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

[AgathaC]

I hate to hear about those Garth Brooks allegations.

A second cousin of mine, who fought a brain tumor from age 6 until she died at 22, was a huge fan. Through a Make-a-Wish type organization, she got to meet him in NYC when he was there for the Rockefeller Center tree lighting. He went way above and beyond what was asked, paying for her and her mom to stay an extra couple of days, setting up a personal shopper and a line of credit for a Bergdorf Goodman shopping spree, and arranging for her to see the tree lighting from a special spot and for her to be in the green room at a talk show he was on(can’t remember which).

Anyway, I was impressed with how kind and generous he was to her. While I’ve never been a country fan, I thought well of him and actually listened to his music. Really hate to hear he may have an incredibly dark side.

[Shrek]

12 hours ago, Vermicious Knid said:

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. 

 

Why is it a "dick move" to want to defend yourself against what you think are & may well end up being unfounded accusations?

I'm not asking if you think he's guilty or innocent, just that comment in general as it seems like you think once someone makes an accusation that should be the end of it & the person is guilty just because.

 

[Danielg342]

10 hours ago, AgathaC said:

While I’ve never been a country fan, I thought well of him and actually listened to his music. Really hate to hear he may have an incredibly dark side.

I think this is one of those cases where you have to remind yourself, "the allegations have not been tested in court". While I grant that anyone can commit sexual misconduct, the allegations against Garth Brooks seem, honestly, out of character for him.

It's not like the accusations stem from actions where they could be interpreted as misunderstandings. Everyone can get carried away sometimes. No, what Brooks is accused of doing is planning this elaborate scheme where he deliberately committed the act of rape. While, again, I grant that this scenario isn't impossible and that I don't know Brooks personally, based on what I know about him, he just doesn't seem like the kind of guy where even the thought of something like he's being accused of would ever cross his mind.

Plus he's been married to Trisha Yearwood for almost twenty years. He's only been divorced once. Yearwood has also said she and Brooks spend only five days apart from each other each year because they made a commitment to being together, and they seem dedicated to the role. That article came out in 2019.

Yeah, make all that of what you will.

Of course, I'm willing to change my mind on all this and see where the process goes and before 500 people jump on me, I'm fully aware that it's not impossible for people like Brooks to commit the crimes he's been accused of.

For now, it just doesn't seem like something he'd do, but we'll see where it goes.

[AgathaC]

1 hour ago, Danielg342 said:

I think this is one of those cases where you have to remind yourself, "the allegations have not been tested in court". While I grant that anyone can commit sexual misconduct, the allegations against Garth Brooks seem, honestly, out of character for him.

It's not like the accusations stem from actions where they could be interpreted as misunderstandings. Everyone can get carried away sometimes. No, what Brooks is accused of doing is planning this elaborate scheme where he deliberately committed the act of rape. While, again, I grant that this scenario isn't impossible and that I don't know Brooks personally, based on what I know about him, he just doesn't seem like the kind of guy where even the thought of something like he's being accused of would ever cross his mind.

Plus he's been married to Trisha Yearwood for almost twenty years. He's only been divorced once. Yearwood has also said she and Brooks spend only five days apart from each other each year because they made a commitment to being together, and they seem dedicated to the role. That article came out in 2019.

Yeah, make all that of what you will.

Of course, I'm willing to change my mind on all this and see where the process goes and before 500 people jump on me, I'm fully aware that it's not impossible for people like Brooks to commit the crimes he's been accused of.

For now, it just doesn't seem like something he'd do, but we'll see where it goes.

Agreed. They could be true. They may not be. I’m not making any judgments or conclusions until more is known.

[Danielg342]

I feel like this week has been a study in contrasts.

While I think there's a lot of shock over the extent of the accusations, I doubt many are surprised that Diddy is facing the accusations he's facing.

Garth Brooks? Now that's way out of left field.

Of course a lot can change and anything can happen, but for now the differences couldn't be more stark.

[Vermicious Knid]

Quote

I'm not asking if you think he's guilty or innocent, just that comment in general as it seems like you think once someone makes an accusation that should be the end of it & the person is guilty just because.

What happened to believe the woman? And so what he has a reputation for being a good guy. Bill Cosby was everyone's favorite Dad. People seem to be giving him the benefit of the doubt in a way they haven't for other accused celebrity sexual predators.

My opinion that he's a dick is because he attempted to silence his accuser using the courts and his money to make it go away, and alleging she's engaged in blackmail and extortion. This was a pre-emptive SLAPP, a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation which refers to lawsuits 'intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.' I fully expect him to file a countersuit now that will be a true SLAPP.

[Soapy Goddess]

Don't forget that Garth filed a complaint (as John Doe) against his accuser months before she decided to retaliate with this lawsuit. In his lawsuit he claimed that he was being extorted for millions of dollars. When he refused to write her a check, that's when she decided to file.

Most women would immediately file a lawsuit, but she waited months later simply because he wouldn't give in to her demands of extortion.

Edited October 5 by Soapy Goddess

[SunnyBeBe]

Apparently, when he refused to pay a settlement, he filed the suit to prevent her from damaging his reputation with her claim. He must have felt strongly about it. It might have been easier to settle out of court, without public disclosure. 

 I’ll be interested to see where this goes.  The description of Garth’s physical abilities by the plaintiff seem  incompatible with his physique during that time period.  It would seem the event details would be easy enough to document and confirm.  
 

Apparently, the plaintiff was well known first by Yearwood, the wife, and then Garth.  I do wonder what actually happened.  Garth needs a makeup person?  Hmmm….I had no idea men had those.  
 

I’m perhaps biased since I’ve been a huge fan of Yearwood and Brooks for many years.  Trisha for her music career, but also cooking,  

 

 

 

Edited October 5 by SunnyBeBe

[Danielg342]

3 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

 Garth needs a makeup person?  Hmmm….I had no idea men had those.  

Just for the record, a man like Garth Brooks would need makeup because it would help maintain a "clean" look. It's less about making Brooks as beautiful as possible and more about making sure that, when he's on stage or in front of the camera, he doesn't look like he just rolled out of bed and came to the studio (even if that may be what he actually did that day).

Since Brooks makes a lot of media appearances, it makes sense for him to have a makeup artist on his payroll.

3 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

Apparently, when he refused to pay a settlement, he filed the suit to prevent her from damaging his reputation with her claim. He must have felt strongly about it. It might have been easier to settle out of court, without public disclosure. 

Maybe this MUA has been spreading rumours about Brooks and he's fed up with it. Maybe the MUA secretly had a crush on Brooks and retaliated when Brooks refused her advances. Maybe the MUA hates Trisha Yearwood. Who knows. There is likely a lot more to this story than what we've been told.

At the very least, I can understand why Brooks may have moved to quash the lawsuit without the reasons being nefarious. Sure, he could settle, and part of those terms could include a statement where Brooks "admits to no wrongdoing", but you know what the public is like. People will see that Brooks got sued for sexual assault and automatically assume that he did it, and skip the details. I'm sure there already are people who are doing that right now, and will continue to do so even if Brooks emphatically wins his lawsuit.

I suppose on the scary end, it can highlight the stark differences between celebrities and commoners. Someone like Brooks can afford high end lawyers and can litigate the trial to its conclusion. Someone like John Doe probably can't afford a lengthy court case so he settles just to get the matter over with, even if he might have gotten more favourable terms had he brought the matter to court. Not that I fault Brooks for using his resources to his advantage, because the problem isn't Brooks- it's with a system that allows Brooks to fight on to the end and not John Doe.

[peachmangosteen]

2 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

People will see that Brooks got sued for sexual assault and automatically assume that he did it, and skip the details.

And many the other way around; see the Johnny Depp situation.

[Danielg342]

53 minutes ago, peachmangosteen said:

And many the other way around; see the Johnny Depp situation.

There are are always exceptions, and a lot depends on one's perception, I'll grant. As for Johnny Depp, I think public opinion was initially against him until the trial came around and we heard the details.

In any case, I can't blame Garth Brooks for at least fearing that, if he didn't fight to clear his name, his reputation would get tarnished beyond repair. Whether or not his fears have a realistic chance of happening is immaterial- it's reasonable fear for him to have, especially being a celebrity whose career depends on his reputation.

[peachmangosteen]

9 minutes ago, Danielg342 said:

 As for Johnny Depp, I think public opinion was initially against him until the trial came around and we heard the details.

Insanity lol.

[SunnyBeBe]

Ref. Depp. It seemed the UK court got it right, imo.  I was appalled at just the stuff he did admit to in the US and the video.  No longer a fan.  

[Shrek]

10 hours ago, Vermicious Knid said:

What happened to believe the woman? And so what he has a reputation for being a good guy. Bill Cosby was everyone's favorite Dad. People seem to be giving him the benefit of the doubt in a way they haven't for other accused celebrity sexual predators.

My opinion that he's a dick is because he attempted to silence his accuser using the courts and his money to make it go away, and alleging she's engaged in blackmail and extortion. This was a pre-emptive SLAPP, a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation which refers to lawsuits 'intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.' I fully expect him to file a countersuit now that will be a true SLAPP.

So it's not okay to want to defend yourself if you're a man, got it. 

[Notabug]

Quote

What happened to believe the woman? And so what he has a reputation for being a good guy. Bill Cosby was everyone's favorite Dad. People seem to be giving him the benefit of the doubt in a way they haven't for other accused celebrity sexual predator

There were decades of rumors that Bill Cosby was at the very least a philanderer and there was even a comedian who made jokes in his stand-up act about Cosby drugging women and having sex with them. That was part of what triggered the initial public reports of his actions.  It was a fairly open secret that Cosby was not a good husband at the minimum.  Back in those days, there was a lot of wink-wink, nudge-nudge about men behaving badly in regards to women.  Boys will be boys after all.  When I heard about Cosby, I was certainly not surprised nor did I think the stories were likely to be false.

In Brooks' case, there really hasn't been much murmuring in the background about his misdeeds.  Or, at least, not that I have heard.  He's been very famous for over 30 years, if he was a predator, it seems likely we would've heard rumors.  Now, maybe there are women who are now going to step forward and we'll learn Brooks has feet of clay; but, until then, he's innocent until proven guilty.

The other difference is that Cosby faced criminal charges while Brooks is facing a civil suit.  There are a lot of reasons why a woman who has been assaulted might not go to the police, but, in Cosby's case, we also knew the police had investigated and found probable cause for an arrest.  I have not heard that there was any sort of criminal investigation of Brooks, so he gets more of the benefit of a doubt from me.

[Blergh]

Re Mr. Brooks, regardless of how much of a fan of his music one has been, how cool one may think of him as a performer, how many good deeds he may have done otherwise, one MUST carefully listen to then consider  the validity of each aspect of both the accuser's and defendant's respective claims  before deciding who or what to believe and NOT get distracted or flinch just because one doesn't want to chance not possibly having to readjust one's thinking. Easy? It sure ISN'T but just because something's easier said than done doesn't mean it CAN'T be done.

I only hope any jury that gets picked ALSO takes to heart the above guidelines and is as fair as possible to all sides in this case!

Edited October 6 by Blergh

[Dimity]

9 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

Apparently, when he refused to pay a settlement, he filed the suit to prevent her from damaging his reputation with her claim. He must have felt strongly about it. It might have been easier to settle out of court, without public disclosure. 

If the initial lawsuit offered to settle without any public disclosure that does make me side eye this whole thing.  I can understand why a woman might not want to go to the police but if Brooks is a predator and this woman was willing to sweep it under the carpet for a cash settlement I am going to feel less inclined to believe that there was ever a case to be made.

[Notabug]

1 hour ago, Dimity said:

If the initial lawsuit offered to settle without any public disclosure that does make me side eye this whole thing.  I can understand why a woman might not want to go to the police but if Brooks is a predator and this woman was willing to sweep it under the carpet for a cash settlement I am going to feel less inclined to believe that there was ever a case to be made.

It is possible that she went to the police and there wasn't enough evidence to press charges; this is pretty common in cases of sexual assault especially when the individuals know one another.  The investigation, etc is supposed to be private, although, in the case of a celeb, it often becomes public.  If we're going to give him the benefit of the doubt, she gets it too.

The suit claims that, in addition to forcing her to touch his genitals on one occasion and actually raping her on another; he sent her many sexually explicit text messages which should be able to prove her case one way or another, I'd think.  Part of her complaint is that he frequently changed clothes in front of her, but, considering she was traveling on the road on a concert tour doesn't sound like it would be out of the ordinary.

Of course, if she does have a huge number of text messages from Brooks, it seems like he would've been happy to pay her off rather than taking it public.

She also apparently worked for Trisha Yearwood for almost 20 years and did his hair and makeup sometimes when they performed together, but, back in 2017, she needed extra money for some reason, so Brooks hired her for his solo shows too and the assaults occurred in 2019.

Edited October 5 by Notabug

[Milburn Stone]

15 hours ago, Vermicious Knid said:

What happened to believe the woman?

I never thought we should automatically "believe the woman" or "believe the man." I think we should believe the evidence.

(Evidence can include, did the woman contemporaneously share what happened with friends or family, did the woman go to the police where a rape kit was administered, did the man brag to his friends about what happened, how credible is the woman's story, how credible are the stories told my other women who come forward, were there witnesses seeing the woman running out of the room, did any abusive conduct happen in public, and probably a whole lot of other things.)

[Browncoat]

Maybe instead of "believe the woman" it should be "take the woman seriously."

[Annber03]

39 minutes ago, Browncoat said:

Maybe instead of "believe the woman" it should be "take the woman seriously."

This. The whole "believe the women" thing basically just means that when these sorts of accusations come out, we shoudln't uutomatically go to the tired old claims that the women are just making it up or just out for fame/money, but just hear them out first and take their claims seriously. 

Because the facts are that a lot of the time, you just are not going to have clear cul concrete evidence with a rape/sexual assault case, so you can't always just go off of that. And most cases of this sort never even make it to trial, for a whole host of reasons, so you will rarely get a court case to decide the validity of all this stuff. That, and most women who make these kinds of accusations are not making them up. False accusations are extremely rare. 

So it's just more logical to take a woman at her word when she makes these kinds of claims, because more often than not, she is telling the truth. Obviously if things come up during the investigation that do bring a woman's claims into question, certainly that needs to be addressed and dealt with as it plays out, and if she is found to be making up everything, then she should be held accountable for that, because that's an incredibly shitty thing to do. 

But all "believe the woman" basically means is, "When a woman makes this kind of claim, don't automatically jump to saying she's just lying and looking for fame and money." Just the fact that that's always the first go-to response for so many people is depressing and insulting and dehumanizing and makes it that much harder for women to get justice for these kinds of crimes. 

Edited October 5 by Annber03

[Zella]

I always liked Ronan Farrow's take: “I subscribe to listening to all survivors, listen to all the facts, listen to all women." 

[SVNBob]

19 hours ago, Danielg342 said:

Just for the record, a man like Garth Brooks would need makeup because it would help maintain a "clean" look. It's less about making Brooks as beautiful as possible and more about making sure that, when he's on stage or in front of the camera, he doesn't look like he just rolled out of bed and came to the studio (even if that may be what he actually did that day).

Since Brooks makes a lot of media appearances, it makes sense for him to have a makeup artist on his payroll.

There was also his "Chris Gaines" period, but that was 1999, so it's not necessarily relevant here.

[merylinkid]

I can see why the woman would take a cash settlement in exchange for keeping quiet -- look at what is being said about her here.   She must be out for money or why would she agree to keep quiet.   Never heard anything about Garth Brooks before.   Etc.   Some people just want it over with and a civil suit with a confidentiality agreement would ensure she doesn't get dragged through the mud when it comes out.   

Confidentiality agreements are standard in these types of cases.   Stating it explicitly upfront may be a way to settle quickly to avoid more pain for the victim.

Not every woman wants to be the "face" of the  movement.   Nor should they be, if they don't want to put up with the bs like we are seeing here to do it.   Not everyone is a crusader.   Some people are just victims who want to move on with their lives.

Edited October 6 by merylinkid

[Dimity]

1 hour ago, merylinkid said:

I can see why the woman would take a cash settlement in exchange for keeping quiet -- look at what is being said about her here.   She must be out for money or why would she agree to keep quiet. 

Alternatively, she must be out for money or why would she try for a cash settlement in the first place.   Totally on Team Women here but I am getting really tired of the narrative that women are always the victim and men are always the predator.  Believing women should not mean automatically believing all women and it shouldn't mean rushing to judgment until all the evidence is in.  Not here so much but definitely in other places I've seen it's beyond ridiculous how quickly the posse has formed and the gallows set up for the hanging.

Edited October 6 by Dimity

[merylinkid]

43 minutes ago, Dimity said:

Alternatively, she must be out for money or why would she try for a cash settlement in the first place.   Totally on Team Women here but I am getting really tired of the narrative that women are always the victim and men are always the predator.  Believing women should not mean automatically believing all women.

If its not criminal, all you can get is cash.   That's how civil suits work.   Just because someone filed a civil suit doesn't mean they are only out for cash.   Also, only two percent of cases go to trial.   That means 98% settle, for cash.   if she was offering up front, maybe she just didn't want to have this drag out for 5 years while everyone called her a gold digger just  out for money.

This is why women don't report and don't file.   Because they get dragged no matter if they go the criminal (if they can find a prosecutor to take the case) or civil route.  

That's what Believe All Women Means -- don't automatically assume she is lying, just out for attention or money.   Believe its possible she is telling the truth about this happening ot her.

Edited October 6 by merylinkid

[Quof]

2 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

Also, only two percent of cases go to trial.   That means 98% settle, for cash.

No, 98% of civil cases don't end up with cash settlements.   A very large percentage are dropped by the plaintiff before trial.  

[Cobalt Stargazer]

On 10/5/2024 at 6:19 AM, peachmangosteen said:

And many the other way around; see the Johnny Depp situation.

Yeah, but that just brings Amber Heard coming off like an asshole, or at least deeply unpleasant, into it. There's a piece in there where his actions were offset by her seeming like an equally horrible person, and his drinking was used against him in the court of public opinion by the people who would probably have believed her regardless. Like it or not, we haven't discarded the notion that victims should be quiet and retiring, and Amber is clearly neither.

[peachmangosteen]

 

46 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

Like it or not, we haven't discarded the notion that victims should be quiet and retiring, and Amber is clearly neither.

Of course I don’t like it and no one should.

I don’t care how Amber Heard came off. That doesn’t make Johnny Depp magically come off well.

1 hour ago, merylinkid said:

This is why women don't report and don't file.   Because they get dragged no matter if they go the criminal (if they can find a prosecutor to take the case) or civil route. 

Sadly.

[Annber03]

People upon hearing a woman make an accusation: "Why didn't she come forward sooner?"

Also those same people: "Oh, she's lying, she just wants money, she's such a bitch, she's trying to ruin this guy, he wouldn't do that!"

Yeah. Real mystery why a lot of women don't speak up more/sooner and fight this stuff in the courts. 

[Makai]

The allegation against Garth Brooks has really thrown me for a loop. I haven’t been a fan of his since he was wildly disrespectful to his first wife with his “friendship” with Trisha. I have never liked how successfully they framed their relationship as some grand romantic story but I still genuinely believed that he was a strong supporter of women’s rights. It’s hard to reconcile what he is accused of with the man who shook up country music by shining a spotlight on domestic violence in the 90’s. I imagine this is how many Neil Gaiman fans felt. 

There are some things in her allegation that seem farfetched and there are important details that seem like they would be really easy to disprove if she is lying. If he really went to California to perform with no staff but a makeup artist and only booked one room it would be pretty suspicious. 

19 hours ago, Zella said:

I always liked Ronan Farrow's take: “I subscribe to listening to all survivors, listen to all the facts, listen to all women." 

Same.

On 10/4/2024 at 9:16 PM, Vermicious Knid said:

What happened to believe the woman? And so what he has a reputation for being a good guy. Bill Cosby was everyone's favorite Dad. People seem to be giving him the benefit of the doubt in a way they haven't for other accused celebrity sexual predators.

I actually can’t think of any celebrity where a single allegation wasn’t initially treated in this manner by most. Most of these cases require a mountain of evidence for public opinion to really turn. 

Edited October 6 by Makai

[Bastet]

1 hour ago, Annber03 said:

People upon hearing a woman make an accusation: "Why didn't she come forward sooner?"

In this the year 2024, none of these "Why did/didn't she ...?" questions that get asked every fucking time a woman comes forward are asked genuinely.  Because they've been answered every fucking time.  Anyone who doesn't know the answers as to why victims tend to do/not do things after being sexually harassed or assaulted is simply refusing to listen and learn.

[Annber03]

16 minutes ago, Bastet said:

In this the year 2024, none of these "Why did/didn't she ...?" questions that get asked every fucking time a woman comes forward are asked genuinely.  Because they've been answered every fucking time.  Anyone who doesn't know the answers as to why victims tend to do/not do things after being sexually harassed or assaulted is simply refusing to listen and learn.

Exactly. Even when a woman does come forward right away, she still gets all the scrutiny and questions about whether or not she's telling the truth. 

Also, the idea that evidence will help bolster a woman's case hasn't exactly borne out, either. Eliza Dushku had actual evidence backing up her claims against Michael Weatherly - CBS was trying to paint her as a liar and then the video evidence blew up that argument and made them look foolish. 

And yet even then, people still defended Weatherly and he still kept his job and his show still ran without incident, and she was the one who had to be shoved out with a payout. 

So even when women do everything the "right" way, the way everyone keeps insisiting they should...they still can't win. 

[Dimity]

 

2 hours ago, Makai said:

I actually can’t think of any celebrity where a single allegation wasn’t initially treated in this manner by most. Most of these cases require a mountain of evidence for public opinion to really turn.

And yet it's been, what? a day or two and the discrediting of Brooks has already begun.  Maybe I'm just hanging out in the wrong places but I've seen very little support for him and this is before there is anything remotely resembling a mountain of evidence.  I have no horse in this race, I know who is he and that's about it, but I still prefer to reserve judgment until there are more facts to go by then we have so far.

[Danielg342]

I think the Garth Brooks situation highlights and emphasizes the need to "wait and see" and not rush to conclusions. There are plenty of reasons why Brooks and his accuser are acting the way they are, and the reasons for both need not be nefarious or malicious in intent.

I always believed in never taking a side and having the philosophy of "trust but verify". You trust what both parties are saying is their honest representation of the truth but you look into what was said and see what sticks and what doesn't.

It's also important to remember that in cases like these, where it's essentially "he said-she said", we rarely ever do find out the actual truth. If a settlement stops the details from coming out in court, then we need to remember that a court doesn't adjudicate "the truth". The court just adjudicates the validity of the claim brought before it. Since court cases are hardly ever cut and dry, often we're left with a decision that still leaves a lot left to interpretation.

[Makai]

17 hours ago, Dimity said:

 

And yet it's been, what? a day or two and the discrediting of Brooks has already begun.  Maybe I'm just hanging out in the wrong places but I've seen very little support for him and this is before there is anything remotely resembling a mountain of evidence.  I have no horse in this race, I know who is he and that's about it, but I still prefer to reserve judgment until there are more facts to go by then we have so far.

In the immediate aftermath these stories always result in a lot of conversations. Some automatically believe the accused is guilty and some automatically believe the woman is lying. Then the story dies down pretty quickly and most will forget it even happened. As you said, it’s only been a day or two, unless something else comes out the news cycle will move on. 

I have seen very little reaction to the story so I am curious what you have seen discrediting him. What I have has been pretty even tempered and most people taking a wait and see approach but the reaction is usually highly venue dependent. 

18 hours ago, Annber03 said:

Exactly. Even when a woman does come forward right away, she still gets all the scrutiny and questions about whether or not she's telling the truth. 

Yep. The goalposts are constantly moving. A certain group of people will always insist that rape is bad but somehow there is always something that makes it not rape. 

Edited October 7 by Makai

[Notabug]

12 hours ago, merylinkid said:

If its not criminal, all you can get is cash.   That's how civil suits work.   Just because someone filed a civil suit doesn't mean they are only out for cash.   Also, only two percent of cases go to trial.   That means 98% settle, for cash.   if she was offering up front, maybe she just didn't want to have this drag out for 5 years while everyone called her a gold digger just  out for money.

 

Actually, the vast majority of civil cases that do not go to trial are dismissed for failure to prosecute and the plaintiff gets zilch.  There is a statute of limitations to file, so most plaintiffs' attorneys will file the suit based on a preliminary review and then go through the process of gathering expert witnesses and deposing the plaintiff and defendants and anyone else who has pertinent information after that.  Most of the time, in the course of doing the research, the plaintiff's attorney discovers that there is not enough proof for the allegations or they are unable to find an expert witness to corroborate the damages suffered (mostly malpractice or other negligence type claims) or some other reason that the case is unlikely to be a winner.  Remember, plaintiffs' attorneys only get paid if there is a monetary award and it can easily cost them 10's of thousands of dollars to get to trial; they've got to feel there is a reasonable chance of being paid and often there is not.  When a case is filed, there is a hard and fast deadline as to when this process has to be completed and certain documents filed with the court.  In the vast majority of civil suits, the plaintiff's team is unable to meet the criteria and/or deadlines and the case is dismissed and that's that.

Edited October 7 by Notabug

[Soapy Goddess]

14 hours ago, Annber03 said:

People upon hearing a woman make an accusation: "Why didn't she come forward sooner?"

Also those same people: "Oh, she's lying, she just wants money, she's such a bitch, she's trying to ruin this guy, he wouldn't do that!"

Yeah. Real mystery why a lot of women don't speak up more/sooner and fight this stuff in the courts. 

I don't care about timing, nor do I not take any accusation with a grain of salt.

What does bother me is when the accuser decides it's a good idea to extort millions of dollars, and continue to harass when she doesn't receive a windfall.

Sorry, but I can't take that type person seriously at all.

[Makai]

5 hours ago, Soapy Goddess said:

What does bother me is when the accuser decides it's a good idea to extort millions of dollars, and continue to harass when she doesn't receive a windfall.

Personally, I think it’s too soon to know if this is extortion. If she lying, it clearly is extortion. If she is telling the truth, attempting to make a settlement before getting the courts involved is completely normal and even encouraged. It’s a lot like his attempt to get the courts to prevent the lawsuit.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Today's headline on IMDB is accuser claims Trisha Yearwood knew all about it, and was 'complicit'.    

[BetterButter]

Sum 41’s Deryck Whibley alleges sexual abuse by former manager in new memoir ‘Walking Disaster’

Quote

Whibley details sexual harrassment allegations against Sum 41’s former manager, Greig Nori, who did not respond to The Times’ request for comment.

 

[Danielg342]

9 hours ago, BetterButter said:

Sum 41’s Deryck Whibley alleges sexual abuse by former manager in new memoir ‘Walking Disaster’

 

My childhood takes a hit...I used to love Nori's band, Treble Charger. I just hope Deryck Whibley is doing better now, because he was in a rough spot for quite some time.

[Vermicious Knid]

Garth Brooks has indeed filed a countersuit against his accuser. She filed annonymously, as she is legally entitled to do. So he revealed her name. 

Quote

 

The woman’s attorneys filed a motion seeking an emergency sealing or redactions of her name, and urged the judge to sanction Brooks.

“Each hour and day that the Amended Complaint remains on the docket without redacting Defendant’s identity or placing it under seal, is causing Defendant severe emotional distress and harm,” her lawyers wrote.

In a letter to the court, one of her attorneys added that Brooks could have easily provided them with notice before divulging her identity to the public, but failed to.

 

Reputable news agency are not naming her, in keeping with their policy of not identifying anyone who is a victim of sexual assault, alleged or otherwise. But now that the name is out there I'm sure she will be relentlessly hounded online and IRL.

[MsJamieDornan]

On 10/6/2024 at 12:24 PM, Makai said:

I haven’t been a fan of his since he was wildly disrespectful to his first wife with his “friendship” with Trisha. I have never liked how successfully they framed their relationship as some grand romantic story

They deserve each other.

[Jaded]

R. Kelly's Daughter Buku Says Singer Sexually Abused Her as a Child: 'I Was Too Scared to Tell Anybody'

[SunnyBeBe]

The identity of the Brooks Plaintiff was public almost immediately after she filed. Due to the description of when she worked for Yearwood and Brooks, it was easy to deduct.  I saw it online along with photos last week, but didn’t comment on it, as I saw no need.  
 

 

[Trini]

'Kanye “Ye” West Sued By Ex-Assistant for Allegedly Drugging, Sexually Assaulting Her During a Diddy Studio Session'

Quote

Pisciotta previously sued the rapper in June, accusing him of sexual harassment, breach of contract and wrongful termination. She also sued him and his various companies for fraud, unpaid wages and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

<...>

Pisciotta drank and “after a few small sips of the beverage, poured at the direction of Kanye West a.k.a. Ye by a studio assistant and then served to her by Kanye West, Plaintiff suddenly started to feel disoriented,” per the filing.

The next day, she claims she woke up and remembered almost nothing about what took place the night before, only that she felt “immense shame and embarrassment.”

 

[Shrek]

9 hours ago, Trini said:

'Kanye “Ye” West Sued By Ex-Assistant for Allegedly Drugging, Sexually Assaulting Her During a Diddy Studio Session'

 

Is anyone surprised after seeing the way he degrades (dresses) his "wife" for all to see? 

[Affogato]

2 minutes ago, Shrek said:

Is anyone surprised after seeing the way he degrades (dresses) his "wife" for all to see? 

I assume she has agency

[Shrek]

2 minutes ago, Affogato said:

I assume she has agency

Well I guess that makes it okay by you then, whatever "had agency" is supposed to mean.