Axl Sued For Sexual Assault

[Towelie]

1 hour ago, Chris1989 said:

This is actually highlighting one of the things I hate about the world these days.

People applying 2023 rules and expectations to 1989. 

Simple fact is, people will or won't act a certain way based on what society deems acceptable. Treating women like this was far more acceptable in society back then. I'm NOT saying that was right, but stating that in that environment it wouldn't have been a totally unusual situation.

Now apply 2023 rules of society to it and that is NOT acceptable to people, and the likelihood of somebody acting that way is minimal at best. 

The way Axl did or didn't behave back then is a product of societies rules in 1989, and he shouldn't be tried by 2023's rules.

 

Hell, we all agree that paedo's and animal fuckers are disgusting people that should be euthanised right? What if in 34 years society suddenly changes and declares those things to be OK? We'll all be in the dock for criticising them.
 

Look at the way that gay people were treated before the 70's in the UK - it was acceptable to jail them FFS! Society changes, and you should be judged by the rules of society and law at the time, not by the court of public opinion of people who weren't even born, or were barely out of nappies.

"It's alright guv, okay, I spit in her face, tickled her minge and slapped her something silly, but it was 2004, it was a different time then. Besides, who knows what we'll be saying about murderers by 2025, ya know?"

[IrishgunnerII]

The axl story is on the front page of Rte.ie which is something I didn’t expect to see. 

[Cosmo]

1 hour ago, Chris1989 said:

This is actually highlighting one of the things I hate about the world these days.

People applying 2023 rules and expectations to 1989. 

Simple fact is, people will or won't act a certain way based on what society deems acceptable. Treating women like this was far more acceptable in society back then. I'm NOT saying that was right, but stating that in that environment it wouldn't have been a totally unusual situation.

Now apply 2023 rules of society to it and that is NOT acceptable to people, and the likelihood of somebody acting that way is minimal at best. 

The way Axl did or didn't behave back then is a product of societies rules in 1989, and he shouldn't be tried by 2023's rules.

 

Hell, we all agree that paedo's and animal fuckers are disgusting people that should be euthanised right? What if in 34 years society suddenly changes and declares those things to be OK? We'll all be in the dock for criticising them.
 

Look at the way that gay people were treated before the 70's in the UK - it was acceptable to jail them FFS! Society changes, and you should be judged by the rules of society and law at the time, not by the court of public opinion of people who weren't even born, or were barely out of nappies.

Holy shit one of the worst takes I've ever seen on these forums

[Blackstar]

3 hours ago, JoJo Bonetto said:

It is a very strange interview. I have seen it twice, albeit quite a long time ago now, and it is a different account to other versions, although the lead up to it is similar. That said, I feel that him saying he has no recollection might be true for other reasons (wasted) and the statement from his lawyer is not strictly accurate because I know he commented on the Look Away documentary via his lawyer to say it was untrue. This is not the first time he is hearing the allegations.

I don't remember that. Do you have a link?

3 hours ago, RONIN said:

The story of Axl making Stephanie take a dump in the kitty litter box doesn't seem so far fetched in light of recent news.

The litter box story was really fabricated, made up by the Metal Sludge guy (I'm forgetting his name).

[Chris1989]

53 minutes ago, Cosmo said:

Holy shit one of the worst takes I've ever seen on these forums

 

Ok, so if I go through your online history, your whatsapp, your instagram etc, and the way the world works has changed and made your actions totally disgusting, immoral etc, I can burn you at the stake?

Excellent. I REALLY hope the critics of this post remember this one in 20 years. One day you might have seen enough of the world to know it's actually right.

PS, I've never said rape is alright. I called out that actions weren't right. 

Edited November 23, 2023 by Chris1989

[axl666]

In a situation like this with the potential for global attention (already front page story worldwide across all major media outlets) are you better settling immediately, going through a process and eventually settling or going to a jury? 

 

[Blackstar]

55 minutes ago, axl666 said:

In a situation like this with the potential for global attention (already front page story worldwide across all major media outlets) are you better settling immediately, going through a process and eventually settling or going to a jury? 

 

Early or later settlement depends on the evidence and, regarding the trial, on whether the parties can handle the publicity that it generates.

It won't be front page story for ever. It'll likely last a couple of days now, though in the case of a trial the attention would be much bigger. Unless someone is confident that they'll win in a jury trial, which is rare in these cases; even if there's little or no evidence, it's very risky to go to trial in a civil case like this.

Edited November 23, 2023 by Blackstar

[Voodoochild]

I don't have stomach to read all those pages after already reading those on Fernando's thread, but just for the record, the fact that she took a lot of time to sue Axl is irrelevant. This is not some traffic jam fight, this is sexual abuse and it envolves a lot of self shame/doubt/guilt. Not something to take lightly, even if the abuser was a nobody, but specially when he's world famous, powerful and rich. So yeah, it's not easy now, and it was way harder before.

[adamsapple]

That time machine law was implemented out of thin air by the democrats in New York exclusively for a limited time only and one specific reason, which was not to get victims justice but to hurt a political opponent, namely Donald Trump.

Guess Axl expressing hate for Trump on Twitter, sporting Ukraine flags on stage, cancelling OIAM, paying millions in taxes and all other appeasement, support and obedience to the agenda wasn't enough. They want their cake and eat it too.

Proper management would have seen the writing on the wall far in advance and advised their client accordingly to get their affairs in order before going on one of the highest grossing tours.

[JoJo Bonetto]

1 hour ago, Blackstar said:

I don't remember that. Do you have a link?

The litter box story was really fabricated, made up by the Metal Sludge guy (I'm forgetting his name).

It was at the end of the Look Away documentary on Sky. I will try to see if it is on Now TV later and record it. It was basically someone saying they reached out to him for comment and his solicitor (lawyer) said that anything Sheila Kennedy says is untrue (I am paraphrasing). I do have a Now TV account so will see if I can record it on my phone later if it is still available.

[Blackstar]

3 minutes ago, JoJo Bonetto said:

It was at the end of the Look Away documentary on Sky. I will try to see if it is on Now TV later and record it. It was basically someone saying they reached out to him for comment and his solicitor (lawyer) said that anything Sheila Kennedy says is untrue (I am paraphrasing). I do have a Now TV account so will see if I can record it on my phone later if it is still available.

Thanks. The video of the docu is on youtube and has been posted a couple of times in this thread, so I'll look into it.

[SilverMachine]

GNR fans often wonder why Axl hasn’t done any proper “non partisan” press for the best part of 20 years. 
 

I don’t think it’s a major stretch to suggest that him being asked about certain aspects of his past and accusations levelled at him like the one in this lawsuit are the chief reason. 
 

The last few years has seen something of a rehabilitation of Axl’s public standing and perception with an outward sense that he had matured and in some ways evolved from the angry firebrand that he was widely perceived to be. 
 

Getting back on board with Slash and Duff has unquestionably helped that, as well as the tacit endorsement of the current rock  fraternity - the Glastonbury headline spot and being friendly with the likes of Dave Grohl would have all seemed unthinkable just a few years back. 
 

Nevertheless, to me there was always a nagging sense that his past would at some point catch up with him and it was all going to go tits up. 
 

I actually thought that the reckoning would have come at the time of the release of the Look Away documentary. The disjointed nature of that film always struck me that there was a big chunk of that film missing in the final edit - reading between the lines it seems the makers had intended to include a section on further accusations from “Little Michelle” but for whatever reason chose not to include them. 
 

There was next to no blowback for Axl and the band after the film was released and a bullet appeared to have been dodged, but the emergence of this lawsuit yesterday brings a likely end to a cosy period of  media treatment and public sentiment.

I’m not going to bother arguing the merits of this particular lawsuit - we can of course all make our own conclusions when the legal process has played out.
 

However, while the accusations aren’t anything I wasn’t already aware of, their emergence has given me some pause for thought about a lot of stuff.
 

Stuff like the nature of “fandom” and what we project on artists we admire, how the love for the band I had as a teenager always felt overshadowed by an embarrassment of the cringey misogyny inherent in large parts of the group’s output and behaviour (Back Off Bitch felt childish to me when I was 13 years of age when it first came out), and how some of the comments on this thread have highlighted just what women are still up against in 2023.
 

I’ve probably bored you all with the length of this post, but I’ll leave you with this thought. 
 

There’s a great amount of evidence we have now that abuse is tragically cyclical - the abused can quite often become an abuser. Axl since the early ‘90s has seemingly been on some sort of path of finding redemption from his unquestionably troubled early years - it’s all there in the music.
 

As hard as it might be for Axl, the opportunity has presented itself for him to finally rid himself of the burdens of his past once and for alI. 

 

 

[Blackstar]

11 minutes ago, JoJo Bonetto said:

It was at the end of the Look Away documentary on Sky. I will try to see if it is on Now TV later and record it. It was basically someone saying they reached out to him for comment and his solicitor (lawyer) said that anything Sheila Kennedy says is untrue (I am paraphrasing). I do have a Now TV account so will see if I can record it on my phone later if it is still available.

Okay, I looked into the video and couldn't find any comments from Axl's lawyers regarding Sheila Kennedy. Only after the Sheila Kennedy section it mentioned the Erin and Stephanie lawsuits (without naming them) saying that Axl denied the accusations then. And in the end of the documentary it said that Axl and Steven Tyler were reached out for comment but they declined to make any statements.

[Gibbo]

Gee even seen it on the news tonight here in Australia

Edited November 23, 2023 by Gibbo

[JoJo Bonetto]

2 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

Okay, I looked into the video and couldn't find any comments from Axl's lawyers regarding Sheila Kennedy. Only after the Sheila Kennedy section it mentioned the Erin and Stephanie lawsuits (without naming them) saying that Axl denied the accusations then. And in the end of the documentary it said that Axl and Steven Tyler were reached out for comment but they declined to make any statements.

I will look because I am not prone to misremembering facts.

[Manfisman]

I don't think this is much of a case. She gave three different versions, and on two of them, she said it was consensual. And she sued on the day of the deadline...

 

I don't think Axl was an angel back in the day, but I don't think this particular one is true

[Blackstar]

35 minutes ago, adamsapple said:

That time machine law was implemented out of thin air by the democrats in New York exclusively for a limited time only and one specific reason, which was not to get victims justice but to hurt a political opponent, namely Donald Trump.

Guess Axl expressing hate for Trump on Twitter, sporting Ukraine flags on stage, cancelling OIAM, paying millions in taxes and all other appeasement, support and obedience to the agenda wasn't enough. They want their cake and eat it too.

Proper management would have seen the writing on the wall far in advance and advised their client accordingly to get their affairs in order before going on one of the highest grossing tours.

The decision of a woman to take the opportunity this law gave her (or take advantage of it) has nothing to do with a potential "anti-Trump" agenda behind the law or with Axl's political views (I'm sure he expressed anti-Trump sentiments because that's what he really believed and not because he complied to an "agenda".

As for management getting the affairs settled beforehand, there's a chance that Axl really has no recollection of this incident if it happened as SK has described it regarding the circumstances (Axl being under the influence of a cocktail of medication, cocaine and alcohol). What could they have done, pay hush money to any woman coming forward with allegations about stuff that happened 35 years ago?

[weaponsnflowers]

12 minutes ago, Manfisman said:

I don't think this is much of a case. She gave three different versions, and on two of them, she said it was consensual. And she sued on the day of the deadline...

 

I don't think Axl was an angel back in the day, but I don't think this particular one is true

Good take. Not saying it's not possible but she does not have any credibility, because of the reasons above.

[2020_Intensions]

2 hours ago, IrishgunnerII said:

The axl story is on the front page of Rte.ie which is something I didn’t expect to see. 

I saw it, with a picture of Axl, on Drudge, that gets 22+ million visits a day

[JoJo Bonetto]

34 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

Okay, I looked into the video and couldn't find any comments from Axl's lawyers regarding Sheila Kennedy. Only after the Sheila Kennedy section it mentioned the Erin and Stephanie lawsuits (without naming them) saying that Axl denied the accusations then. And in the end of the documentary it said that Axl and Steven Tyler were reached out for comment but they declined to make any statements.

 

Ok, so I found what I think is the source. I must have read it post documentary here: https://news.sky.com/story/steven-tyler-axl-rose-and-lots-and-lots-of-others-rock-stars-and-the-abuse-hidden-in-plain-sight-12403960 but I still remember a narration quite vividly somewhere. I can't find the narration so can only assume it was the Sky article that accompanied it, which says: Representatives for Tyler did not respond to requests for comment. Sky News also contacted Axl Rose's representatives, and legal counsel Douglas Mark Esq at Mark Music & Media Law, PC responded: "I can inform you that any allegations of physical or sexual abuse against Mr Rose, whether by 'Sheila Kennedy' or anybody else, are false and unsubstantiated."

[axl666]

11 minutes ago, JoJo Bonetto said:

Ok, so I found what I think is the source. I must have read it post documentary here: https://news.sky.com/story/steven-tyler-axl-rose-and-lots-and-lots-of-others-rock-stars-and-the-abuse-hidden-in-plain-sight-12403960 but I still remember a narration quite vividly somewhere. I can't find the narration so can only assume it was the Sky article that accompanied it, which says: Representatives for Tyler did not respond to requests for comment. Sky News also contacted Axl Rose's representatives, and legal counsel Douglas Mark Esq at Mark Music & Media Law, PC responded: "I can inform you that any allegations of physical or sexual abuse against Mr Rose, whether by 'Sheila Kennedy' or anybody else, are false and unsubstantiated."

Very interesting. I guess in some ways your story highlights the tricky nature of remembering something not from that long ago, let alone 35 years.

I guess saying that if something was very traumatic the details would stand out more clearly across time? 

Edited November 23, 2023 by axl666

[JoJo Bonetto]

5 minutes ago, axl666 said:

Very interesting. I guess in some ways your story highlights the tricky nature of remembering something not from that long ago, let alone 35 years.

 

I like Axl but I knew he had acknowledged it and connecting a Sky made documentary to a Sky news site in the mind is not a big leap. His statement via his lawyers is a bit disingenuous, because a) he knew and b) even without finding the source I never believed he didn't know about the memoir or the documentary. Sky reached out to him - therefore he knew.

That said, it doesn't make him guilty.

[Georgina Arriaga]

3 minutes ago, JoJo Bonetto said:

I like Axl but I knew he had acknowledged it and connecting a Sky made documentary to a Sky news site in the mind is not a big leap. His statement via his lawyers is a bit disingenuous, because a) he knew and b) even without finding the source I never believed he didn't know about the memoir or the documentary. Sky reached out to him - therefore he knew.

That said, it doesn't make him guilty.

The lawyer Is different, and those are inicial statements, you have nothing to read on those. 

[JoJo Bonetto]

Just now, Georgina Arriaga said:

The lawyer Is different, and those are inicial statements, you have nothing to read on those. 

 

 

I am not reading anything. I am refuting this statement:

"Though he doesn't deny the possibility of a fan photo taken in passing, Mr Rose has no recollection of ever meeting or speaking to the plaintiff, and has never heard about these fictional allegations prior to today. Mr Rose is confident this case will be resolved in his favour."

[Blackstar]

11 minutes ago, JoJo Bonetto said:

I like Axl but I knew he had acknowledged it and connecting a Sky made documentary to a Sky news site in the mind is not a big leap. His statement via his lawyers is a bit disingenuous, because a) he knew and b) even without finding the source I never believed he didn't know about the memoir or the documentary. Sky reached out to him - therefore he knew.

That said, it doesn't make him guilty.

It's a different attorney now, so maybe Axl told both his attorneys the same thing (e.g. "never heard about her before"), so his current lawyer put it in the statement as that Axl hadn't heard about it "prior to today".

Or maybe the other attorney that responded to Sky News had already a "blanket" statement/response for any allegations of this sort (the response said "either Sheila Kennedy or anyone else").

Edited November 23, 2023 by Blackstar