Scream of the Butterfly

Considering the documents are available online for anyone to read them, why worry that some random person might see the physical copy? There's nothing about Eduardo's statement to suggest that everyone on the property is paranoid or that it's because of stalkers. The fact that they left the gate open and that there doesn't appear to be much security suggests that they are not paranoid and that there isn't any acute problem with stalkers. So it's acceptable for you to go to his hotel and stick around for an entire day whereas somebody else just driving by his house on a public road is a stalker?

A book and a podcast are not mutually exclusive alternatives. He could do both. A TV interview might be out of the question because of the SA lawsuit.

That's how I thought everybody interpreted it.

Maybe the BooKey page was legit after all and it's an AI generated authorized biography in the spirit of the General music video. I'd rather just read All Work And No Play by Jack Torrance.

"You gotta live to learn and run, or you'll die trying." They couldn't even get the fake quote right.

Is Hell Rose Place (one of the trademarks) a nod to the TV series Melrose Place? I wonder if Axl was a fan.

A good thing the quotes page is bs. I couldn't even read through all of that. My goodness what bs!

If it's disgusting, look the other way. I don't think it's such a big deal. There's fan behaviour in this very thread that I find more morally objectionable than somebody picking up a used band aid. It's the scarcity principle in action. Axl is less readily available than Slash and Duff, so people are prepared to go to greater lengths for a piece of him. I think these fans would collect anything at all that he tosses at them. It just so happens that he's tossing band aids. I don't think there's any specific band aid fetish going on.

What is so immoral about it, though? People collect the weirdest things. If there's no harm to anybody involved, it seems rather silly for other people to get worked up about it.

I think this type of thing is just part of fan culture and probably has been for as long as such a thing has existed. John Lennon's rotten tooth was auctioned off for more than $30,000. Maybe years from now somebody will make a fortune selling Axl's used bandaids. Whether it's sick, wrong, or just peculiar, I don't think anybody who knows about pop culture or fan culture should be surprised by any of this.

And saying that her story is impossible or that there are a million versions of it doesn't make it so. I don't think she has ever expressed any interest in going to court. If she did, people would then say it's all about money kind of like people are now saying about Sheila's case. It's a no-win situation for a rape victim. Whether she sues or not, she will be attacked for it.

He doesn't look very happy, but what else is new. At least it's good of him to take pictures with fans even as he's evidently not too thrilled to do so.

A great many people believe her and do not find the story unbelievable or ridiculous.

She said the filmmakers Sophie Cunningham and Ben Steele fought hard to keep her part in the film. I'm guessing the BBC had the final say and pulled the interview to avoid lawsuits, possibly after being contacted by Axl's lawyers and/or on the advise of their own lawyers. The New York Adult Survivors Act does not apply to Michelle's case. She could have filed a lawsuit under California's Child Victims Act, which provided a three-year "lookback window" allowing childhood sexual assault survivors to file a lawsuit no matter how long ago the abuse occured, but the window expired at the end of 2022.

It's perfectly normal to tell a story and share more details later. It's also perfectly normal that there might be holes in the story or unanswered questions when a person in their 40s or 50s is looking back to a traumatic event that occured more than 30 years ago when she was 15. Experts would tell you that it's normal even when the traumatic event is recent. Read about it here https://time.com/3625414/rape-trauma-brain-memory/ and here https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/jr/trauma/p4.html I'm not seeing anything at all that would allow any rational and well-informed person to conclude that the accusations against Axl are false. All I'm seeing is fans incapable of being objective and even deliberately distorting what the victims and other people have said.

Raz later apologized for mixing politics into it, but I don't really blame him, considering he was answering to Duff, who had also brought up Trump's comments. I'm curious, what do you all think about the allegations against other artists included in the report? Is Axl the only innocent person on the list or are these other people also being falsely accused? Ryan Adams Jimmie Allen Nick Carter Danny Elfman Justin Geever aka Justin Sane Clifford Harris Jr. aka “T.I.” and Tameka “Tiny” Harris Cornell Haynes Jr. aka Nelly Don Henley Daniel Hernandez aka Tekashi69 Jacob Hoggard Jermaine Jackson Melissa Viviane Jefferson aka Lizzo Robert Kelly aka R. Kelly Anthony Kiedis Thomas “Tommy” Lee Jerry Lee Lewis Prince Rogers Nelson aka Prince Tremaine Neverson aka Trey Songz Ted Nugent Paul Oakenfold Dieuson Octave aka Kodak Black Jimmy Page Thomas Wesley Pentz aka Diplo Elvis Presley Rolling Stones William Bruce “Axl” Rose Jr. Cherilyn “Cher” Sarkisian Nikki Sixx Gordon Sumner aka Sting Steven Tallarico aka Steven Tyler Kaallan “KR” Walker Brian Warner aka Marilyn Manson https://www.andersonadvocates.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Music-Industry-Report-2024-02-27_updated.pdf

I have no recollection of her story changing dramatically. What was the most dramatic change? It's a great letter. I hope Duff read it.

Rolling Stone has also reported on this: Appearing on video was Michelle Rhoades, a woman who alleged that Axl Rose sexually assaulted her when she was 15 years old in 1985, just before Guns N’ Roses rose to fame. Rhoades had spoken about the allegations on social media in the past, though this was the first time she’d spoken so publicly on the claims. In the video, Rhoades alleged that Rose and two other men assaulted her at the band’s rehearsal space and that afterward “Axl Rose would pick up my limp, bruised, and bloodied body and throw it out into the parking lot like a piece of trash.” )A rep for Rose did not reply to a request for comment.)https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/make-music-safe-report-survivor-groups-sexual-abuse-1234976725/

Michelle Rhoades aka Little Michelle has been interviewed by The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/2024/02/28/music-industry-sex-assault-cases-lawsuits/ Allegations against Axl, pages 110-113 https://therepproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/SOUND-OFF-Make-the-Music-Industry-Safe-Report-February-2024.pdf

Dogs improve with age, rock stars generally don't.

I suspect something similar may have happened with the Look Away documentary as well. There are only two explicit rape accusations in it. One of them is against an anonymous person and the other against a dead person. In the documentary, Sheila makes no mention of the anal rape that in the other version of the story precedes Axl's apology. Michelle's interview is missing entirely. It's possible all of these decisions were made to avoid defamation lawsuits. In my opinion, the story is incriminating enough even in the form that it appears in the documentary. Consent is not given freely in a situation where violence is present. As a thought experiment, imagine if one person signs over their property to another person immediately after being physically assaulted by that person. Is there anybody who would consider such an agreement valid? It shouldn't be any different when it comes to consenting to sex.

He didn't say "a year ago", he said "last year". Stop twisting things.

Why do you think it could not have happened later? My guess would be it happened in the summer of 1991, perhaps around the Toronto shows: "During the interview, Tom Zutaut, the young artists-and-repertoire executive at Geffen Records who signed Guns N' Roses, arrives from Los Angeles with the tracks for the band's two new albums, which are now tentatively due in September. Rose still needs to put the final vocal on one selection--and a studio was booked in Toronto for the next night."[The Los Angeles Times, July 21, 1991]

I should add that in the Rolling Stone interview Axl did in 1992 he said, "I didn't know my sister was molested until last year." which directly contradicts the idea that he told Zutaut about it in 1990.

If I have said something that isn't true, it's because the original source (Axl, Zutaut, George Chin, etc) was wrong. I don't think the post above yours corrected what I said but added some more information and opinion to it. For all our speculation, it remains we can't be certain when the discussion took place or what exactly was said. It wasn't a written note from Axl as you claimed earlier. Your fierce commitment that it happened in 1990 or whenever you think it happened seems rather deranged. I have no horse in this race. It would make sense to me if it happened in 1991, after Axl and Zutaut temporarily reconciled, because that would also be closer to when the interview actually happened in 1992. On the other hand, if it happened earlier, that would give Axl more time to change his mind about who he was going to say sexually abused him. I'm fine with whenever it happened or even if it didn't happen at all but still uncertain.