By the time you read this blog, we will be entering week five of the US federal investigation and legal proceedings involving Sean “Diddy” Combs. Side note: Combs faces charges of racketeering, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution. For some, this trial may feel like a blockbuster movie—complete with shocking allegations involving guns, drive-by shootings, explosives, and even kidnapping. But as someone who approaches these matters through the lens of a workplace investigator, I see something very different.

What stands out to me most is not just the dramatic nature of the allegations—it is the seriousness and intensity of the witness testimony. Much of what I’ve read and heard paints a troubling picture and raises important concerns, particularly regarding the experiences of those who are alleged to be victims of physical and sexual abuse, as well as abuse of power.

What has also struck me is how some people have responded to the allegations—especially those involving Diddy’s ex-girlfriend and someone who was under his label or employ, Cassie Ventura, whose civil lawsuit many believe catalyzed the current federal probe. The responses to her and to others who have come forward—like former Danity Kane and Dirty Money bandmate Dawn Richard, and Diddy’s former assistant Capricorn Clark—have ranged from disbelief to outright dismissal. As a workplace investigator, the public’s negative reaction to these witnesses has made me reflect on the issues that this case highlights. Specifically, what complicates this further is the role that Diddy’s wealth, influence, and public persona play in shaping how these allegations are received. His celebrity status can unintentionally or intentionally (depending on how one sees it) undermine the credibility of those coming forward, at least in the court of public opinion. This dynamic not only reflects the imbalance of power often present in abuse cases, but also highlights the persistent stigma that surrounds speaking out against harassment or abuse—especially when the accused holds significant cultural and economic power.

The purpose of this blog is to examine key aspects of the ongoing and infamous Diddy trial and to reflect on what has emerged so far, with the goal of offering insights for workplace investigators—particularly when navigating complex cases involving allegations of abuse of power, retaliation, and/or reprisal, with an added layer of sexual harassment/violence.

The Video

To understand the complexities of this trial, we need to go back to November 2023. The public first got wind of Diddy’s behaviour when Cassie filed a civil lawsuit against Diddy in federal court in Manhattan. According to several newspaper outlets and the actual statement of claim, Cassie accused Diddy of repeated physical abuse over more than a decade, forcing her to engage in sexual acts with male sex workers, also known as “Freak Offs,” while filming them, and rape. What made the allegations even more disturbing was Cassie’s claim that Diddy repeatedly blackmailed her with the threat of releasing explicit videos—particularly during moments when she tried to leave the relationship. I remember the public reaction to this lawsuit as being both immediate and divided. While some believed Cassie and expressed support, I also recalled a wave of skepticism—especially from voices in the public sphere who questioned her motives. Some accused her of fabricating the story for attention or financial gain, citing her music career and suggesting the lawsuit was nothing more than a “money grab.”

Despite the detailed and graphic nature of the statement of claim, a portion of the public dismissed her allegations. Then, in May 2024, CNN released surveillance footage that appeared to show Diddy physically assaulting Cassie—an incident she had described in her original filing. The impact of that video was profound. Public opinion, which had been divided, shifted significantly. The collective response became much quieter—almost as if you could hear a pin drop.

This trial and the public’s initial backlash have prompted me to reflect on an essential principle for workplace investigators: our role is not to make any predeterminations about the facts—especially at the outset of an investigation. When first meeting with a complainant, it’s critical to approach the situation with neutrality and avoid drawing conclusions before all relevant evidence has been gathered. The public backlash following Cassie’s initial lawsuit serves as a powerful reminder of why impartiality is so important. As investigators, we must allow the evidence—verbal, documentary, and witness testimony—to guide our findings.

The case also highlights a common challenge we face: allegations that stem from incidents that occurred many years ago. While it’s reasonable to explore the timeline as part of an investigation, we must avoid making assumptions about why someone has come forward after a significant delay. In fact, it’s not unusual—especially in cases involving sexual harassment or abuse—for complainants to wait years before reporting. As investigators, it’s our responsibility to ask respectful, open-ended questions—particularly about why the individual is bringing the complaint forward at this time—which gives the complainant an opportunity to provide context and background, helping the workplace investigator to better understand the nature of the concerns raised.

The Data and Key Takeaways

For those handling sensitive matters such as sexual harassment, it’s also helpful to be aware of reporting trends. According to data from Women and Gender Equality Canada, approximately 80% of individuals who experienced intimate partner violence (IPV) in 2019 did not report it to police. Women reported IPV 22% of the time, while men reported it only 14%. Reporting was more likely in cases involving repeated abuse (13% reported monthly or more), compared to one-time (2%) or occasional incidents (5%).¹

Victims and survivors often cite several reasons for not reporting violence, including the belief that the abuse is a private matter, the perception that the incident isn’t serious enough, fear of stigma or shame, fear of court involvement, or a lack of trust in the justice system. These reasons often mirror the dynamics we encounter in workplace investigations. Recognizing these complexities is essential for handling such matters with care, sensitivity, and professionalism.

Inconsistencies in the witnesses’ evidence

Another key takeaway from the trial came during the testimony of Dawn Richard. According to several news outlets, Ms. Richard acknowledged providing differing versions of events over time. For context, after Cassie Ventura filed her lawsuit in November 2023, Ms. Richard followed with her own suit in September 2024, alleging that she too had experienced sexual assault at the hands of Sean Combs. In addition, she claimed that Diddy deprived her of food and sleep, failed to pay her adequately, and that she personally witnessed him physically abuse Cassie.²

During cross-examination, it was reported that Combs’ defense team highlighted inconsistencies in Ms. Richard’s statement; specifically, discrepancies between her courtroom testimony and earlier interviews conducted with federal prosecutors. Ms. Richard had reportedly met with prosecutors on eight occasions before taking the stand, and some of her accounts appeared to vary. For instance, during one 2024 interview, she reportedly stated that she heard a frying pan strike a wall but did not see Combs wield it against Ventura. In contrast, during a 2025 meeting, she allegedly said she saw Combs throw eggs at Ventura but did not mention the frying pan. When asked in court about these discrepancies, Ms. Richard testified that she could not recall her earlier statements.³Despite the inconsistencies, Ms. Richard maintained that the events she witnessed had a lasting impact on her and reinforced the broader claims of abuse at the heart of the trial.⁴

Ms. Richard’s testimony offers an important reminder for workplace investigators: assessing witness credibility requires a careful balance between established legal principles about assessing credibility and a trauma-informed approach. While courts and tribunals have provided key principles to evaluate credibility, these should be applied with an understanding of how trauma may impact memory, demeanour, and communication.

There is meaningful guidance in case law across various jurisdictions—including criminal law, administrative tribunals, and employment law—on how to assess credibility. One notable example is Visic v. Elia Associates Professional Corporation, 2011 HRTO 1230 (CanLII), where the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario stated at paragraph 54:

Evaluating the reliability and veracity of a witness’s evidence is a multi-faceted exercise, where a conclusion of credibility develops from various interrelated findings, such as whether, on a balance of probabilities, the evidence was sufficiently probable, logically connected to other points, and/or buttressed by independent evidence; as well as findings with respect to the state of the witnesses, such as candour or evasiveness, capacity to perceive and remember, and attitude towards the parties. A finding of lack of credibility or reliability with respect to one aspect of the witness’s evidence does not automatically render the entirety of the witness’s evidence as incredible or unreliable.

While the principles laid out in Visic provide helpful structure for assessing credibility, I would argue that one essential component is missing: trauma. Traditional credibility assessments tend to emphasize internal consistency, linear storytelling, and confidence in recall—all of which can be undermined by the very nature of trauma. As several legal and psychological scholars have pointed out, including, Toward a Trauma-Informed Approach to Evidence Law: Witness Credibility and Reliability, by Paulson, Perrin, Maunder, and Muller, the conventional legal framework does not fully account for the neurological and psychological effects of trauma on memory.

According to the authors, trauma can disrupt the encoding, storage, and retrieval of memories, leading to fragmented, nonlinear, and inconsistent recall—hallmarks of traumatic memory that differ significantly from how memory typically functions. Inconsistent statements, memory gaps, or delayed recall should not automatically be treated as indicators of fabrication. In fact, as the research shows, these are often predictable features of trauma. As the authors note, traumatic memories tend to “alter on retelling, with some details being lost as memory fades over time whilst repeated recall can bring novel details to mind.” Studies have further shown that individuals who present with more fragmented or less detailed memories are less likely to be believed, even though the richness of detail does not necessarily correlate with accuracy.

As workplace investigators, this is an important consideration. Trauma can significantly impact how individuals process, store, and recall memories. Luckily, trauma-informed practices in investigations are becoming more prevalent and are increasingly being recognized in legal settings. An example of this can be found in Joe Singer Shoes Ltd. v. A.B., 2019 ONSC 5628 (CanLII). In this case, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) decision awarding damages for sexual harassment and for creating a poisoned work environment. The applicant-defendant alleged that the HRTO had erred in finding the respondent-complainant credible because she had admitted to having memory issues consistent with exposure to trauma, “testified openly that her memory comes and goes, that sometimes she forgets many things and some days are a blank, but also that on other days she remembers things very well.” The applicant-defendant argued that this admission undermined her credibility. However, the HRTO chose to take a trauma-informed approach, which the Divisional Court ultimately upheld on judicial review.

The HRTO assessed the respondent-complainant’s testimony using two primary factors:

1. 1. Whether her recollections were implausible or inconsistent when compared with other established facts; and
   2. The quality—rather than the consistency—of her memories, which were primarily composed of vivid sensory details (Joe Singer Shoes, at para 44).

The HRTO’s approach in this matter, in my view, clearly reflected a trauma-informed lens—one that I hope becomes more routinely applied in investigative and legal contexts. This guidance is particularly relevant in cases involving trauma, where traditional credibility indicators—such as consistency, demeanour, or recall of detail—may be impacted by the witnesses’ lived experiences.

What does this mean for workplace investigators? I believe it means assessing credibility holistically, including being open to the possibility that inconsistencies in a witness’s account—such as gaps in memory or a non-linear narrative—may not necessarily undermine their credibility, particularly in cases involving trauma. However, while a trauma-informed approach is helpful and important in understanding how evidence is presented, it does not replace or lower the legal standard. As workplace investigators, we must still ensure that the evidence supports our findings on a balance of probabilities. Striking the right balance between being trauma-informed and legally rigorous is essential to conducting fair, thorough, and respectful investigations.

¹“Fact sheet: Intimate Partner Violence” (updated January 2025), online: Women and Gender Equality Canada, Government of Canada: https://www.canada.ca/en/women-gender-equality/gender-based-violence/intimate-partner-violence.html#toc3.

² Ayana Archie, “Danity Kane’s Dawn Richard sues Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs for sexual assault and battery” (September 12, 2024), online: NPR https://www.npr.org/2024/09/12/nx-s1-5110001/dawn-richard-diddy-danity-kane-lawsuit.

³“Diddy trial: defense presses Dawn Richard over inconsistent statements in abuse testimony” (May 20, 2025), online: Tribune https://tribune.com.pk/story/2546712/diddy-trial-defense-presses-dawn-richard-over-inconsistent-statements-in-abuse-testimony.

⁴ Note 3, above.

Our Services

Our services recognize the human side and the legal side — equipping organizations with the insight they need to become healthier and more resilient.

Learn more about our services here.