New Recording From Jane Doe Confirms Shawn "JAY-Z" Carter Never Sexually Assaulted Her & Tony Buzbee Pushed Doe To Make False Claims
NEW YORK, March 12, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Today, Shawn "JAY-Z" Carter's legal team announced that ABC News obtained and unveiled a new recording from Jane Doe that confirmed that Carter never sexually assaulted her and that lawyer Tony Buzbee urged Doe to make false allegations against Carter.
The recorded conversation, which took place between Doe and private investigators, included the groundbreaking excerpt outlined:
Investigator #1: So you only got into JAY-Z's name because he was asking you and – did he suggest that JAY-Z might have had some part in it?
Jane Doe: He was the one that kind of pushed me towards going forward with him, with JAY-Z.
Investigator #2: With JAY-Z? Buzbee did?
Jane Doe: Yeah
The new audio reaffirms the evidence that Carter's legal team submitted to the Superior Court of the State of California earlier in March, which included two sworn declarations from Butler and Henderson that showed Buzbee pushed his client to lie.
Furthermore, the recording shows that Doe admitted that Carter never sexually assaulted her:
Investigator #1: [Buzbee] asked you about JAY-Z?
Jane Doe: Yeah
Investigator #1: But JAY-Z, was you're saying, he was definitely there? But he had no part in it, or he was just –
Jane Doe: He was there
Investigator #2: He was just there, but he didn't have anything to do with any sexual acts towards you, it was strictly –
Jane Doe: Yeah
In an interview with ABC News, Carter's attorney Alex Spiro explained that "the tape speaks for itself" and "it's effectively a lie and the only reason Mr. Carter is even involved in this is because she was pushed to involve him."
The development comes one day after Buzbee was reprimanded by Judge Ronnie Abrams in an order that confirmed that Buzbee filed a complaint and other pleadings in the Southern District of New York despite not being admitted to practice there. He also failed to disclose the violation despite a previous warning from another judge.
Share this article