A fine line in the Combs trial It's repulsive - but is "P. Diddy" also guilty?

No one, not even the defense, denies shocking misconduct by Sean "Diddy" Combs. But whether the world-famous rapper is guilty depends on something else.

Recordings of photos and videos are just as prohibited as audio recordings - and yet the trial against the world-famous US rapper is dominating the American media like only the trial against Donald Trump recently did.

More than five years after the first guilty verdict against former film mogul Harvey Weinstein, the case is once again about male abuse of power. However, although Combs' behavior is almost universally regarded as scandalous, the prosecution in New York is likely to have a lot of work ahead of it to convince the jury of the crimes charged.

This is the interim status after the first week of the trial:

1. what has happened so far

The trial has been a clickbait and tabloid-fest due to numerous salacious aspects. The reporting recently went into great detail about the testimony of key witness Cassie Ventura, who is making serious allegations. Combs' ex-girlfriend described how the now 55-year-old had forced her to have sex with strange men, how these orgies had also taken place under the influence of drugs, and how Combs had filmed her and blackmailed her with the footage. There was also talk of repeated physical violence.

The defense tried to portray Ventura as a consensual participant in the file with old, sometimes intimate text messages. Combs, who has been in custody since September, rejects the accusations of sex trafficking and organized crime. If convicted, he faces life imprisonment. The trial is scheduled to last around eight weeks.

2. consensual or forced?

The central question is not whether Combs behaved honestly - his lawyers also speak of "a very flawed person" and admit their client's (not explicitly accused) domestic violence. The issue is rather the extent to which the actions exceeded the threshold of an offense.

When does a wish become pressure - and pressure ultimately becomes coercion? Ventura described manipulation, violence and control by Combs. The defense, on the other hand, described consent and a shared "swinger lifestyle".

So there are two opposing narratives: Combs' lawyers paint a picture of a deeply toxic relationship, but one in which Ventura could certainly have taken action - even if it had been to break up.

The prosecution, however, is likely to argue that Combs' behavior of controlling every aspect of Ventura's life - from her hairstyle and clothing to her personal relationships and her career as a singer - combined with his violent nature, created an environment of psychological coercion and duress. A now world-famous video in which Combs can be seen beating up Ventura is likely to underline this impression.

3. "Organized crime"? Prosecution must prove accusation

Linked to this is a charge that was originally created for gang crime such as that of the Mafia: Conspiracy to commit organized crime. This charge was already successfully used in the trial against singer R. Kelly to reveal a systematic structure of sexual abuse.

This charge against Combs weighs heavily - but the prosecution must convince the jurors that the defendant carried out his actions together with a network of insiders. And that he did so with the knowledge of all those involved that the conduct was punishable.

The questioning of witnesses in the coming weeks from former employees or partners of Combs will therefore depend on whether there is evidence of systematic behavior. If not, the jury could come to the conclusion that Combs' employees with knowledge of the orgies simply looked the other way - without criminal intent.

4. will Combs himself take the stand?

It is one of the biggest unanswered questions in the trial: Will the defendant himself testify?

There is an argument in favor of this: testifying could give Combs the opportunity to give a direct account of his side of the story and credibly refute the allegations. He could try to reach the jury on a personal level and thus influence the verdict.

The argument against this is that giving evidence carries considerable risks. The public prosecutor's office could heckle Combs during cross-examination, causing him to incriminate himself further. The Grammy winner would not be the first defendant to weaken his defense with ill-considered statements.