Scream of the Butterfly

9 hours ago, meadsoap said:

So if this goes to trial, Rikki is clearly not going to back up Sheila's story.

I wouldn't be so certain about that. Just because he has made some vague comments and evidently isn't happy about the lawsuit doesn't necessarily mean that he isn't going to back up her story (or some part of it) under oath if it ever comes to that. He could have said, "I was there. This never happened." but so far he has said no such thing. I think what he hasn't said is at least as telling as the things he has said so far.

I wasn't certain whether I even wanted to watch this (based on your post in the other thread), but curiosity got the better of me, and it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. The lawyer did a good job in offering a balanced view on things despite being a GNR fan. I don't think he even indicated whether he personally believes the accusations unless I missed it.

What was not a balanced view was the excerpt from Doug Goldstein's memoir. He says that if there had been abuse he would have noticed something because supposedly he knows the signs of abuse. Then he goes on to recall all these incidents that I think anyone of sound mind would recognise as signs of abuse, but Doug is just blind to what is right in front of his eyes. Not to mention the repeated "Don't poke the bear."  Maybe Axl belongs to a zoo then.

Speaking of lawsuits, I was wondering what happened with the trademark lawsuit GNR filed against Texas Guns And Roses about a year ago. Turns out the case has been dismissed.

https://archive.completemusicupdate.com/article/guns-n-roses-trademark-lawsuit-against-texas-seller-of-guns-and-roses-dismissed/

I don't spend much money on GNR. When I have spent money, they have usually delivered, so I don't feel foolish about it. The only thing that felt like a bit of a scam was the Nightrain club.

4 hours ago, Nintari said:

If it happened, why wait thirty years?

Since this question is brought up a lot in the thread and elsewhere, here's one article about the reasons many sexual assault victims wait years or even decades to come forward. Among other things it says, "the researchers find that 60.4 percent of women, on average, did not recognize their experience as rape even though it fit the definition".

https://journalistsresource.org/health/sexual-assault-report-why-research/

18 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

The two pictures could be from the same night because he's wearing the same Cathouse shirt, but it's not certain.

Sheila's outfit is the same as well so almost certainly the same night.

1 hour ago, Blackstar said:

The display of the picture in the documentary at the time she talks about Suzy doesn't necessarily mean that it's her in it. I'm under the impression I have seen this picture before. I also looked at the end credits about the sources of the photos and footage used in the documentary and it's either photo databases (Alamy, Getty, Shutterstock) or photographers.

The same woman is seen with Sheila in the other picture. Plus, I don't think they would use a picture of some random fan who didn't agree to have their picture used in this context. That would be rather insensitive.

Maybe someone can tell from Axl's appearance whether it was taken in 1989.

3 minutes ago, Nintari said:

I'm not talking about statues. I'm talking psychology. If it happened, why wait thirty years? If it happened, and you wait thirty years before filing, what do you have to gain, other than money? The deed is done. The damage done. So there is nothing to gain but notoriety and money... which in unsightly. If this happened, she needed to sue right away when he was one of, it not the biggest front man in the world. By waiting this long, nothing is accomplished, and your case is going to end up being about as thin as a sheet of warmed-over wax paper. There is no evidence now, only hearsay.  It makes no sense.

Do you feel the same way when it comes to other serious crime such as murder? Should the person just get away with it if enough time has passed?

On 11/27/2023 at 8:23 AM, Blackstar said:

https://tinypic.host/?lang=en

But which photo do you mean? If it's the one of Axl with a woman in the Look Away video that's probably just a random picture with a fan

That's Sheila's friend Suzy, I believe.

11 minutes ago, Nintari said:

You don't wait thirty fucking years to sue. Even if it did happen... you just don't. If this actually happened, then the damage is done, and no amount of "money" is going to help her. So this really is just about someone wanting a payout, victim or not.

What does that have to do with what I said? I disagree, btw. Obviously it would be better not to wait 30 years, but I don't think there should be any statute of limitations when it comes to sexual assault.

In the documentary, Sheila said she was 22 when she and her friend saw Axl at the club (her exact words: "I think I was 22"). That's a bit strange, considering that in February 1989 she would have been 26, almost 27. I don't know what to make of it. Is she just bad at math?

I think after her marriage to another man had come to an end, and with GNR getting back together and Meegan getting back together with Slash, Erin started to feel nostalgic for her youth and for whatever good times she had with Axl. It's understandable, but hopefully for her own sake she's found a way to move on since then.

13 hours ago, AxlRQ93 said:

Would be so nice if they got back together

Would you feel the same way if it was your sister or daughter? Would you advise them to get back together with an abusive ex-husband?

I always thought what happened to her was rape based on the original Daily Mail article in 2016. I imagine for Sheila herself it's been a long process to finally reach the same conclusion.

1 hour ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

"The axe forgets, but the tree remembers"

Well said.

44 minutes ago, BluegrassBlues said:

I thought about that too, but the way she reported it I don't get that impression. I know Obetrol was abused, but it was to treat obesity and not an antipsychotic, and she specifically mentioned him having several prescriptions of antipsychotic drugs along with cocaine on his sink 

It was probably being used for recreational purposes as a methamphetamine-based medication. She didn't specifically claim that Obetrol/Adderall was an antipsychotic. This is the exact quote I assume:

I’m in his bathroom. And there’s all kinds of medication laid out on a towel by the sink. There’s lithium, there’s Adderall, there’s all this SHIT. Since this time a lot of Rose’s mental health issues have come to light, but back then his main problem as it was understood by the public was that he was a fucked-up rock star who did fucked-up rock-star things. Which is just a hair different from being a person on anti-psychotic meds, or whatever these were. On top of that, I’m thinking, he’s high on coke, on champagne, on Scotch. He’s very high. He’s a fucking time bomb.

3 hours ago, BluegrassBlues said:

I thought it was odd she mentioned it so specifically too, like it was a gotcha. But Adderall was not FDA approved or prescribed until 96, so there is no way he would have had bottles of it prescribed to him. It's such a random thing for her to point out and it not even be able to be true at the time 

Maybe she was referring to Obetrol - the same drug by a different name. Obetrol preceded Adderall.

1 hour ago, Blackstar said:

However, there's a similar law of "temporary retroactivity" in California, although so far it's only for victims that were minors.  Steven Tyler has been sued by Julia Holcomb with this law in California.

Already expired:

Holcomb’s suit comes in the final days of California’s Child Victims Act, a 2019 piece of legislation that lifted the statute of limitations and granted a three-year lookback period for survivors of childhood sexual abuse to come forward with their allegations. The deadline to file a lawsuit is December 31, 2022. 

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/steven-tyler-sexual-assault-minor-lawsuit-1234653817/

2 hours ago, JAxlMorrison said:

Very true. But did you read the way it was described in her book? A little bit different than the way you put it above…

Yes, I read the book excerpt, and that's exactly how she described the circumstances that immediately preceded the sex act.

I don't think consent is given or withdrawn freely in a situation where she's lying there naked, tied up, bleeding and crying, after just having been physically abused by him. It doesn't matter whether she said no. He should not have had sex with her in that situation. Period.

27 minutes ago, AxlRQ93 said:

The question is, does this lawsuit trigger new lawsuits from Stephanie and Erin and whoever else?

Seeing as they can see now how they’d actually be heard.  

The lawsuit also alleges that Axl did things to a 15 year old girl in 1985. If she’s still alive, might she also sue? Could she be called by this lady to testify?

Erin and Stephanie can't sue him again after already agreeing to a settlement. The 15-year-old girl can't sue because the statute of limitations has run out. They could call her to testify and the fact that she is mentioned in this lawsuit suggests they are prepared to do just that.

1 hour ago, BluegrassBlues said:

To be perfectly honest I don't doubt that it may have happened, I am not going to completely write her off as being untruthful. I just wonder if the lawsuit against Fernando is what brought this one about as well 

I think it's safe to say this has been in the works for a while and was in no way brought about by the lawsuit against Fernando.

20 hours ago, Kickingthehabit said:

Talking about panic attacks and adopting shelter dogs and having it all documented in People Magazine... I don't know. He's older now, so maybe this is who he is, but it feels manipulative.

To be fair, he's been talking about his panic attacks and about his dogs ever since the old days. I even remember the names of the dogs he had in the 80s: Chester and Chloe.

5 hours ago, F*ck Fear said:

Difference is Axl disliked Steven Adler. Didn't Axl kick him in the balls the first time they met?

Fernando is basically family.

He could still be part of the family even if no longer the manager. He could be the Prince Andrew of the GNR family.

Not saying it's very likely to happen, but I wouldn't be surprised either way.

Regardless of what I said earlier, I also think there's still a realistic possibility that Fernando will lose his job because of this. Not because Axl (or Slash or Duff) is going to side with Kat, but because Fernando's actions could be seen as hurting the band.

Think of Steven Adler. No one in the band had any moral high ground as far as drugs were concerned. That didn't stop them from firing Steven when his drug use reached the point where it was a hindrance to the band's operation. (Or so the story goes.) It's possible the same pragmatism still applies.

3 hours ago, Stay.Of.Execution said:

I take it this means that Axl did know what was going on or at least Kat had tried to tell him.

"any principal Lebeis was the proxy and agent for" = Axl?

40 minutes ago, gunsnchalupas said:

The song is very clearly about how his mother was not the abuser, but was complicit by enabling the abuse, and their relationship. Someone a few posts up did a good write up. It's the first thing I thought of, and it's super obvious with the lyrics, Axl's noted history, and the song being attached to The General, which is clear as day about an abusive father. 

Had it not been attached to The General, it would have been less obvious and maybe I would have thought it was another "Stephanie Seymour ballad".

Which isn't to say the song couldn't be about other things, because Axl has said he writes lyrics that concern a medley of topics. 

I think just the opposite. I think the song being attached to The General is leading people astray about Monsters. You think he's calling his mother "baby"? To me that's strange.