Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Predator and Prey: Assault, harassment, and other aggressions in the entertainment industry

OtterMommy

By OtterMommy
in Everything Else TV

OtterMommy
Message added by OtterMommy

The guidelines for this thread are in the first post.  Please familiarize yourself with them and check frequently as any changes or additions will be posted there (as well as in an in-thread post).

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

Danielg342

Danielg342

3 minutes ago, methodwriter85 said:

Didn't R. Kelly's first statutory rape trial have actual video evidence of him having sex with underaged girls and they still couldn't get a conviction out of it?

R. Kelly said it wasn't him on the tape and I believe the courts ruled that the video quality was so bad that they couldn't prove it was him.

3 hours ago, Makai said:

Since Michael Jackson has come up, it’s worth noting that the lawsuits brought by the two accusers featured in Leaving Neverland and are going to trial in the near future. 

Personally, I don’t believe that the previous trial or official investigations prove anything one way or the other. Michael’s level of fame and the nature of sexual assault trials (particularly in the pre-MeToo era) makes me feel nothing short of a confession would have gotten a conviction. 

The lawsuits are more going to examine the culpability of the employees of Jackson in protecting the accusers from harm, which may reveal some new things but I'm not sure we'll get a real deep dive into Jackson's actual deeds, at least of a sexual nature. I'll wait until the trial, though.

As far as the previous investigations go, #MeToo might have made them go differently but I'm not really sure. The rumours surrounding Jackson were way more of the type of "he's literally an overgrown man child" than "he's a child sexual predator". This doesn't mean he didn't do things that were wrong- like "Jesus juice" and sharing a bed with kids- but I don't think it's a given he'd be a convicted molester in an alternate scenario.

 

  • Like 1
  • Replies 4.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Lady Whistleup
Lady Whistleup

I just find it infuriating that we still want to look for "perfect victims." Victims are never perfect -- they're human. Amber Heard could be a truly shitty human being, and Johnny Depp could have abu

Proclone
Proclone

Exactly.  Heard isn't a perfect victim.  She's probably a deeply unpleasant toxic person, that doesn't hide particularly well...and none of that precludes her from being abused.  If you subscribe

Hiyo
Hiyo

The word "cancel" is like the word "woke", something that has been co-opted in a certain way by certain people for silly culture wars as a distraction from tackling real issues.

Posted Images

Zella

Zella

(edited)

Jackson showed children pornography as part of grooming them, and he also had a huge collection of porn that had been altered to include children's faces. 

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/06/michael-jackson-police-reports-pornography-collection 

What he was doing goes well beyond being an awkward weirdo stuck in childhood and basically has all the hallmarks of a child molester. 

Robert Berchtold also did the same thing with Jan Broberg in sharing a bed with her. It's not an innocent quirk. It's a grooming tactic abusers use to break down and confuse normal boundaries, and the families that buy this lie are being groomed just as much as the intended victim. 

Edited by Zella
  • Like 6
  • Applause 8
  • Useful 3
Makai

Makai

1 hour ago, Danielg342 said:

The rumours surrounding Jackson were way more of the type of "he's literally an overgrown man child" than "he's a child sexual predator".

I strongly disagree. Supporters of his framed it has an “overgrown man child” but the actual allegations are that of the child sexual predator. 

57 minutes ago, Zella said:

It's a grooming tactic abusers use to break down and confuse normal boundaries, and the families that buy this lie are being groomed just as much as the intended victim. 

Exactly. 

  • Like 7
  • Applause 3
Makai

Makai

(edited)
6 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

R. Kelly said it wasn't him on the tape and I believe the courts ruled that the video quality was so bad that they couldn't prove it was him.

There was no ruling by a judge that it was inadmissible. His defense was that it wasn’t him and that the girl wasn’t who the prosecutors claimed. The jury watched the video and found him not guilty. There were photographs of him and the same underaged girl found in his Florida that were ruled inadmissible. 

Edited by Makai
  • Like 1
  • Useful 2
Danielg342

Danielg342

35 minutes ago, Makai said:

There was no ruling by a judge that it was inadmissible.

I didn't say it that was the ruling. I said the video quality was so bad that the court accepted R. Kelly's defence that it wasn't him on the tape.

1 hour ago, Zella said:

Jackson showed children pornography as part of grooming them, and he also had a huge collection of porn that had been altered to include children's faces. 

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/06/michael-jackson-police-reports-pornography-collection 

The Vanity Fair article includes a statement from the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office that disputes the veracity of the documents that Radar Online uncovered (the Radar Online article is no longer up). The FBI searched Michael Jackson's computer and found no evidence of criminal material. The Independent Press Standards Organisation said in a ruling on a complaint made by Taj Jackson, Michael's nephew, that the claim that child porn was found in Michael's home was "an allegation and not presented as fact". NPR's 2019 timeline on the Michael Jackson allegations state that the allegation that Jackson showed the kids porn was brought up just once when Gavin Arvizo took the stand during the 2005 trial.

  • Like 1
  • Useful 3
Makai

Makai

(edited)
3 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

I didn't say it that was the ruling. I said the video quality was so bad that the court accepted R. Kelly's defence that it wasn't him on the tape.

Are you talking about the jury verdict? When I see references to the court, I assume it refers to the judge. What I’ve found said the jury didn’t believe it was proven that the girl was underage. 

Kelly’s lawyer did also argue that it wasn’t him because Kelly doesn’t have a mole and the person on the video had a mole visible at one point. But I don’t know if the jury believed that part of the defense and his later conviction has since proven it was him in the video. 

3 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

The Vanity Fair article includes a statement from the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office that disputes the veracity of the documents that Radar Online uncovered (the Radar Online article is no longer up).

I find the Santa Barbara County Sheriff statement doesn’t really give any answers. Some of what Radar published was official reports and some was from internet and unknown sources. I didn’t see what they published so can’t really judge if it was damning or complete lies. 

3 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

The Independent Press Standards Organisation said in a ruling on a complaint made by Taj Jackson, Michael's nephew, that the claim that child porn was found in Michael's home was "an allegation and not presented as fact".

That doesn’t really land on either side of the argument. Taj Jackson filed a complaint about how a British newspaper reported on a legal issue with the current lawsuit. The accusers are asked for those files to be unsealed. The part you quoted is from the newspaper’s defense and not from the IPSO’s ruling. They rejected Jackson’s complaint. 

Edited by Makai
  • Like 3
  • Useful 2
Danielg342

Danielg342

I feel like I'm just going in circles so I don't know how much longer I'm going to stay in this particular discussion.

R. Kelly's defence had other factors, no doubt, but a big part of his defence was "the video is too grainy to know if it's him on the tape."

As far as Taj is concerned, he- and the Jackson estate- complained to the IPSO that the idea that Michael had child porn was demonstrably false. The newspaper, the Mail on Sunday (the Daily Mail's Sunday paper) countered by saying they did not say the claim was true and acknowledged that it was still just an allegation. The IPSO sided with the Mail.

The part with the IPSO came up because the claim was made that Michael Jackson had child porn. I quoted the IPSO's article to state that the claim is still not a matter of fact. It's just an allegation. The upcoming civil trial may change this perspective, but for now, it has not been proven at all.

  • Like 4
bluegirl147

bluegirl147

After Michael Jackson was accused the first time if what he did was just innocent child's play he should have thought maybe I shouldn't do anything else that can be misconstrued. But he didn't. He kept doing it and defended it.  That sounds like someone who didn't care if other people didn't like what he was doing. We have heard other celebs say basically the same thing. When you are famous they let you do it.

With regards to Roman Polanski let's not forget there were and are people like Whoopi Goldberg who didn't think he was guilty of "rape rape".  He drugged her but I guess that was just to set the mood.

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
  • Applause 9
BetterButter

BetterButter

Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs Accused of Drugging and Raping 10-Year-Old Boy in New Lawsuit

Quote

The suit, filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, is the latest from attorney Tony Buzbee, who announced plans in early October to file 120 new lawsuits against the mogul in the coming months. It’s one of two lawsuits filed in New York on Monday, as another male accuser claimed that he was sexually assaulted by Combs in 2008 while auditioning for “Making the Band” at 17 years old.

 

  • Sad 2
  • Angry 5
Mabinogia

Mabinogia

6 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

With regards to Roman Polanski let's not forget there were and are people like Whoopi Goldberg who didn't think he was guilty of "rape rape".  He drugged her but I guess that was just to set the mood.

That really sets me teeth on edge. The idea that it's okay to rape someone via non-violent control. It is terrible for anyone to feel that way, but for me, having a woman try to justify another woman's rape (or in this case girl, even worse!) is abominable. I do not care if he cured fucking cancer, he should still be held accountable for what he did. The fact that all really contributes to the world is some movies...RAGE!!!!!

  • Like 2
  • Applause 9
andromeda331

andromeda331

3 hours ago, Vermicious Knid said:

Zack Bryan's ex accuses him of emotional abuse and manipulation.

I've only been following this a bit because I hate country music but his actions seemed cruel right from the start of the breakup.

I'm not surprised. He's been arrested twice for domestic violence. Not that the courts bothered to punish him. 

  • Sad 3
andromeda331

andromeda331

14 hours ago, Makai said:

Unless I completely missed something involving the country singer, I think you might be talking about the actor, Zachary Ty Bryan. 

Oh, I was sorry. I didn't know they were two different people.

22 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

I'm not surprised. He's been arrested twice for domestic violence. Not that the courts bothered to punish him. 

Nevermind. I didn't know there were two different Zack Bryans/Zachary Ty Bryan.

Danielg342

Danielg342

Artem Chigvintsev and Nikki Bella have finalized their divorce. Not a lot of details to share, but, of note, there will be no spousal support and the two of them dropped their restraining orders against each other. They also agreed to joint custody of their son, Matteo.

The two of them decided to use mediation to settle their disputes, as they found the process "draining". Artem and Nikki are apparently still frosty with each other and they're working on their relationship, but they're glad they can move on.

So yeah...make all that of what you will. Figured I'd provide an update considering the previous discussion.

  • Like 1
  • Useful 6
merylinkid

merylinkid

19 hours ago, Anduin said:

Not perfect, but something.

If its her legal fees, that's not unreasonable for a case of this kind.  At least she isn't out the money for defending herself.  

I know settling means no one admitted liability, but usually in a settlement everyone pays their own fees.   So if he dropped the suit AND paid, it tells me a lot.

  • Useful 8
Makai

Makai

(edited)
3 hours ago, merylinkid said:

If its her legal fees, that's not unreasonable for a case of this kind.  At least she isn't out the money for defending herself.  

I know settling means no one admitted liability, but usually in a settlement everyone pays their own fees.   So if he dropped the suit AND paid, it tells me a lot.

A judge had already gutted his defamation suit and he was ordered him to pay her the $327,000. Her was trying to negotiate for lower fees and her silence on the resolution. I know it’s technically a settlement but it seems like she got everything she wanted, no NDA and her fees paid in full. Sounds more like he finally had to throw in the towel and admit defeat. 

Edited by Makai
  • Like 5
  • Useful 6
Danielg342

Danielg342

I mean, take it for what it is...but that's a rather forceful, blunt and direct statement from Jay-Z. I'd say he sounds pretty honest.

Part of me wonders what a 13 year old girl was doing wandering around at night trying to get into the MTV Music Video Awards, but it's also a completely plausible scenario. She may even look older than she was, for what that is worth.

This is the first time that Sean Combs has been- concretely- accused of impropriety with a minor, right?

  • Like 1
  • Mind Blown 1
  • Useful 1
Danielg342

Danielg342

On 11/27/2024 at 10:47 AM, Trini said:

And another:

'Charlie Rose Settles Sexual Harassment Suit With Three Ex-Employees '

Something the Variety article doesn't mention but the Associated Press does is that, in settling the lawsuit, the three women at the centre of the lawsuit against Rose admit that Rose had "no ill intent" with regards to his conduct.

Make that of what you will, but I find that part interesting.

  • Like 2
  • Useful 4
Mountainair

Mountainair

I was perusing my Snoop Dogg cookbook yesterday looking for a cookie recipe. I found what I was looking for and his commentary before the recipe included him giving a shout out to his boy “Puff”. I’m going to be mad if Snoop’s name gets brought up in all this mess. Jay-Z doesn’t really surprise me. I listened to his Blue album (I think that was the title) and liked it well enough but he was another one that Icked me out for no good reason. 

  • Like 6
Danielg342

Danielg342

I think we need to keep Diddy and his outsized influence in hip hop in perspective. Just about anyone who is somebody- within and outside rap- probably dealt with Diddy in some capacity and Diddy's parties were always known for their high profile guests.

Make of that what you will, but it's highly likely that Snoop, Jay-Z, Nas, Eminem and any other famous hip-hop artist you care to name has been to a Diddy party at least once. Doesn't mean they necessarily did anything wrong.

  • Like 9
  • Useful 1
FilmTVGeek80

FilmTVGeek80

8 hours ago, Mountainair said:

I was perusing my Snoop Dogg cookbook yesterday looking for a cookie recipe. I found what I was looking for and his commentary before the recipe included him giving a shout out to his boy “Puff”. I’m going to be mad if Snoop’s name gets brought up in all this mess. Jay-Z doesn’t really surprise me. I listened to his Blue album (I think that was the title) and liked it well enough but he was another one that Icked me out for no good reason. 

Snoop was already accused of assault at least once before. Right before the Super Bowl where he was a halftime performer, he was named in some lawsuit. I was shocked there was no blowback and there was never a mention of having him not perform. Not sure what happened to that lawsuit. 

18 minutes ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I am not sure I follow that logic. Would it have been better if it had been a 25 year old?

Not sure where you’re getting that from. I have the same question. I know kids sneak out sometimes, but that this girl was just wandering the street magically hoping to get a ticket to the VMAs made me wonder. There’s lots of details in the story I find suspect.

  • Like 2
Kel Varnsen

Kel Varnsen

10 minutes ago, Crashcourse said:

Not saying it would have been "better" but why let a 13-year-old go out alone to an event such as that one?

That is my logic.  

Teenagers do dumb shit. But I am not sure any dumb shit they do is relevant to someone possibly being sexually assaulted.

  • Like 14
Dimity

Dimity

46 minutes ago, Crashcourse said:

Not saying it would have been "better" but why let a 13-year-old go out alone to an event such as that one?

At 13 sometimes it's not a question of "let", it's a question of believing whatever lie the kid told to get out of the house.  Of course that's just one possible explanation.  I hesitate though to assume poor parenting was the issue. 

  • Like 7
Kel Varnsen

Kel Varnsen

1 hour ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

It’s relevant to having questions to the possible validity of the story.

Unless the parents have like a reverse alibi that proves their kid wasn't there, or they were actually accomplices I am not sure how it changes thing. Like what difference does it make if they were super strict parents and their kid snuck out, or if they were passed out on the couch or if they took their kid to the party because they couldn't find a babysitter, if an assault happened?

  • Like 10
  • Applause 4
Danielg342

Danielg342

1 hour ago, Dimity said:

At 13 sometimes it's not a question of "let", it's a question of believing whatever lie the kid told to get out of the house.  Of course that's just one possible explanation.  I hesitate though to assume poor parenting was the issue. 

Yeah. It's completely plausible that a 13-year-old could sneak out of the house and make her way to the VMAs or an afterparty. Teens are creative.

It's also highly likely that this woman looked older than she did when she was 13. She could have easily lied to the party hosts that she was 18 and they let her in. Or, because a party is unregulated, the party hosts could have simply not cared that she wasn't 18 and just let her in anyway.

None of this would excuse any assault that may have happened. However, I also think it's fair to ask questions about how her parents never figured out she was out all night. Parents might get hoodwinked by their teens all the time but it would be a massive oversight if they didn't notice that she wasn't home by midnight or something.

  • Like 4
Cobalt Stargazer

Cobalt Stargazer

4 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Unless the parents have like a reverse alibi that proves their kid wasn't there, or they were actually accomplices I am not sure how it changes thing. Like what difference does it make if they were super strict parents and their kid snuck out, or if they were passed out on the couch or if they took their kid to the party because they couldn't find a babysitter, if an assault happened?

Isn't that what happened to Drew Barrymore? Not being assaulted, as far as I know, but her parents were taking her to parties and clubs when she was as young as ten, and that's how she became a cocaine addict. Fair enough to say maybe the kid lied to get out of the house/into the party and the parents are totally responsible as far as providing a good upbringing, but I do wonder if there's no curfew or something involved here.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
FilmTVGeek80

FilmTVGeek80

2 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Unless the parents have like a reverse alibi that proves their kid wasn't there, or they were actually accomplices I am not sure how it changes thing. Like what difference does it make if they were super strict parents and their kid snuck out, or if they were passed out on the couch or if they took their kid to the party because they couldn't find a babysitter, if an assault happened?

That’s the point - IF an assault happened. Is it plausible a 13 year old  - for a myriad of reasons - was just roaming the streets, sure. But, I find it suspect along with many aspects of this story. 

  • Like 1
  • Mind Blown 1
Vermicious Knid

Vermicious Knid

In New York City it's pretty easy to go out the window, down the fire escape and onto the street. She had a friend drive her over, so the friend had to be at least 16 (technically only allowed a learner's permit), and with access to a car. City kids don't generally get their licenses the minute you can and many families don't have cars. Sounds like she hung with a much older, possibly wealthier, crowd. That may have encouraged her to do things like try to get into adult parties with celebreties. 

  • Like 1
  • Useful 5
Irlandesa

Irlandesa

4 hours ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

That’s the point - IF an assault happened. Is it plausible a 13 year old  - for a myriad of reasons - was just roaming the streets, sure. But, I find it suspect along with many aspects of this story. 

"Hey parents, I'm going to go over to Susie's.  Her mom said I could spend the night if I want.  Is that okay with you?  Cool.  See you tomorrow. "

It actually doesn't have to be a secret escape plan.  Just a story that a parent might not question because it happens so often.

 

  • Like 8
  • Popular Post
Bastet

Bastet

  • Popular Post

Her actions, and her parent' actions/inactions, don't matter.  If this is true, which I have no reason at this point to believe it is not, given how things have apparently played out thus far (amending the lawsuit from Celebrity A to naming Jay-Z following his camp's campaign of intimidation as a response to her lawyer's request for mediation) - and, you know, how exceedingly rare false accusations of sexual assault are - two men decided to rape her.  How she got to the party, what she did at the party, how old they thought she was, where her parents thought she was if they didn't know -- all irrelevant.  The alleged perpetrators' actions are the only ones that deserve scrutiny in evaluating this case, because if they did what she says they did, they're guilty, and nothing she or her parents did/didn't do has any bearing on that.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 6
  • Applause 14
FilmTVGeek80

FilmTVGeek80

1 hour ago, Bastet said:

Her actions, and her parent' actions/inactions, don't matter.  If this is true, which I have no reason at this point to believe it is not, given how things have apparently played out thus far (amending the lawsuit from Celebrity A to naming Jay-Z following his camp's campaign of intimidation as a response to her lawyer's request for mediation) - and, you know, how exceedingly rare false accusations of sexual assault are - two men decided to rape her.  How she got to the party, what she did at the party, how old they thought she was, where her parents thought she was if they didn't know -- all irrelevant.  The alleged perpetrators' actions are the only ones that deserve scrutiny in evaluating this case, because if they did what she says they did, they're guilty, and nothing she or her parents did/didn't do has any bearing on that.

How exceedingly rare false accusations are? Unless the number is 0 - which is not even close to what it is - then, no, it’s not safe to assume that the story is true. And yes, when someone accuses someone of a heinous crime their story should be questioned, not blindly believed. To get to the truth of the matter ALL parties actions need to be scrutinized. 

  • Like 2
Danielg342

Danielg342

Obviously I'll let the courts play things out, but given Jay-Z's rather strong statement and perhaps an attempt to sue the woman for defamation (which, I'm guessing, is why he wants to know her name, but who knows- this allegation comes from the woman's lawyer himself and Tony Buzbee is a showboat), I'd believe that Jay-Z doesn't have anything to do with the actual assault.

Diddy, though, put out another boilerplate denial. Though he likely did it for legal reasons, seeing that and the weight of all his other allegations makes me think he probably is culpable on some level at least.

The only thing I do know is that I'm sure everyone who has been to one of Diddy's parties is likely thinking back to what happened at them and if anything bad might have happened at them. They're also likely steeling themselves for some intense moments, as I suspect the next few months (or maybe even years) could get ugly for a lot of Diddy's partygoers.

  • Like 2
OtterMommy
Message added by OtterMommy

The guidelines for this thread are in the first post.  Please familiarize yourself with them and check frequently as any changes or additions will be posted there (as well as in an in-thread post).

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...