The trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs has had no shortage of salacious details revealed, and one of the more intriguing involves a case of arson in 2015 when rapper Kid Cudi saw his Porsche attacked and set on fire. Cudi believes Diddy was responsible for the destruction of his car, which, according to investigators, could have been much worse.
Following the testimony last week by rapper Kid Cudi involving an attack on his car that he believes Diddy was behind, an arson investigator testified that the Molotov cocktail did not do nearly as much damage as it could have.
Why The Attack On Kid Cudi’s Car Didn’t Do More Damage
Arson investigator Lance Jimenez testified during Diddy’s trial yesterday, and he was able to explain that the Molotov cocktail that was used to destroy Kid Cudi’s Porsche in 2012 could have been much worse had it not been for the handkerchief that was used as a fuse.
The particular Molotov cocktail that was used on Kid Cudi’s car consisted of gasoline inside a 40-ounce Olde English malt liquor bottle. However, instead of a traditional cloth, what Jimenez (via Us Weekly) called a “designer-type” handkerchief made of a “silky type material” was used. As a result, the handkerchief fell from the bottle, preventing the explosion of the gasoline.
Had the Molotov cocktail exploded as intended, Jimenez believes the fire could have spread, igniting the vegetation around Kid Cudi’s house. This, in turn, could have set the structure on fire.
Cudi believes the attack was orchestrated by Diddy due to the fact that he was dating Diddy’s ex, Cassie Ventura, at the time of the attack. Sean Combs' relationship with his ex has been at the center of the case as a video of him attacking Ventura is credited with launching the investigation, and she has been a key witness in the trial.
Diddy denied involvement when Cudi confronted him, but the rapper does not believe him.
Diddy’s Lawyers Were Denied A Mistrial
The arson investigator’s testimony was not without controversy. At one point, Jimenez mentioned that fingerprint cards taken from the scene had later been destroyed, without his knowledge, and on the order of an officer who was not part of his team. Diddy’s lawyers claimed that the testimony implied he had somehow ordered the destruction, an idea that they said was so prejudicial that the judge should order a mistrial.
The judge declined to order a mistrial, claiming the testimony was not prejudicial, only going so far as to instruct the jury that the testimony relating to the fingerprint cards was irrelevant and thus should not factor into deliberations.
Thus far, Diddy’s trial has had no shortage of attention-grabbing details. There’s no reason to believe that’s going to stop anytime soon.
You must confirm your public display name before commenting
Please logout and then login again, you will then be prompted to enter your display name.
