The questions asked in 2011 are specific to the current case that I honestly feel like this adds credibility to her case. Before this I sort of just thought she was trying to get out of her record contract, but now I sort of believe her.
How the ever living f**k is this admissable in court? This is why I hate the system. Holy s**t.
The case is about K$ claiming Luke raped and drugged her since she was 18.
This testimony from when K$ was 24 has her swearing under oath that he never did those things.
The case is about K$ claiming Luke raped and drugged her since she was 18.
This testimony from when K$ was 24 has her swearing under oath that he never did those things.
Why do you think this would be inadmissible?
Why was she being asked about them when she was 24 if she made them up to get out of her contract now that she's 27 tho?
Pretty sure Dr. Luke (if true) threatened to do the same thing this time. Now it's Dr. Luke's word and HER OWN that contradict her statement. She is going to need hardcore proof if she plans on winning this.
Eitherway she lied under oath, which is a felony in itself.