Cassie Ventura’s Mother Testifies in Sean “Diddy” Combs Trial, Recounts Threats, Bruises, and $20,000 Extortion Attempt
By
Devisadaria Duchine-Khauli | Devi Media
20 May 2025
By
Devisadaria Duchine-Khauli | Devi Media
20 May 2025
Regina Ventura and unidentified male
Photo by Charley Triballeau
Regina Ventura and unidentified male
Photo by John Lamparski
Regina Ventura, mother of singer and model Casandra "Cassie" Ventura, delivered poignant and disturbing testimony in the ongoing federal case against music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs. Taking the witness stand, Regina painted a picture of fear, control, and manipulation that allegedly plagued her daughter’s relationship with the Bad Boy Entertainment founder.
According to Ventura’s testimony, she explained that her daughter left Combs in 2011, and began dating Scott Mescudi, known to fans as Kid Cudi. She explained that Combs demanded $20,000 from her and her husband "to recoup money he had spent on her" due to him being unhappy that Cassie had left him and "was in a relationship with Mescudi.”
Ventura testified that Combs had threatened to release compromising photos of Cassie unless she paid him $20,000. Alarmed and desperate to protect her daughter, Ventura and her husband secured a loan against their house and wired the money. But days later, she said the funds were returned without any explanation and Cassie returned to Combs.
“I didn’t understand what happened. She just said he gave it back,” Regina told the court. “And she went back to him.”
During her testimony, Ventura recounted seeing bruises on her daughter's body and stated that Cassie often appeared scared and emotionally distressed. Ventura said that she took photos of her daughter's injuries to document them. Some of the photos were presented to the jurors. “He was trying to control every part of her,” Regina said, her voice cracking with emotion.
The unsettling exchange has been interpreted by many observers as a form of coercive control, where financial manipulation, threats, and emotional entanglement blurred the lines of free will. Regina testified that this incident was one of many that revealed how deeply entrenched her daughter was in what she described as an abusive and controlling relationship.
As she testified, Ventura occasionally and defiantly looked Combs directly in the eye while he averted her gaze. At other times, she wept as she spoke.
Later forensic psychologist, Dawn Hughes testified that many abuse victims will take drugs to numb themselves to the abuse and that many victims often feel trapped. It must be noted that Hughes was one of the leading experts who testified at R. Kelly's trial.
Regina Ventura
Drawing by Jane Rosenberg
The defense team did not cross-examine Regina Ventura. There are several potential reasons for this legal maneuver. First, Regina Ventura came across as a credible and sympathetic witness, a mother concerned for her child’s well-being. Attempting to undermine her testimony might have backfired in the eyes of the jury. Second, any attempt to suggest she was exaggerating or misinformed could have drawn more attention to the most damning allegations, including the $20,000 extortion and the physical abuse. Third, if she was cross-examined then Combs might have to explain why the Venturas wired him money. Fourth, though emotionally compelling, Regina Ventura’s testimony is largely anecdotal and secondhand. She was not a direct witness to many of the alleged assaults, which may have led the defense to conclude that attacking her wouldn’t undermine the prosecution’s central evidence. Avoiding cross-examination in this case prevents the defense from drawing further attention to her emotionally charged narrative.
The choice not to challenge Regina’s statements in some people's minds' leaves the prosecution’s narrative unshaken and adds weight to the growing list of allegations Combs faces. So far, multiple witnesses have described a pattern of violent and coercive behavior spanning years.
For his part, Sean Combs continues to deny all allegations. His legal team argues that the claims are exaggerated, unfounded, and motivated by personal vendettas or financial incentives.