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

[andromeda331]

On 9/24/2024 at 12:53 PM, Palimelon said:

Something to think about...don't just focus on the celebrities who commit some of these crimes, but the ecosystem that helps them get away with it for as long as they can.

Behind every Al Fayed or Diddy, there is a small army of enablers: this column is dedicated to them.

Which is why they need to be held accountable too. But they never are.

[bluegirl147]

14 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Which is why they need to be held accountable too. But they never are.

Because a lot of times the people in a position to hold them accountable are involved in it.

[Palimelon]

Costco Debunks Diddy's Lawyer's Claim About The 'Bulk' Buying Of Baby Oil From Them.

Diddy's lawyer initially made the claim that "Diddy had such a large stash of baby oil bottles and lube because he preferred to buy his products in bulk."

"He has a big house; he buys in bulk," the lawyer continued. "I think they have Costcos in every place where he has a home."

 

[Shrek]

Why does it matter where he bought it?

[Palimelon]

I'm guessing they don't want to be associated with it?

[Notabug]

10 hours ago, Shrek said:

Why does it matter where he bought it?

It doesn't.  Apparently, there were 1000 containers of baby oil in his house when the cops searched and Diddy's lawyer was trying to explain that Diddy bought it in bulk which is why he had so much on hand. Sure, Jan. 

[Palimelon]

Quote

Diddy's lawyer was trying to explain that Diddy bought it in bulk which is why he had so much on hand

"Celebrities...they're just like us!"

[Notabug]

6 hours ago, Palimelon said:

"Celebrities...they're just like us!"

Unfortunately for Diddy and his lawyers, the helpful management at Costco stepped forward to say they didn’t carry baby oil at all in their stores, let alone in that amount.

[Palimelon]

I know, I posted about it above.

If that's as good as Diddy's lawyers can do, Diddy might want to rethink who is representing him.

[Cobalt Stargazer]

On 9/27/2024 at 7:14 AM, Palimelon said:

I'm guessing they don't want to be associated with it?

They really don't. The TMZ article I found makes it sound like a Costco lawyer rushed to the first phone or laptop they could find so the company could distance themselves from this mess.

[Zella]

8 hours ago, Palimelon said:

I know, I posted about it above.

If that's as good as Diddy's lawyers can do, Diddy might want to rethink who is representing him.

I think this is probably a bit like the Josh Duggar case in that the evidence is so damning, it doesn't really matter how good your lawyer is, so the only arguments available to them just inherently sound incredibly stupid.

Edited September 29 by Zella

[Annber03]

Yeah, I always wonder about that with defense attorneys who have a client that is obviously guilty/there's no doubt or question they're the one who committed the crime. That would be a very difficult part of the job, for sure. 

[Dimity]

49 minutes ago, Zella said:

I think this is probably a bit like the Josh Duggar case in that the evidence is so damning, it doesn't really matter how good your lawyer is, so the only arguments available to them just inherently sound incredibly stupid.

If they have a trial by jury what they strive for is reasonable doubt, if they can get just one person to think "gee that makes sense" then it's worth throwing any stupid thing they can out there hoping something will stick.  

[Mrsmaul2021]

On 9/18/2024 at 9:06 AM, merylinkid said:

THIS.   We don't want to believe that someone who created something we enjoyed could be this vile in real life.   But honestly, when he let JLo (who is not my favorite person) almost take the rap for that nightclub shooting we should have known he was not a decent person.   

Just another rich guy who felt his fame and money let him do what he wants.   He Weinsteined artists who wouldn't go along with this game.

My question -- its a conspiracy, who else is involved?   Other big names?   I just keep coming back to that picture of Diddy, Kanye, Jay Z and one other guy sitting at a small table while their wives/girlfriends stand behind them.   Did they know?   Did they very deliberately not know?

I think Jlo was complicit but he set up his protege, rapper Shyne to take the  fall. Shyne served almost 9 years and upon release was immediately deported to his home country Belize. Yeah, Sean has always been that grimy.  Also, ALLEGEDLY he tried to off rapper Kid Cudi with a car bomb. 

 

Shyne speaking 

 

 

 

 

[Zella]

5 hours ago, Dimity said:

If they have a trial by jury what they strive for is reasonable doubt, if they can get just one person to think "gee that makes sense" then it's worth throwing any stupid thing they can out there hoping something will stick.  

Yes very true! I think Diddy has probably been advised to plea bargain (and I think Josh Duggar was too and ignored it), but if he wants to fight the charges, well, then his lawyer is going to fight the charges with what he has to work with. 

[Kel Varnsen]

11 hours ago, Annber03 said:

Yeah, I always wonder about that with defense attorneys who have a client that is obviously guilty/there's no doubt or question they're the one who committed the crime. That would be a very difficult part of the job, for sure. 

I think, in general, even if someone is super guilty they still need someone on their side to make sure things are fair. Otherwise who would be there to stop the prosecutor's side from tacking on extra charges or bringing in witnesses who make up shit or trying to get excessive prison sentences?

[Quof]

1 hour ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Otherwise who would be there to stop the prosecutor's side from tacking on extra charges or bringing in witnesses who make up shit or trying to get excessive prison sentences?

Alec Baldwin's lawyers have entered the chat.

[merylinkid]

Defense lawyers are very necessary for the system to work.   

However, that doesn't mean defense lawyers need to be holding press conferences where they spew BS.    All they need to say is "We look forward to our day in court when the prosecution must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt."   

 Why would anyone need that much baby oil even if Costco DID carry it?    You just don't use that much baby oil in real life that you need to buy it in bulk.  

[Affogato]

4 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

Defense lawyers are very necessary for the system to work.   

However, that doesn't mean defense lawyers need to be holding press conferences where they spew BS.    All they need to say is "We look forward to our day in court when the prosecution must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt."   

 Why would anyone need that much baby oil even if Costco DID carry it?    You just don't use that much baby oil in real life that you need to buy it in bulk.  

Olympic pig wrassling?

Edited September 29 by Affogato

[Palimelon]

Don't give Diddy's lawyer any ideas now...

[Cobalt Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Affogato said:

Olympic pig wrassling?

If the pig don't fit, you must acquit.

[Mrsmaul2021]

On 9/18/2024 at 9:20 PM, JustHereForFood said:

I don't listen to any rap because I just don't like that kind of music, so I barely know who he is (yes, I know, I am a huge racist because of that, according to a part of the internet, lol). But I recently went through a similar stages of denial and grief with Neil Gaiman, so I kind of get it. And before that, Harry Potter and Mists of Avalon are some of my most favorite books, Buffy is one of my favorite shows ... yes, there are some different levels of terrible things that the people behind them did. Bottom line is, I had to come to some level of separating art from the artist, otherwise I am afraid that we will end up not being able to enjoy anything eventually. Sometimes, I can do it, other times not and it's all pretty inconsistent, but we all should do what is best for us at the end of the day. And since I am seeing people who get very mad at others who still enjoy the art and remain part of a fandom, I think we should remember to be mad at the people who did the wrong/illegal acts, not at other fans who are dealing with the same as us, just maybe in different ways.

 

 

I am a black woman whose black father could not stand rap music. Especially the gangster rap.  he died back in 2003 but being from the older generation and from racist Mississippi he had no tolerance for alot of the language and subject matter 

[Makai]

17 hours ago, Annber03 said:

Yeah, I always wonder about that with defense attorneys who have a client that is obviously guilty/there's no doubt or question they're the one who committed the crime. That would be a very difficult part of the job, for sure. 

Diddy’s lawyer was Keith Raniere‘s (NXIVM cult) lawyer so this is nothing new for him. 

[Bastet]

4 hours ago, merylinkid said:

You just don't use that much baby oil in real life that you need to buy it in bulk.  

Maybe Nick Cannon does.

[Annber03]

2 hours ago, Makai said:

Diddy’s lawyer was Keith Raniere‘s (NXIVM cult) lawyer so this is nothing new for him. 

Oh, wow, I didn't know that. But yeah, it would make sense to hire someone who's had a history of handling big deal cases like this. 

8 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I think, in general, even if someone is super guilty they still need someone on their side to make sure things are fair. Otherwise who would be there to stop the prosecutor's side from tacking on extra charges or bringing in witnesses who make up shit or trying to get excessive prison sentences?

Oh, absolutely agreed. Defense attorneys defintiely provide a valuable and necessary service, for sure. Just sympathize with the difficulty that can come with some of the people and crimes they have to try and put up a defense for, is all. 

But of course, if you're in this line of work, you're obviously prepared for and understand that you may get cases like that sometimes, and some people just like working jobs that can be challenging in that way, so...

[Danielg342]

1 hour ago, Annber03 said:

Of course, if you're in this line of work, you're obviously prepared for and understand that you may get cases like that sometimes, and some people just like working jobs that can be challenging in that way, so...

Might I remind you of the late OJ...I mean, few doubt he did the crime but Robert Shapiro still got him a not guilty verdict.

A great lawyer can change a lot of things, and if there's someone who could afford such a lawyer, it's Diddy. So if Diddy's lawyers make silly arguments in front of the court, it's really on Diddy this time for spending his money poorly.

[Irlandesa]

1 hour ago, Danielg342 said:

Might I remind you of the late OJ...I mean, few doubt he did the crime but Robert Shapiro still got him a not guilty verdict.

OJ's case was in a state court and his lawyer's were able to exploit fundamental issues with local law enforcement and pre-CSI DNA understanding (or lack thereof).  Diddy's case is in federal court.  I believe they're better funded and tend to bring forth much tighter cases.   

[Zella]

1 hour ago, Irlandesa said:

OJ's case was in a state court and his lawyer's were able to exploit fundamental issues with local law enforcement and pre-CSI DNA understanding (or lack thereof).  Diddy's case is in federal court.  I believe they're better funded and tend to bring forth much tighter cases.   

Yeah the feds have a conviction rate of approximately 95% for a reason. 

[Dimity]

9 minutes ago, Zella said:

Yeah the feds have a conviction rate of approximately 95% for a reason.

I remember when Josh Duggar was on trial and I read a few articles talking about this.  One quote I remember was "the feds don't play".

[Danielg342]

5 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

OJ's case was in a state court and his lawyer's were able to exploit fundamental issues with local law enforcement and pre-CSI DNA understanding (or lack thereof).  Diddy's case is in federal court.  I believe they're better funded and tend to bring forth much tighter cases.   

OJ's lawyers cast doubt on DNA evidence when such evidence, at the time, was considered a slam dunk.

Further, Diddy himself also won at federal court years ago. He probably likes his chances, as long as his lawyers don't make nonsensical arguments about baby oil.

In any case, I don't put anything past a great lawyer. They don't play around either.

[Irlandesa]

5 minutes ago, Danielg342 said:

Further, Diddy himself also won at federal court years ago. He probably likes his chances, as long as his lawyers don't make nonsensical arguments about baby oil.

The article you linked was about a NY case that took place in its State Supreme Court.  That's not federal.

[Danielg342]

I made a mistake vetting my source. Anyway, it might be the '80s but John DeLorean won in federal court despite the odds.

In any case, this is all semantics. Don't get it twisted, I ain't defending Sean Combs at all. I'm just saying I don't put anything past a great lawyer.

[Kel Varnsen]

8 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

OJ's lawyers cast doubt on DNA evidence when such evidence, at the time, was considered a slam dunk.

His lawyers also destroyed any credibility the LAPD might have had at the time.

7 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

I made a mistake vetting my source. Anyway, it might be the '80s but John DeLorean won in federal court despite the odds

I have been watching the Mr. McMahon documentary series on Netflix and just watched the episode where he won against the Feds on his steroid trial in the 90's.

[ABay]

@Kel Varnsen, what do you think of the documentary? I watched last week and was interested by how many of the wrestlers interviewed were from the time I was watching (late 90s, Attitude era). And a few who weren't, like Mick Foley and Kevin Nash. Cena was the only more recent one, I think. I would've appreciated them talking more about the many wrestlers who have died young as a result of painkillers.

[Dimity]

8 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

In any case, this is all semantics. Don't get it twisted, I ain't defending Sean Combs at all. I'm just saying I don't put anything past a great lawyer.

Absolutely wouldn't underestimate this - he certainly has the money to get the cadillac of lawyers.  But I still wouldn't be surprised if he takes a deal, if it's offered.  There is a mountain of evidence and some compelling witnesses out there.

[Kel Varnsen]

1 hour ago, ABay said:

@Kel Varnsen, what do you think of the documentary? I watched last week and was interested by how many of the wrestlers interviewed were from the time I was watching (late 90s, Attitude era). And a few who weren't, like Mick Foley and Kevin Nash. Cena was the only more recent one, I think. I would've appreciated them talking more about the many wrestlers who have died young as a result of painkillers.

I am about 4 episodes in and it's ok but not great. I was expecting way more of an expose on McMahon and his scandals but so far this is way more of just a history of the WWF/WWE. But I was around 20 when the attitude era and was in grade 4 when WrestleMania 3 happened so I already know about all of this stuff. I mean they spent way more time talking about the Montreal screw job than they did talking about the rape accusations from the female referee. And I am tired of hearing about Montreal since it is the one thing where I agree with Vince's choice. The Behind the Bastards podcast did a series on Vince and it did a way better job digging into all of his scandals.

[ABay]

ITA. More a history than anything else and with scant coverage of the scandals. It didn't have anything new or insightful. They didn't finish until after the latest accusations; they had time to go back and put in more about the history of that than organizational history.

I watched the Montreal match live on ppv and it was bizarre. As a fan your first assumption is always that if it's on TV, it's a work, but when Bret started breaking monitors, and not by being suplexed onto a table, it became clear something else had happened. I can see both sides but I agree Vince made the right call.

[merylinkid]

3 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

His lawyers also destroyed any credibility the LAPD might have had at the time.

Marcia Clark was way too confident she had a slam dunk case so she didn't put on the best case she could and let the defense run the trial.   She and Darden were warned, don't let them bait you into making him try on the glove.   We all know what happened.

If you watched the people v. OJ simpson the scene where Marcia Clark is in the bar explaining how IMPLAUSIBLE it was that the LAPD planted all that evidence in the time given, if she had done THAT for her closing, there might have been a different outcome.   No need to try to rehabilitate Fuhrman, just "yeah he's racist but that doesn't mean he planted evidence and here's why"  

No such thing as a slam dunk.   Also the jury got it right in this case -- the prosecution did not prove that OJ did it beyond a reasonable doubt.   Do I believe he did it?   Hell yes.   But, in the judicial system we have, the jury got it right.

I feel the same way about Casey Anthony.   Without even a cause of death how do you even begin to think about charging first degree (intent required) murder?   If they had gone with negligent (no intent required so would have covered accidently overdose of xanax to keep the kid quiet)  instead, Anthony would have been convicted.  

 

[Danielg342]

6 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

I am about 4 episodes in and it's ok but not great. I was expecting way more of an expose on McMahon and his scandals but so far this is way more of just a history of the WWF/WWE. But I was around 20 when the attitude era and was in grade 4 when WrestleMania 3 happened so I already know about all of this stuff. I mean they spent way more time talking about the Montreal screw job than they did talking about the rape accusations from the female referee. And I am tired of hearing about Montreal since it is the one thing where I agree with Vince's choice. The Behind the Bastards podcast did a series on Vince and it did a way better job digging into all of his scandals.

I've heard that about the Vince McMahon documentary (I haven't seen it myself). If you know nothing about Vince it can be illuminating but if you knew the history beforehand, it really doesn't shed any new light or reveal anything you didn't know about.

As for the Montreal Screwjob, I don't think it's right- in general- for people to go behind one of the performer's backs and change what happens in the match. It's a trust and a safety issue. If a wrestler is expecting certain move they can anticipate it and prepare for it. If their opponent decides to change their mind at the last second, the other wrestler might not be prepared for it and that can lead to an injury, or worse.

Bret Hart was still under contract at the then-WWF for a few more weeks after Survivor Series. He never said, "I don't want to lose the title". He just didn't want to lose it in Canada. Vince and WWF could have easily accommodated his request and they chose not to.

8 hours ago, Dimity said:

Absolutely wouldn't underestimate this - he certainly has the money to get the cadillac of lawyers.  But I still wouldn't be surprised if he takes a deal, if it's offered.  There is a mountain of evidence and some compelling witnesses out there.

The thing about the law, which makes it equal parts fascinating and frustrating, is that there's still a lot of volatility when it comes to what happens.

It really feels like when I have it all figured out, some strange case comes out of the blue and some weird ruling happens and everything I thought I knew would be thrown out the window. It's especially jarring for me on the sidelines, where I don't have a stake in what happens in court.

I can only imagine how the people actually involved in a case feels when something strange happens.

Which is kind of what makes commenting on legal matters very complicated. I've learned you really do have to have an open mind because even in a case that looks like it should be a foregone conclusion can have a detail that throws everything out of whack.

I remember the Jian Ghomeshi trial here in my native Canada. Ghomeshi's victims E-Mailed each other and basically established a mini support group with each other and traded stories about their experience. That somehow got turned into, by Ghomeshi's lawyer, into "the victims were collaborating and conspiring against Jian Ghomeshi". The judge bought it and it became the basis of the eventual not-guilty verdict, on a case many thought would go the other way.

Then there was another Canadian sexual assault case involving two student union members of a university that actually resulted in a conviction. The judge, however, quoted Maya Angelou and essentially played politics in his ruling. The conviction gets overturned and there's no new trial.

So if you ask me, "can anything happen?" Well, it sure can. I don't know if it's all that great, but it's what it is.

[ebk57]

Not that this conversation isn't on topic, but in case anyone is interested in the documentary, there's a thread in the Netflix forum to discuss further:

 

[Makai]

On 9/29/2024 at 4:33 PM, Irlandesa said:

OJ's case was in a state court and his lawyer's were able to exploit fundamental issues with local law enforcement and pre-CSI DNA understanding (or lack thereof).  Diddy's case is in federal court.  I believe they're better funded and tend to bring forth much tighter cases.   

This. Plus OJ was a crime of passion with no living witnesses to testify which is always going to be a tougher case. 

Diddy built a criminal organization which is going to have a bigger paper trail. He also has multiple victims willing to testify and who are currently suing him with reports that dozens more lawsuits could be coming. 

[Zella]

34 minutes ago, Makai said:

Diddy built a criminal organization which is going to have a bigger paper trail. He also has multiple victims willing to testify and who are currently suing him with reports that dozens more lawsuits could be coming. 

And also filmed his crimes and kept the footage, for the convenience of the prosecutors. 

Edited October 1 by Zella

[Quof]

8 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

That somehow got turned into, by Ghomeshi's lawyer, into "the victims were collaborating and conspiring against Jian Ghomeshi". The judge bought it and it became the basis of the eventual not-guilty verdict, on a case many thought would go the other way.

Every lawyer I know agrees the verdict was correct. 

[Danielg342]

54 minutes ago, Quof said:

Every lawyer I know agrees the verdict was correct. 

Maybe it was just the media that made it seem like the case was a slam dunk. I'm just going on memory about a case that happened eight years ago.

I still think it reinforces my point that the legal system can react in ways many just don't expect.

[Vermicious Knid]

The Diddy story just keeps getting wilder. 120 More Lawsuits To Be Filed Against him.

Quote

 

The attorneys said more than 3,000 people reached out to them about possible abuse, and they now represent 120 accusers. The alleged victims come from more than 25 states with a majority of them living in California, New York, Georgia and Florida...

Buzbee said at least 25 were minors at the time of the alleged abuse, with the youngest being 9 years old. The attorney said the child was brought to New York City by Combs’ record label, Bad Boy Records, for an audition, but was sexually abused by Combs and his associates at the studio. The boy was promised that he and his parents would get a record deal, Buzbee said.

 

[Danielg342]

On 10/1/2024 at 11:07 PM, Vermicious Knid said:

The Diddy story just keeps getting wilder. 120 More Lawsuits To Be Filed Against him.

You know...there are people who let the power get to their heads.

...and then there's Diddy.

[bluegirl147]

On 9/30/2024 at 9:48 PM, Makai said:

This. Plus OJ was a crime of passion with no living witnesses to testify which is always going to be a tougher case. 

Diddy built a criminal organization which is going to have a bigger paper trail. He also has multiple victims willing to testify and who are currently suing him with reports that dozens more lawsuits could be coming. 

 

On 9/30/2024 at 10:22 PM, Zella said:

And also filmed his crimes and kept the footage, for the convenience of the prosecutors. 

It is going to be hard for Diddy's lawyers to discredit all the victim's and witness testimony.  I've already heard people saying Diddy's team will try to argue the footage is AI. But from what I understand a lot of that footage was from before there was AI technology. And of course Diddy is not a likable defendant.  He has a long history of being involved with bad things.  Until OJ was mentioned as a person of interest and then arrested and we started hearing about the evidence against him the public had no idea he was a man capable of killing two people.  The public has known about Diddy for quite some time.

[Affogato]

6 hours ago, bluegirl147 said:

 

It is going to be hard for Diddy's lawyers to discredit all the victim's and witness testimony.  I've already heard people saying Diddy's team will try to argue the footage is AI. But from what I understand a lot of that footage was from before there was AI technology. And of course Diddy is not a likable defendant.  He has a long history of being involved with bad things.  Until OJ was mentioned as a person of interest and then arrested and we started hearing about the evidence against him the public had no idea he was a man capable of killing two people.  The public has known about Diddy for quite some time.

I understand a lot of the accusations were taken in hospitals, ers, with blood teats and rape kit evidence and should carry weight. I would think. 

Edited October 3 by Affogato

[EtheltoTillie]

Well now there are some new allegations against Garth Brooks.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/garth-brooks-sued-sexual-assault-rape-of-employee-1236023929/#recipient_hashed=749d7f9295b9e9e8cb09d389b35eea258526fe0052afa6c709ab399bbf7e0af0&recipient_salt=ed9d57e5f557a9c61352a0d942b29ce28f1567c5844b551d915331118d51a151&utm_medium=email&utm_source=exacttarget&utm_campaign=Breaking News&utm_content=556085_10-03-2024&utm_term=4742326

[Vermicious Knid]

I saw that earlier and I don't care if he's guilty or not, he already pulled a dick move by trying to have the lawsuit quashed before it was even filed. Here's the article from CNN earlier today before he was identified by name: Anonymous celebrity lawsuit asks court to declare sexual assault accuser’s allegations untrue — before she’s even sued.

Quote

 

“Mr. Doe believes that he is entitled to the same protection victims receive – not to prevent unnecessary re-traumatization, but rather, to maintain his celebrity ‘reputation,’” the accuser’s attorney wrote in a response brief this week, which was obtained by CNN.

“Our civil court system is designed to resolve disputes and provide injured parties a means of redress,” Roe’s filing states. “It is supposed to be a level playing field. The system is not in place to allow wealthy wrongdoers the ability to run work-arounds on sexual assault victims who attempt to hold perpetrators accountable. This is precisely what Mr. Doe is asking the court to help him do.”...

Doe’s suit asks the court to declare Roe’s sexual misconduct allegations untrue, pay compensatory and punitive damages and be prevented from further publicizing the claims.

According to Roe’s filing, the celebrity filed his lawsuit after he learned that his accuser was planning to publicly file her own lawsuit, which came after she attempted to settle privately.

“Mr. Doe commenced this frivolous action after he learned that Ms. Roe intended to hold him accountable for his conduct and sexual violence,” the filing states, with Roe’s attorney writing that the celebrity preemptively filing his own complaint amounts to an “obvious attempt to further control and bully his sexual assault victim.”