“We Own the Domestic Violence”: Inside the Defense’s Final Attempt to Rewrite the Narrative

By Trinity Barnette

With the trial against Sean “Diddy” Combs nearing its conclusion, the defense delivered what was arguably its most shameless and manipulative move yet: a closing argument that admitted the abuse—then repackaged it as love.

After weeks of testimony from survivors, the prosecution rested its case. The defense called no witnesses. Instead, lead attorney Marc Agnifilo took the jury on a surreal ride: claiming the abuse happened, but trying to romanticize it as passion.

“We Own the Domestic Violence”—But Apparently, It Was All Love

“We own the domestic violence,” Agnifilo told the jury.

That line wasn’t a denial—it was a twisted acknowledgment. Agnifilo said the defense had nothing to dispute about what Cassie Ventura or Jane claimed. The beatings. The dragging. The kicking. They didn’t challenge a word of it.

“I don’t think we asked her a single question to challenge anything she said about being hit, being kicked, being dragged,” Agnifilo said of Cassie’s testimony.

Instead, the strategy was to reframe the abuse as part of a “real relationship.”

He referenced Cassie’s 2024 public statement following the hotel surveillance footage of Combs assaulting her and insisted the issue wasn’t RICO or conspiracy—it was simply domestic violence, and she had since “won.” Agnifilo even told jurors:

“When she says domestic violence is the issue, I’m asking you to believe her.”

But from there, he pivoted. He said Cassie was “no joke,” that she “matched” Combs, and that their relationship was defined by love, not fear.

“She was always free to leave. She chose to stay because she was in love with him.”

He claimed Ventura made an “adult choice” to walk away in 2018—and faced no pushback. According to him, the dynamic was mutual, mature, and consensual.

A Love Story or a Legal Smokescreen?

In a surreal twist, Agnifilo called their relationship “a great modern love story.”

He told the jury they could “cry” reading the couple’s text messages, where they professed their love. The message was clear: if it felt like love, how could it be a crime?

“It’s a real relationship, and they were in love.”

But this framing ignores what the trial has exposed: power, money, and violence used as tools of manipulation. Love was not the issue—control was.

Sex, Swingers, and Strategy: The Defense Crosses the Line

Agnifilo then turned to Ventura and Combs’ sex life, seemingly to prove they were equal participants in an adventurous, consensual dynamic.

“She’s a woman who actually likes sex. Good for her. She’s beautiful, she should. She’s intense. She’s unafraid.”

He described their sexual compatibility as proof that the relationship was strong, even saying:

“They were their best selves when it came to sex.”

“I guess you could call them swingers. I guess you could call it a lifestyle.”

He argued that Cassie never expressed dissatisfaction with their sex life in text messages, as if that somehow disproved abuse. It was a calculated attempt to reduce years of coercion and trauma to steamy romance.

This is the same woman who described surveillance, hotel assaults, and being emotionally worn down. And now she was being rebranded as Combs’ equal—in every way.

The State Claps Back: This Was a Pattern, Not a Passion

The prosecution delivered a sharp rebuttal that brought the jury back to reality.

They reminded jurors of:

• The surveillance footage of Combs physically assaulting Ventura

• The testimonies from multiple women describing “freak offs,” threats, and manipulation

• The financial records showing control and dependency

• The coercion, intimidation, and isolation at the core of Combs’ behavior

The prosecution didn’t waste time entertaining the “love story.” They made it clear:

This wasn’t about romance. It was about power, patterned abuse, and a carefully constructed system of fear and silence.

Jury Deliberation Begins Next Week

The case now heads to the jury. After nearly six weeks of testimony, trauma, and courtroom tension, twelve jurors will decide whether the man who claimed to be in love was actually running a criminal operation built on domination and exploitation.

The defense told a story of love.

The prosecution laid out a story of control.

Now it’s up to the jury to decide which one to believe.