described, is just -- is really, really shocking and terrifying, knowing that he's out right now. Are you worried for, well, your safety or the family's?
[23:55:02]
SMITH: Well, I don't think anyone should live in fear. I do think that we all should be alert and vigilant. My hope is that with all the coverage this is getting, that people will have more knowledge of him, be on the lookout more, and hopefully be a force multiplier for law enforcement.
And so, that's really my -- my hope for -- for this -- for this coverage because it's -- it's critically important that people be aware of it and that law enforcement has all the support they can have in trying to -- to re-apprehend him.
COATES: We're showing his face right now. Of course, we encourage anyone who has any insight or information to contact law enforcement. This was something that was obviously planned. Maybe not, you know, for a long period of time. But this did take some level of effort and foresight for him to be able to mastermind this kind of escape on his own. Did he strike you as the type of person who would be able to perform this alone?
SMITH: You know, it's hard to speculate as to whether it could have been alone or with the aid of someone else. At this point, we just don't know.
I will say, for Mr. Hardin, you've got a person who committed a violent and heinous act in 1997. And at least in terms of recorded crimes, we know he went more than 20 years before committing the murder of Mr. Appleton. And that whole time, he had on and off employment as a law enforcement officer.
So, you've got someone who clearly is -- has the ability to compartmentalize that sort of heinous evil in his psyche. So, that's very troubling. I agree with the statements that the Department of Corrections has put out, that he is a dangerous man. Again, people shouldn't live in fear, but they should be vigilant.
COATES: Nathan Smith, thank you so much. We'll keep watching.
SMITH: Thank you for having me. I appreciate it.
COATES: And, of course, thank all of you for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
