Cassie Ventura broke down in tears in court as she described her “personal shame” at taking part in “freak off” sex sessions for Sean Combs – and also accused him of raping her as their relationship came to an end.

During her second day of testimony, the singer and model told jurors of several alleged violent incidents and said the hip-hop mogul, who was known as Puff Daddy and Diddy throughout his career, blackmailed her with compromising videos.

At one point, the courtroom in Manhattan, New York, fell silent as sexually explicit images from “freak offs” were shown to jurors, but kept private from the public gallery. These included images of Ms Ventura and escorts.

Combs asked his lawyer Marc Agnifilo to see a binder of the images, and thumbed through it for a few moments before handing it back.

Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs trial: Day 3 – As it happened

The 55-year-old, once one of the most powerful men in the music industry, has pleaded not guilty to charges of sex-trafficking, racketeering conspiracy, and transportation to engage in prostitution.

Prosecutors allege he used his fame and fortune to coerce Ms Ventura and other women into abusive sex sessions with escorts. His lawyers have conceded he could be violent, but argue that all sexual encounters were consensual and he never veered into sex trafficking and racketeering.

Ms Ventura, who is heavily pregnant with her third child, kept calm and composed for most of her evidence on Wednesday, but broke down at the end of the day when asked why she had chosen to testify.

“I can’t carry this anymore,” she told the court. “I can’t carry the shame, the guilt, the way he treated people like they were disposable. What’s right is right, what’s wrong is wrong. I came here to do the right thing.”

Early in 2023, she said she started suffering from “flashbacks” and had suicidal thoughts, so went to rehab and trauma therapy.

It is “impossible to know” how many “freak offs” she participated in, but it was in the hundreds, she told the court. Asked if she has been involved in any since ending the relationship in 2018, she replied: “No.”

Ms Ventura, 38, alleged that Combs raped her at her home in Los Angeles, after she told him she was ending things.

“I just remember crying and saying no, but it was very fast,” she said, her voice trailing off.

She told jurors she did have consensual sex with the rapper on a subsequent occasion. “We’d been together for over 10 years. You just don’t turn feelings off,” she said.

Ms Ventura sued Combs in November 2023, and settled within 24 hours. She received £20m, the trial was told.

Combs ‘threatened Cassie and Kid Cudi’

Ms Ventura’s second day of testimony also included details of how she briefly dated Scott Mescudi, better known as singer and rapper Kid Cudi, during a low point in her relationship with Combs in 2011.

Combs lunged at her with a corkscrew and kicked her in the back when he found out, jurors heard, and threatened to blow up Mescudi’s car.

These allegations were also detailed in her lawsuit, which alleged his car did “explode in his driveway” around this time.

During several hours on the stand, Ms Ventura told how she hid the extent of Comb’s alleged violence from loved ones, and described one incident when she allegedly suffered a “pretty significant gash” above her left eye after he threw her into a bed frame.

Rather than go to hospital, his security staff took her to a plastic surgeon in Beverly Hills, she said.

The hotel CCTV ‘attack’

An incident at a hotel in Los Angeles in March 2016, which has come up several times during the trial already, was also discussed again.

CCTV from the hotel, which was first released by CNN in May 2024, showed Combs allegedly beating Ms Ventura in a hallway.

Jurors were shown photos of her with a swollen lip following the incident as she testified. She said a friend of hers saw her injuries and was “super upset” because she’d “seen me with black eyes and busted lips before”.

She also spoke about a trip to Cannes in 2013, after which she said the rapper began playing a recording of a “freak off” on his laptop on a commercial flight to New York, with other people around them – telling her he was “going to embarrass me and release them”.

Read more:
The rise and fall of Diddy
Diddy – a timeline of allegations
Everything you need to know about the trial

Asked if the freak offs impacted her health, Ms Ventura said she had stomach problems and frequently developed urinary tract infections. She was also affected mentally, she told the court, saying they made her feel “really empty” and “gross”.

Throughout her testimony, Ms Ventura has maintained she never wanted to have sexual experiences with other people but did it at first to please the man she loved, and later out of fear. She was 22 and inexperienced when she started dating Combs, who was 17 years older, she said.

The trial continues with cross-examination of Ms Ventura from the defence tomorrow.

A judge has reduced the Menendez brothers’ murder sentences – meaning they are eligible for parole.

Lyle, 57, and Erik, 54, received life sentences without the possibility of parole after being convicted of murdering their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, at their Beverly Hills home in 1989.

Last year, the then Los Angeles district attorney George Gascon asked a judge to change the brothers’ sentence from life without the possibility of parole to 50 years to life.

On Tuesday, Los Angeles County superior court Judge Michael Jesic did so, paving the way for the brothers’ parole and possible release.

The ruling capped off a day-long hearing in which several relatives, a retired judge and a former fellow inmate testified in support of efforts to shorten the brothers’ sentences.

‘I killed my mum and dad’

The brothers appeared at the proceedings in Los Angeles County Superior Court via video feed from prison in San Diego.

“I killed my mum and dad. I make no excuses and also no justification,” Lyle said in a statement to the court. “The impact of my violent actions on my family… is unfathomable.”

Erik also spoke about taking responsibility for his actions and apologising to his family.

He said: “You did not deserve what I did to you, but you inspire me to do better.”

The brothers did not show any apparent emotion during much of the testimony but chuckled when one of their cousins, Diane Hernandez, told the court that Erik received A+ grades in all of his classes during his most recent semester in college.

Anamaria Baralt, another cousin of the brothers, told the court they had repeatedly expressed remorse for their actions.

“We all, on both sides of the family, believe that 35 years is enough. They are universally forgiven by our family,” she said.

‘They have not come clean’

Los Angeles County prosecutors argued against the resentencing, saying the brothers have not taken complete responsibility for the crime.

The current district attorney Nathan Hochman said he believes the brothers were not ready for resentencing because “they have not come clean” about their crimes.

His office has also said it does not believe they were sexually abused.

“Our position is not ‘no’. It’s not ‘never’. It’s ‘not yet’,” Mr Hochman said. “They have not fully accepted responsibility for all their criminal conduct.”

Path to freedom?

“I’m not saying they should be released, it’s not for me to decide,” Judge Jesic said. “I do believe they’ve done enough in the past 35 years, that they should get that chance.”

After the judge’s decision, the brothers now have a new path to freedom after decades in prison.

Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

They are now eligible for parole under California’s youthful offender law because they committed the crime while under the age of 26.

The state parole board must still decide whether to release them from prison.

While this decision is made, the brothers will remain behind bars.

During the original trial, prosecutors accused the brothers of killing their parents for a multimillion-dollar inheritance, although their defence team argued they acted out of self-defence after years of sexual abuse by their father.

Read more from Sky News:
Man who spent 38 years in jail has conviction quashed
Trump to lift sanctions on Syria
Tory MP charged with sexual assaults

The brothers have maintained since they were first charged with the murders that their parents abused them.

A Netflix series and subsequent documentary about the brothers thrust them back into the spotlight last year.

The Menendez brothers, who were sentenced to life for killing their parents in their Beverly Hills mansion in 1989, are now eligible to be released from prison for the first time after being resentenced.

Lyle Menendez, 56, and his 53-year-old brother Erik have spent 35 years behind bars for the shotgun murders of their father and mother, Jose and Kitty Menendez.

The brothers have claimed that their parents abused them and have argued that the killings were an act of self-defence.

A Netflix drama series about the brothers called Monsters, which aired in September, thrust them back into the spotlight and led to renewed calls for their release, including from their family.

Now, a long-delayed resentencing hearing has offered them a path to freedom for the first time since their incarceration.

But how is it possible, and what happens next?

What does the resentencing mean?

Before leaving his role in December, former LA district attorney (DA) George Gascon asked LA County Superior Court Judge Michael Jesic to review the brothers’ convictions.

During the resentencing on 13 May, he gave them a revised sentence of 50 years to life, making them immediately eligible for youth parole under California’s youthful offender law because they committed the crime while under the age of 26.

The judgment was based on whether the pair had been rehabilitated based on their behaviour in prison.

The brothers’ case highlighted some of their achievements behind bars: attaining several degrees and contributing to the community.

It listed a prison “beautification programme” Lyle Menendez started called GreenSpace as one example, and added that both brothers had received low-risk assessment scores, with Lyle apparently not being involved in a single fight during his time in jail.

The brothers’ attorneys pushed for the judge to resentence the brothers to manslaughter, which would have allowed them to be immediately released, but he gave them a revised murder sentence instead.

Handing them the new sentence, Judge Jesic said: “I’m not saying they should be released, it’s not for me to decide.

“I do believe they’ve done enough in the past 35 years, that they should get that chance.”

The resentencing hearing had faced lengthy delays due to the judge needing to review a large number of files, as well as the LA wildfires in January.

There was also a turnover in the DA’s office, with liberal leaning Gascon replaced by the more conservative Nathan Hochman, who repeatedly attempted to have the resentencing hearing thrown out.

Emotional testimony in court from brothers and family members

The brothers appeared at the proceedings in Los Angeles County Superior Court via video feed from prison in San Diego.

“I killed my mum and dad. I make no excuses and also no justification,” Lyle said in a statement to the court. “The impact of my violent actions on my family… is unfathomable.”

Erik also spoke about taking responsibility for his actions and apologising to his family.

He said: “You did not deserve what I did to you, but you inspire me to do better.”

The brothers chuckled when one of their cousins, Diane Hernandez, told the court that Erik received A+ grades in all of his classes during his most recent semester in college.

Anamaria Baralt, another cousin of the brothers, told the court they had repeatedly expressed remorse for their actions.

“We all, on both sides of the family, believe that 35 years is enough. They are universally forgiven by our family,” she said.

The defence also called a former judge and a former fellow inmate to the witness stand to testify that the brothers were not only rehabilitated, but also helped others. Prosecutors cross-examined the witnesses but didn’t call any of their own.

Former judge Jonathan Colby, who said he considered himself tough on crime, told the court that spending time with the brothers and witnessing their growth made him believe in rehabilitation.

Anerae Brown, who previously served time in prison alongside the brothers, cried as he testified about how they helped him heal and eventually be released through parole.

“I have children now,” he said. “Without Lyle and Erik I might still be sitting in there doing stupid things.”

The judge said he was particularly moved by a letter from a prison official who supported resentencing, something the official had never done for any incarcerated person in his 25-year career.

Los Angeles County prosecutors argued against the resentencing, saying the brothers have not taken complete responsibility for the crime.

The current DA Mr Hochman said he believed the brothers were not ready for resentencing because “they have not come clean” about their crimes.

His office has also said it does not believe they were sexually abused.

“Our position is not ‘no’. It’s not ‘never’. It’s ‘not yet’,” Mr Hochman said. “They have not fully accepted responsibility for all their criminal conduct.”

What happens now?

The reduced sentencing has made the brothers immediately eligible for parole, but they must still appear before a state parole board, which will decide whether or not to release them from prison.

While this decision is made, the brothers will remain behind bars.

Their first hearing must take place no later than six months from their eligibility date, according to board policy.

If they are denied at their first parole hearing, the brothers will continue to receive subsequent hearings until they are granted release.

But the brothers have another potential avenue to freedom, having appealed to California governor Gavin Newsom for clemency before they were resentenced.

Mr Newsom has the power to free them himself through clemency, and in February, he ordered the state parole board to investigate whether the brothers would pose a risk to the public.

They already have a hearing before the board scheduled for 13 June, but that one was set as part of the clemency petition.

It’s not yet clear if that hearing will serve as their formal parole hearing or if a separate one will be scheduled.

Mr Newsom can override any decision the board makes.

Anne Bremner, a trial lawyer in Seattle, said the brothers will be preparing for the parole board and aiming to impress upon them that they should be let out, but suggested the board members will already have a clear view.

“My guess is the parole board has been watching this and of course they’ve done these risk assessments already,” she said, adding they will know “who these two are, what their alleged crimes were and what they’ve done since the time that they were incarcerated until today.”

Potential new evidence

The brothers’ lawyers have also submitted a letter Erik wrote to his cousin as new evidence, saying it was not seen by the jury when the brothers were sentenced in 1996 and could have influenced their decision.

The letter is dated months before the murders, which they say alludes to him being abused by his father, Jose Menendez.

In the handwritten letter, Erik wrote: “I’ve been trying to avoid dad… every night, I stay up thinking he might come in.”

He also said he was “afraid” and that he needed to “put it out of my mind” and “stop thinking about it”.

Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

Read more:
Rapper Tory Lanez ‘stabbed 14 times’ in prison attack
Diddy trial: What we know about the 12 members of the jury

More new evidence submitted comes from Roy Rossello, a former member of the band Menudo, who alleges he was sexually assaulted by Jose Menendez as a teenager in the 1980s.

He has provided a signed declaration of his alleged rape by Jose Menendez to the brothers’ lawyers, which the lawyers say is further proof of his supposed abusive nature.

LA prosecutors filed a motion opposing the petition, but its status is unclear, and appears to have been halted while the brothers have pursued their resentencing and clemency.

What happened in the original Menendez trials?

On 20 August 1989, Lyle and Erik Menendez shot their parents, Jose and Mary Louise “Kitty” Menendez, multiple times at close range.

The brothers, who were 21 and 18 at the time, initially told police they found them dead when they got home, but were eventually tried for their murder.

During the original trial, prosecutors accused the brothers of killing their parents for a multimillion-dollar inheritance, although their defence team argued they acted out of self-defence after years of sexual abuse by their father.

An initial attempt to try each brother individually in front of separate juries ended in a mistrial after both juries failed to reach a verdict.

In their second trial, which saw the brothers tried together, the defence claimed the brothers committed the murders in self-defence after many years of alleged physical, emotional and sexual abuse at the hands of their father, with no protection from their mother.

They said they had feared for their lives after threatening to expose their father.

The prosecution argued the murders were motivated by greed, and they killed their parents to avoid disinheritance.

Evidence of alleged abuse from their defence case was largely excluded from the joint trial by the judge.

In 1996, seven years after the killings, a jury found the brothers guilty, and they were convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to murder.

They were sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

But the brothers and many of their family members have continued to fight for their freedom ever since.

Although their focus of late has shifted towards the brothers’ rehabilitation in prison, their main argument in recent years has been that more evidence of Jose Menendez’s alleged abuse has come out since the last trial, and that a modern jury would have a better understanding of the impact of abuse than one 30 years ago.