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

[ParadoxLost]

11 hours ago, Hiyo said:

Taylor Swift to my knowledge hasn't been involved in any nasty court cases involving her exes.

You know, you are right.  Taylor is much worse than Johnny Depp.  Taylor is writing songs about exes who are innocent relartive to Heard.  She didn't have to drag any of them to court for defamation and none of them were found to defame her with malicious intent.  Kind of awful of her to work out her issues with innocent third parties publically.

I also used to feel pretty bad for Gwen Stefani's ex.  You know the one.  The guitar player ex who she wrote a lot of No Doubt's major hits about and then dragged around the country on tour to play them.  I remember seeing an Inside the Music type show once where he was talking about how difficult that tour was and she was gushing about it.

Edited July 13, 2022 by ParadoxLost

[Hiyo]

None of which excuses Depp’s brand of assholery.

[Trini]

???

The situations with Swift and Stefani are not comparable at all to Heard and Depp; and definitely not worse.

[ParadoxLost]

7 hours ago, Trini said:

???

The situations with Swift and Stefani are not comparable at all to Heard and Depp; and definitely not worse.

Snark.  Its a thing.

But seriously.  Why the outrage over Depp writing a song about Heard?

She was abusive. IMO, much more abusive than Depp has been shown to be.  So why can't he have feelings about that and sing about them if that is what he decided to do.

Heard went on Dateline to put her side out there after the trial.

And I don't want to hear but "he sued her so he doesn't really just want to get away from anything to do with her".  Heard really left him no choice on that at every single step since the divorce.

Edited July 13, 2022 by ParadoxLost

[merylinkid]

Heard can sue him now if he says anything untrue.

SURE you can write about your exes.   But honestly, if you JUST SUED someone for defamation and want to be done with them its a little ... odd.  

[bluegirl147]

1 hour ago, merylinkid said:

Heard can sue him now if he says anything untrue.

SURE you can write about your exes.   But honestly, if you JUST SUED someone for defamation and want to be done with them its a little ... odd.  

I've seen people who have told Amber Heard to get over it cheer on Johnny for that song.  As someone who thought they were both toxic people and even more toxic together I would now like to change my opinion to Johnny is more toxic.

[Mabinogia]

1 hour ago, bluegirl147 said:

I've seen people who have told Amber Heard to get over it cheer on Johnny for that song.  As someone who thought they were both toxic people and even more toxic together I would now like to change my opinion to Johnny is more toxic.

I'd say those people who said that are the truly toxic ones. Johnny has every right to write about what he went through and Amber has every right to be pissed that he's writing about what he went through. And as was said above, if he writes lies she can sue his ass. 

I do feel bad for her that her fan base isn't as large and vicious as his though so she'll never truly win this war.

[Jaded]

R. Kelly Reportedly Engaged To Alleged Victim Joycelyn Savage

[SunnyBeBe]

9 minutes ago, Jaded said:

R. Kelly Reportedly Engaged To Alleged Victim Joycelyn Savage

Was this woman featured in the documentary Surviving R. Kelly?  It’s been a while since I watched it.  I recall there were some very damaged people involved.  

[merylinkid]

Judge denies all of Amber Heard's post trial motions -- including the juror one.

HOW?    that goes right to the integrity of the verdict.   Who knows what the REAL juror would have decided if they were even seated?   

This is a VERY appealable issue.   So it ain't over folks.  Invest in popcorn stocks*.

*not really investment advice, don't sic the SEC on me.

[bluegirl147]

6 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

Judge denies all of Amber Heard's post trial motions -- including the juror one.

HOW?    that goes right to the integrity of the verdict.   Who knows what the REAL juror would have decided if they were even seated?   

This is a VERY appealable issue.   So it ain't over folks.  Invest in popcorn stocks*.

*not really investment advice, don't sic the SEC on me.

I think the verdict gets overturned on appeal because of the juror issue.  I'm not a lawyer or a judge but I think this judge is dead wrong.

[Zella]

1 hour ago, SunnyBeBe said:

Was this woman featured in the documentary Surviving R. Kelly?  It’s been a while since I watched it.  I recall there were some very damaged people involved.  

Yes I think so. I believe the other girlfriend who was featured has since left him. 

Edited to add: She's the one whose parents tried to have rules about her interactions with Kelly, like she could only be around him with one of them present, and it didn't actually manage to stop anything because they were just going behind the parents' backs. 

Edited July 13, 2022 by Zella

[SunnyBeBe]

46 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

I think the verdict gets overturned on appeal because of the juror issue.  I'm not a lawyer or a judge but I think this judge is dead wrong.

I am an attorney and Amber’s issues seem very solid.  I’m not sure what’s going on, but she may need to get a new legal team.  

I may watch the R. Kelly film again…..it’s just so disturbing.  

[merylinkid]

52 minutes ago, bluegirl147 said:

I think the verdict gets overturned on appeal because of the juror issue.  I'm not a lawyer or a judge but I think this judge is dead wrong.

Unfortunately without stepping on the 3rd rail of politics, I don't think the VA appellate courts overturn it.    Let's say there's a lot of misogyny there, okay.

the only reason I can think a judge let it go is because he knows it will be appealed and he wants a rock solid message sent by a higher court to any other juror thinking they can pull this.

[GaT]

2 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Judge denies all of Amber Heard's post trial motions -- including the juror one.

HOW?    that goes right to the integrity of the verdict.   Who knows what the REAL juror would have decided if they were even seated?   

This is a VERY appealable issue.   So it ain't over folks.  Invest in popcorn stocks*.

*not really investment advice, don't sic the SEC on me.

This makes me really wonder about the judge. A juror being there under false pretenses does not seem like the kind of thing that is ambiguous in any way, so I wonder how much this judge is a Depp stan.

1 hour ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I am an attorney and Amber’s issues seem very solid.  I’m not sure what’s going on, but she may need to get a new legal team.

 She needed a new legal team before the trial even started, her lawyer strikes me as being totally incompetent. 

[ParadoxLost]

2 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Unfortunately without stepping on the 3rd rail of politics, I don't think the VA appellate courts overturn it.    Let's say there's a lot of misogyny there, okay.

the only reason I can think a judge let it go is because he knows it will be appealed and he wants a rock solid message sent by a higher court to any other juror thinking they can pull this.

It must be misogyny!  The judge is a woman.

50 minutes ago, GaT said:

 She needed a new legal team before the trial even started, her lawyer strikes me as being totally incompetent. 

The trial lawyers is Heard's third legal team on this case.  There comes a point when what the client wants to do is probably the problem.

Edited July 13, 2022 by ParadoxLost

[GaT]

10 minutes ago, ParadoxLost said:

The trial lawyers is Heard's third legal team on this case.  There comes a point when what the client wants to do is probably the problem.

I didn't know that, & you're right, changing legal representatives that many times is a major red flag.

[FilmTVGeek80]

1 hour ago, GaT said:

This makes me really wonder about the judge. A juror being there under false pretenses does not seem like the kind of thing that is ambiguous in any way, so I wonder how much this judge is a Depp stan.

 She needed a new legal team before the trial even started, her lawyer strikes me as being totally incompetent. 

LOL, yes, only a Depp “stan” would follow the law. A son with the same name as their father showing up instead is not some nefarious plot. Even Amber’s team pointed out in their motion that the wrong juror being seated is not grounds for appeal/mistrial. Amber’s team had the opportunity to voir dire every juror. If they didn’t notice, or point out, such a glaring age difference that’s on them. 
 

I will agree that her team is incompetent ( they weren’t even able to manage handling a stop watch during the trial and had ridiculously poor time management.) But Amber got the team she deserved and I suspect her team’s hands were tied with how Amber and her publicist wanted to handle this.

[FilmTVGeek80]

4 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Judge denies all of Amber Heard's post trial motions -- including the juror one.

HOW?    that goes right to the integrity of the verdict.   Who knows what the REAL juror would have decided if they were even seated?   

This is a VERY appealable issue.   So it ain't over folks.  Invest in popcorn stocks*.

*not really investment advice, don't sic the SEC on me.

If you actually read the judge’s ruling, which is short and to the point, there was nothing hinky going on with that juror. You have someone - most likely a father and son - with the same name, living at the same address. There was no date of birth on the jury summons. The juror filled out the juror questionnaire with all relevant, accurate information. Both sides had all this information. Amber’s team had the chance to voir dire every juror and accepted juror 15. They went through six weeks of trial and then weeks after the verdict and only pulled this wrong birthdate stuff as a hail Mary pass, that thankfully, didn’t work.

Now, I’m wondering, if Amber is determined to appeal, who she will sucker to foot that bill, since even her insurance companies are suing her and refusing to bankroll her court cases anymore.

[GaT]

24 minutes ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

LOL, yes, only a Depp “stan” would follow the law. A son with the same name as their father showing up instead is not some nefarious plot.

3 minutes ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

If you actually read the judge’s ruling, which is short and to the point, there was nothing hinky going on with that juror. You have someone - most likely a father and son - with the same name, living at the same address. There was no date of birth on the jury summons. The juror filled out the juror questionnaire with all relevant, accurate information.

The birth date that was filed out on the required online form by supposedly the person who was summoned was 1945, not the birth date of the juror who appeared. The juror knew the summons wasn't for them.

[SunnyBeBe]

I hope this story is true.  I’ve seen stories about how the sentencing got sidelined.  Perhaps, the truth will come out.  The victim says she want to know what happened.  
 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11008545/Documents-Roman-Polanski-rape-case-unsealed-45-years.html

[merylinkid]

2 hours ago, ParadoxLost said:

It must be misogyny!  The judge is a woman.

I was talking about the appeals courts.   The mention of misogyny came right after me saying the appeals court might not overturn it. 

The trial judge I said might want to send a solid message.   But you know, some people will only see Amber as the bad person here, not Johnny.

[Cinnabon]

1 hour ago, merylinkid said:

I was talking about the appeals courts.   The mention of misogyny came right after me saying the appeals court might not overturn it. 

The trial judge I said might want to send a solid message.   But you know, some people will only see Amber as the bad person here, not Johnny.

NOt to mention that women can also be misogynists.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, ParadoxLost said:

It must be misogyny!  The judge is a woman.

Some of the worst cases of misogyny I have faced have come from women. 

[Irlandesa]

10 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

I think the verdict gets overturned on appeal because of the juror issue.  I'm not a lawyer or a judge but I think this judge is dead wrong.

This is the original trial judge and based on her previous decisions, it doesn't surprise me. 

[ParadoxLost]

4 hours ago, merylinkid said:

I was talking about the appeals courts.   The mention of misogyny camhee right after me saying the appeals court might not overturn it. 

The trial judge I said might want to send a solid message.   But you know, sthaome people will only see Amber as the bad person here, not Johnny.

Thanks for the clarification.   I understood that part.  I was reacting to the misgendering of tbe trial judge in second part of your post.  I just assumed you didn't know the judge was a woman vs talking about some theoretical trial judge or something like that. 

Edited July 14, 2022 by ParadoxLost

[Cinnabon]

1 hour ago, ParadoxLost said:

Thanks for the clarification.   I understood that part.  I was reacting to the misgendering of tbe trial judge in second part of your post.  I just assumed you didn't know the judge was a woman vs talking about some theoretical trial judge or something like that. 

  Not misgendering - that’s something different than wrongly assuming the sex of someone. Sex and gender are two different things.

[Vermicious Knid]

The denial was very clear the process was followed and no chicanery happened.

Quote

In Wednesday’s court order, Azcarate denied several of Heard’s post-trial motions for “reasons stated on the record” but provided a detailed explanation for why the juror’s service was not reason for a mistrial. The summons did not include a birth date, according to Azcarate, and the juror wrote their birth date on a questionnaire that “met the statutory requirements for service.” The judge noted that both parties questioned the jury panel and declared it acceptable: “Therefore, Due Process was guaranteed and provided,” she wrote.

Azcarate also stated that Heard’s team was provided the jury list “five days prior to the commencement of the trial” and had numerous opportunities to object throughout the weeks-long proceedings.

“The juror was vetted, sat for the entire jury, deliberated, and reached a verdict,” Azcarate wrote. “The only evidence before this Court is that this juror and all jurors followed their oaths, the Court’s instructions, and orders. This Court is bound by the competent decision of the jury.”

[MissAlmond]

Kevin Spacey pleads not guilty to sexual assault charges in the U.K. 

https://deadline.com/2022/07/kevin-spacey-pleads-not-guilty-to-uk-sexual-assault-charges-1235063185/

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/kevin-spacey-london-old-bailey-sexual-assault-1235179609/

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-62161326

[MissAlmond]

16 hours ago, GaT said:

The birth date that was filed out on the required online form by supposedly the person who was summoned was 1945, not the birth date of the juror who appeared. The juror knew the summons wasn't for them.

Maybe Juror #15 enjoys being selected for jury duty. I wonder if he's done this before. 

[Notabug]

50 minutes ago, MissAlmond said:

Maybe Juror #15 enjoys being selected for jury duty. I wonder if he's done this before. 

From what I've read; his father lives in the same home, they have the same name.  The summons came, it did not have a birthdate and he assumed it was for him and not his father.  When he was asked his date of birth on the jury questionnaire, he filled in his own birth date, not his father's.  Nobody in authority apparently looked closely enough to realize he was not the correct person and he continued through the process and was ultimately placed on the jury.  He acted in good faith thinking he was the person who was summoned and had no way of knowing he wasn't the right guy since the authorities didn't catch it, either.

An honest mistake on the juror's part,  in other words.  Presumably, he is a registered voter and lives at the address where the summons was sent; so he was otherwise qualified to serve.

I only know my local area, but,  here anyway, if you are called for jury duty and cannot serve but don't qualify for recusal; a friend or relative can be designated to by you to serve in your place.  Last two times I was on jury duty, I met someone who was doing just that: a retired man who was serving for his son who had just started a new job and was in training and a woman who was serving for a friend who had childcare issues.

[andromeda331]

6 hours ago, MissAlmond said:

Kevin Spacey pleads not guilty to sexual assault charges in the U.K. 

https://deadline.com/2022/07/kevin-spacey-pleads-not-guilty-to-uk-sexual-assault-charges-1235063185/

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/kevin-spacey-london-old-bailey-sexual-assault-1235179609/

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-62161326

I hope they convict him.

[MissAlmond]

Scrubs and Californication co-executive producer Eric Weinberg arrested for alleged sexual assaults. 

https://deadline.com/2022/07/rape-scrubs-eric-weinberg-arrest-lapd-george-gascon-1235064494/

https://variety.com/2022/tv/news/eric-weinberg-arrested-scrubs-co-executive-producer-sexual-assault-1235317332/

https://www.thewrap.com/eric-weinberg-scrubs-californication-arrested-rape/

[Vermicious Knid]

New documentary unearths troubling links between Victoria's Secret and Jeffrey Epstein.
 

Quote

Alongside the examination of Victoria's Secret as a culture-making brand, "Angels and Demons" also delves into the company's links to the late Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier charged in 2019 with sex trafficking underage girls. According to the documentary, Epstein had been a close business partner and personal friend of Wexner's and allegedly used the brand's cache to meet young women under the false pretense of recruiting for shows and campaigns. The series includes an interview with Alicia Arden, a woman who said she believed she was interviewing for a job as a Victoria's Secret catalog model in 1997 but was instead assaulted by Epstein at a hotel in California.

Wexner's attorney issued a statement to the filmmakers saying that Wexner "confronted Epstein and was clear it was a violation of Company policy for him to suggest he was in any way associated with Victoria's Secret and that Epstein was forbidden from ever doing so again."

[FilmTVGeek80]

13 hours ago, Notabug said:

From what I've read; his father lives in the same home, they have the same name.  The summons came, it did not have a birthdate and he assumed it was for him and not his father.  When he was asked his date of birth on the jury questionnaire, he filled in his own birth date, not his father's.  Nobody in authority apparently looked closely enough to realize he was not the correct person and he continued through the process and was ultimately placed on the jury.  He acted in good faith thinking he was the person who was summoned and had no way of knowing he wasn't the right guy since the authorities didn't catch it, either.

An honest mistake on the juror's part,  in other words.  Presumably, he is a registered voter and lives at the address where the summons was sent; so he was otherwise qualified to serve.

I only know my local area, but,  here anyway, if you are called for jury duty and cannot serve but don't qualify for recusal; a friend or relative can be designated to by you to serve in your place.  Last two times I was on jury duty, I met someone who was doing just that: a retired man who was serving for his son who had just started a new job and was in training and a woman who was serving for a friend who had childcare issues.

Exactly. For some reason, people want to prescribe nefarious motives for something that was an honest mistake. And, her incompetent team, had the information and ability to question all jurors. As the judge said, she can't then turn around and only quibble about the guy's birthdate after she got an adverse verdict. 

Quote

I was talking about the appeals courts.   The mention of misogyny came right after me saying the appeals court might not overturn it. 

The trial judge I said might want to send a solid message.   But you know, some people will only see Amber as the bad person here, not Johnny.

And they probably won't overturn it because she has no grounds for it - not because of misogyny.

Just like some people will only see Amber as some poor victim.

Edited July 15, 2022 by FilmTVGeek80

[Hiyo]

Quote

Just like some people will only see Amber as some poor victim.

Just like some people will only see Johnny as some poor victim.

[merylinkid]

20 hours ago, Notabug said:

only know my local area, but,  here anyway, if you are called for jury duty and cannot serve but don't qualify for recusal; a friend or relative can be designated to by you to serve in your place.

That's not most places.   Because it messes with the "random" selection of jurors.   If you can just pick someone to stand in then it isn't random.   

[Makai]

12 hours ago, FilmTVGeek80 said:

Exactly. For some reason, people want to prescribe nefarious motives for something that was an honest mistake.

The reason is because the initial reports did say that they entered the birthdate of the person who was actually summoned which wouldn’t have been a simple mistake. Not everyone gets the same information at the same time or at all.

Based on the judges ruling it does sound like a simple mistake but there is a legitimate reason why many still feel it is less definitive than others. 

Edited July 15, 2022 by Makai

[BetterButter]

Ricky Martin Could Face 50 Years in Prison After New Developments Arise in Domestic Dispute

Quote

After the complaint was made anonymously under Law 54, known as the Domestic Abuse Prevention and Intervention Act, Martin's brother Eric Martin revealed the victim is the artist nephew's Dennis Yadiel Sanchez, according to Marca.

[Spartan Girl]

26 minutes ago, BetterButter said:

Ricky Martin Could Face 50 Years in Prison After New Developments Arise in Domestic Dispute

 

And the worst part is you know that certain people are going to use this to further their “all LGBTQ people are groomers” stance.

[Blergh]

2 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

 

And the worst part is you know that certain people are going to use this to further their “all LGBTQ people are groomers” stance.

If what has been claimed is true, IMO the WORST part is that someone took grave advantage of an underage person AND committed incest!  The fact that Mr. Martin's own brother has said that the alleged victim is a nephew who was underage when this alleged deal started  (instead of keeping quiet about it and letting this be buried) is a good indication that at least one member of Mr. Martin's immediate family believes that something very sordid has happened and is willing to endure the flak of Mr. Martin (and possibly Mr. Martin's fans if not other members of their family) to try to have some kind of justice rendered on behalf of the alleged victim. 

Yes, it's sad that these allegations could be used as ammo for those wanting to tar   at least one certain group with a very broad and vile brush. 

However, if what has been claimed IS true, even THAT pales compared to how an underage person was horribly victimized! 

And if Mr. Martin himself cared about how OTHER LGBTQ folks might suffer as a result of HIS alleged actions, if what was claimed is true, then he shouldn't have allegedly  done that!

Edited July 16, 2022 by Blergh

[Lady Whistleup]

On 7/13/2022 at 12:01 AM, ParadoxLost said:

Snark.  Its a thing.

But seriously.  Why the outrage over Depp writing a song about Heard?

She was abusive. IMO, much more abusive than Depp has been shown to be.  So why can't he have feelings about that and sing about them if that is what he decided to do.

Heard went on Dateline to put her side out there after the trial.

And I don't want to hear but "he sued her so he doesn't really just want to get away from anything to do with her".  Heard really left him no choice on that at every single step since the divorce.

YMMV but IMO Depp was the abuser and Amber the innocent party, and this song is just another way he is continuing to abuse her.

Women don't lie about being abused or sexually assaulted. False accusations are extremely rare. 

Edited July 16, 2022 by Lady Whistleup

[Spartan Girl]

1 hour ago, Blergh said:

If what has been claimed is true, IMO the WORST part is that someone took grave advantage of an underage person AND committed incest!  The fact that Mr. Martin's own brother has said that the alleged victim is a nephew who was underage when this alleged deal started  (instead of keeping quiet about it and letting this be buried) is a good indication that at least one member of Mr. Martin's immediate family believes that something very sordid has happened and is willing to endure the flak of Mr. Martin (and possibly Mr. Martin's fans if not other members of their family) to try to have some kind of justice rendered on behalf of the alleged victim. 

Yes, it's sad that these allegations could be used as ammo for those wanting to tar   at least one certain group with a very broad and vile brush. 

However, if what has been claimed IS true, even THAT pales compared to how an underage person was horribly victimized! 

And if Mr. Martin himself cared about how OTHER LGBTQ folks might suffer as a result of HIS alleged actions, if what was claimed is true, then he shouldn't have allegedly  done that!

You’re right, that was a poor choice of words. The crime itself is the worst part.

[Vermicious Knid]

Quote

False accusations are extremely rare. 

Tawana Brawley.

[Makai]

1 hour ago, Vermicious Knid said:

Tawana Brawley.

An example from 1987. It is estimated that 1 in 6 American women have been victims of rape or attempted rape. It would take a lot more false accusations for it to not be a rare occurrence. 

Edited July 16, 2022 by Makai
To correct the statistic.

[Jaded]

When people are asked to cite false accusations they usually mention the few that were publicized so much that coverage of them was run into the ground. With them being in the news so much while going on they seemed to stand out in peoples minds more then actual sexual assault cases that occur. Instead of sympathy being shown towards survivors some people decide to bring up those few over publicized false accusations instead. 

I will admit that Ricky Martin's name isn't one I thought I'd see get named in this thread the way it has. It serves as a reminder that you never really know about people.

[Vermicious Knid]

Rare isn't non-existent. You can't wholesale deny something just because it happens in small numbers.

[Hiyo]

At the same time you shouldn’t also use to discredit and deny that majority that is obviously happening.

[Makai]

1 hour ago, Vermicious Knid said:

Rare isn't non-existent. You can't wholesale deny something just because it happens in small numbers.

It doesn’t mean that it never happens but it does mean that the odds of it happening are so low that you can assume it didn’t happen without evidence to the contrary. That’s where I generally fall. I am going in with the assumption that accusation is true but won’t ignore evidence to the contrary.

What bothers me most about the Depp and Heard is the glee over her suffering and the level of venom I see. It bothers me more for the other people who witness it. Most of the time neither of them will ever see what is being said but the odds are high that someone who is in an abusive situation will and that they will internalize it. 

Edited July 16, 2022 by Makai

[aradia22]

Quote

However, if what has been claimed IS true, even THAT pales compared to how an underage person was horribly victimized! 

IF. This has the kind of chaotic "Armie Hammer is a cannibal" energy that requires receipts. 

Quote

 the victim is the artist nephew's

Also, it's too late for me to be parsing errors like this.