Axl Sued For Sexual Assault

[Scream of the Butterfly]

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.

[Avillart]

4 hours ago, Kittiara said:

It's a tricky one, this, in my humble opinion. If the alleged actions took place, he grabbed her by the hair, dragged her across the floor until she bled, and basically overpowered her. That's not what you expect from a hook-up. If you're into the rougher side of things, you tend to discuss what you're going to do, make sure everyone's on board, and set limits and safe words before going ahead. That is especially important when you don't know the other, and there's no established trust, nor knowledge of what the other likes and can cope with. As such a discussion does not appear to have taken place and Axl allegedly just went ahead and did that without clear consent his actions would, arguably, class as assault. It doesn't matter that she wanted sex - it's the way that he went about it that makes it problematic. Unless one-night-stands in the 80s were very different from now, you wouldn't expect to be injured and overpowered by your date.

 

In most other cases I would agree to all of this. But - as you will see when you read through this thread and what we've gathered from her own words so far she was the aggressor. She needed no safe words and no established trust. Her own language tells you exactly what she was willingly getting herself into. She "wanted this fucker". This wording alone tells you what she saw in him and what she expected from the encounter. As a woman - and yes, I also often use strong language - this already made me cringe. I don't know but to me, this is a very masculine approach. I mean I met him too, back then and then this year again, and also at a hotel, and yes, I've been there too, it's the excitement of it all, but still - not in a million years would I have called him fucker or totally fall for the rock star thing. He's still a person. To me, that is. Maybe other women are more on her page, I don't know. 

She goes on to say she thought she "could have fun with him". I mean, come on, he was an object to her, a trophy, and she knew what she wanted and what to expect. She was no underage girl who was just crushing on a rock star. 

And lastly, she did get a warning. From Riki not to go in there. She went anyway and "was still attracted to him" although "he was on everything and ready to explode". 

That woman didn't want safe, she wanted to go all in and even provoked him. It's almost like she escalated the situation. Like I said in an earlier post, if the roles were reversed and he was a woman all drugged up like he was and she was the man and still slept with him in that state, we all know what this would be called. 

I believe she has some issues (maybe childhood abuse too) which is very common in the adult entertainment industry and she may have had little self-respect or gotten the wrong messages about sex growing up. I get it cause I grew up in such an environment and as a teenager also wanted to be a model. I wanted to shame my family this way for what they've done to me, and modeling was also a way to regain control over my body. I learned soon that this wasn't the answer, though, and that this wasn't me. I have too much self-respect than to throw myself away like that. Not judging her there, we're all learning, it's life. But I'm not sure if what she was doing there was real sexual agency and just having a good time with another adult person. To me it all sounds very immature and unhealthy. And egotistical. She wanted him and now she wants his money. That's how I see it. 

 

25 minutes ago, colonizedmind said:

Hasn't she already contradicted herself as recently as 3 years ago when she said it was "consensual" amongst many other things that were quite positive towards Axl?

 

Yes. She even said it on camera, in that documentary. That it was consensual, that she didn't consider it rape and that she put herself in that situation. In her book she puts it in even more "colorful" words.

[evilfacelessturtle]

1 hour ago, justynius said:

The problem with that line of thinking is the defense doesn't even really need to prove it is a lie, they just need to show the plaintiff has failed the burden of proving it's *true* - otherwise, anyone can just make up baseless accusations about anyone else. Her published words do more to contradict the allegations than support, and demonstrate a history of trying to turn this into a payday. By her own admission, the other people were outside the room when the supposed 'assault' occurred, so anything they can offer (if they get involved at all) is speculative at best. There's obviously no DNA or police report. Her verbal recollection is the beginning and end of proof for this lawsuit, and when inconsistencies emerge then even that becomes erroneous testimony. 

Did I say that it was proven true? No. The people talking confidently like that are the ones saying inconsistencies disprove the claims.

Inconsistencies are not erroneous testimony. Perfect memory 30+years later is a ridiculous expectation.

"He said she said" is the typical form of these kind of charges, by their nature. Absent a rape kit, what direct physical evidence would there be? That tells us nothing about the credibility.

Claiming that she's "trying to turn this into a payday" is baseless speculation that really belies your lack of impartiality here. Are families that sue Monsanto for poisoning their kids just "seeking a payday"? The reality is that you can't go back in time and prevent something from happening, so the only compensation you can offer is monetary (if incarceration is off the table, like in this case). These kinds of comments seem purposefully obtuse.

Edited November 25, 2023 by evilfacelessturtle

[evilfacelessturtle]

50 minutes ago, Avillart said:

Yes. She even said it on camera, in that documentary. That it was consensual,

How many times does this need to be repeated? She consented to sex, not BDSM anal.

"She said she met Rose at a nightclub before he invited her back to his hotel, where a consensual sexual encounter quickly spun out of control."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/axl-rose-sued-over-alleged-1989-rape

"Kennedy further claimed that she did not consent to the later alleged assault while initially open to a consensual encounter."

https://www.gossipherald.com/news/16374-axl-rose-faces-shocking-sexual-assault-allegations-by-sheila-kennedy

Quote

that she didn't consider it rape

She considers it assault.

Quote

and that she put herself in that situation.

Irrelevant to the question of whether it was assault. If I go to my friend's house and his poorly trained dog bites me, it doesn't matter that I put myself in the situation, he is responsible for the assault because of his irresponsible dog ownership.

[ChristianGNR]

She fucked with him after the supposed sexual assault. What’s next?

[Ratam]

3 hours ago, Blackstar said:

Numerous times, especially if we count the times he was sued as part of GN'R, and definitely way more times than he sued.

As far as we know, Axl was sued by:

- His neighbour in 1991

- Alongside GN'R by people and companies related to the St. Louis riot (at least 6 different lawsuits)

- Stephanie in 1994 (though he sued her first)

- Erin in 1994

- Robert John in 2003

- Three times by Slash and Duff (in 2004, 2005 and 2007)

- An art gallery in 2006 (for not fully paying for a painting he had agreed to buy)

- A security guard in 2007 (for allegedly kicking him during a 2006 show)

- A car company in 2010 (for returning a damaged car)

- Azoff in 2010

- Pitman in 2016

- And in 2023 by Sheila Kennedy and (alongside GN'R) by the woman who claims she was hit by his mic.

GN'R (the original band or the Axl/Slash/Duff partnership or NuGnR) has been sued by:

- Vicky Hamilton in 1987

- Twice by Chris Weber (in 1989 and 1998) for publishing rights

- An MTV photographer in 1990 (for being pushed and hit by Axl's brother Stuart, who he thought was his bodyguard, at the MTV Awards)

- Steven in 1991

- Gilby in 1995

- A Spanish concert promoter in 1995 (for cancelling a show in Spain in 1992)

- Someone who claimed he had written Don't Cry in 2000 (ridiculous lawsuit)

- Cleopatra Records in 2005 (for trying to stop the release of Hollywood Rose songs)

- A German composer in 2009 (for plagiarizing the intro to Riad on CD)

- And in 2023 by Kat.

I'm sure there were many more, e.g. for the Montreal riot, the no-show in Philadelphia, cancelled shows, etc.

 

 

I don't know about Axl brother.

[Free Bird]

20 minutes ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

How many times does this need to be repeated? She consented to sex, not BDSM anal.

"She said she met Rose at a nightclub before he invited her back to his hotel, where a consensual sexual encounter quickly spun out of control."

https://www.thedailybeast.com/axl-rose-sued-over-alleged-1989-rape

"Kennedy further claimed that she did not consent to the later alleged assault while initially open to a consensual encounter."

https://www.gossipherald.com/news/16374-axl-rose-faces-shocking-sexual-assault-allegations-by-sheila-kennedy

She considers it assault.

Irrelevant to the question of whether it was assault. If I go to my friend's house and his poorly trained dog bites me, it doesn't matter that I put myself in the situation, he is responsible for the assault because of his irresponsible dog ownership.

Well, back in the day she chose to fuck him anyway. You don't fuck someone who just raped you, do you? Whatever happened, she obviously enjoyed it so movedafuckon.

[Blackstar]

15 minutes ago, Ratam said:

I don't know about Axl brother.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B8PslPKJTiH/

https://www.a-4-d.com/t3603-1990-09-06-the-dispatch-photographer-sues-rock-band

[IzzysMissy]

5 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

https://www.instagram.com/p/B8PslPKJTiH/

https://www.a-4-d.com/t3603-1990-09-06-the-dispatch-photographer-sues-rock-band

Haha holy shit the photog was Jeff Kravitz!! He’s a friend of mine, an old school nyc photog! He and Axl deff made up and I’ve hung out with him at a few gnr reunion shows while he shot from the pit. He’s the photog who took those epic RIP Mag party pics in 90 or 91 I think..

[Ratam]

11 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

https://www.instagram.com/p/B8PslPKJTiH/

https://www.a-4-d.com/t3603-1990-09-06-the-dispatch-photographer-sues-rock-band

Axl brother was his bodyguard, i don't know it.

[Blackstar]

1 minute ago, Ratam said:

Axl brother was his bodyguard, i don't know it.

He wasn't his bodyguard, but Jeff Kravitz, the photographer, thought he was.

[JAxlMorrison]

34 minutes ago, ChristianGNR said:

She fucked with him after the supposed sexual assault. What’s next?

This. Going by the story in her book, and not by the verbiage the probable ambulance chasing lawyer crafted for the lawsuit, she’s trying to back the train up the tracks. You can’t brag about something and say you enjoyed it on multiple platforms, and then change your story because there’s a temporary law that may allow you to cash in. 

[Ratam]

1 minute ago, Blackstar said:

He wasn't his bodyguard, but Jeff Kravitz, the photographer, thought he was.

Oh! Thanks, cause i read it.

[justynius]

15 minutes ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

Did I say that it was proven true? No. The people talking confidently like that are the ones saying inconsistencies disprove the claims.

The burden of the lawsuit is to prove it is true. Axl is not suing her for libel, she is suing him for assault. The defense does not need to prove the assault did not occur, only that her side failed to provide sufficient evidence that it did.

27 minutes ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

Inconsistencies are not erroneous testimony.

Inconsistencies are by definition erroneous testimony. If she presents one timeline, then makes a subsequent statement that is not possible to line up with it, one (or both) of those statements must be in error. 

36 minutes ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

"He said she said" is the typical form of these kind of charges, by their nature. Absent a rape kit, what direct physical evidence would there be? That tells us nothing about the credibility.

A good start would be not publishing, direct quote, "Weirdly enough, I was okay with this. I had wanted to be with him since the minute I’d first laid eyes on him, and now I was getting him."

1 hour ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

Claiming that she's "trying to turn this into a payday" is baseless speculation that really belies your lack of impartiality here. Are families that sue Monsanto for poisoning their kids just "seeking a payday"?

It is not baseless speculation, it's a literal fact. She's spent the last twenty years cashing in on this (and other) sexual encounters with celebrities.

[meadsoap]

8 hours ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

How many times does this need to be repeated? She consented to sex, not BDSM anal.

Part of the problem here is that the ordering of events completely changed in different versions of her story, from the book to the doc

 

In the version in the book (which is what the lawsuit is modeled around), she says:

1. He dragged her back to his room by her hair

2.  Immediately tied her hands behind her back and penetrated her anally without asking first

3. Only after he had penetrated her the first time did she agree to go further and he apologizes after everything is done (this step is left out of the lawsuit version, which cuts off after the first incident of sex).

In the version from the "Look Away" documentary ( starts around 55 minutes), she says:

1. He dragged her by her hair back to his room

2. Stopped and apologized for being rough when he saw her knees were bleeding

2. She agrees to still sleep with him and he ties her hands gently behind her back, and he penetrates her for the first time

3. They continue to have sex after that

 

These version of the story are completely different, and would play out way differently in court depending on which one would be used. The first you could say constitutes sexual assault while the second is much more muddy. She used the worst of the two versions in the lawsuit, obviously.

Edited November 25, 2023 by meadsoap

[BluegrassBlues]

12 minutes ago, IzzysMissy said:

Haha holy shit the photog was Jeff Kravitz!! He’s a friend of mine, an old school nyc photog! He and Axl deff made up and I’ve hung out with him at a few gnr reunion shows while he shot from the pit. He’s the photog who took those epic RIP Mag party pics in 90 or 91 I think..

I'm sorry your friend got shoved, he is really talented! But that 4th photo where it looks like Axl is getting spooned by that random dude is hilarious to me  

[evilfacelessturtle]

26 minutes ago, Free Bird said:

Well, back in the day she chose to fuck him anyway. You don't fuck someone who just raped you, do you? Whatever happened, she obviously enjoyed it so movedafuckon.

You obviously know nothing about abuse, so why don't you "move da fuck on" and not talk out your ass about something you know nothing about?

God forbid you try to actually learn from experts who say that it's actually very common for abuse victims to stick with their abuser. They will continue to act like everything is okay while the shock prevents reality from setting in yet.

"Why did she stay with him, then?" says every moron since the dawn of time.

[Avillart]

42 minutes ago, ChristianGNR said:

She fucked with him after the supposed sexual assault. What’s next?

That's all an attorney needs to know to destroy her. She simply has no case. 

[evilfacelessturtle]

9 minutes ago, justynius said:

The burden of the lawsuit is to prove it is true. Axl is not suing her for libel, she is suing him for assault. The defense does not need to prove the assault did not occur, only that her side failed to provide sufficient evidence that it did.

Inconsistencies are by definition erroneous testimony. If she presents one timeline, then makes a subsequent statement that is not possible to line up with it, one (or both) of those statements must be in error. 

A good start would be not publishing, direct quote, "Weirdly enough, I was okay with this. I had wanted to be with him since the minute I’d first laid eyes on him, and now I was getting him."

It is not baseless speculation, it's a literal fact. She's spent the last twenty years cashing in on this (and other) sexual encounters with celebrities.

Again, neither I nor anyone else here, as far as I can tell, has confidently asserted that the allegations are true. You're arguing a strawman.

Saying that you were, at one time in the past, okay with being assaulted because you were starstruck, does not make it no longer assault.

If I got punched by Axl, but as a young starstruck man thought it was cool to be punched by Axl Rose, it was still assault regardless. And if I come to realize with greater maturity that it was in fact not cool to be assaulted, I have every right to seek compensation for that wrong.

Also, without the full context of those quotes within the book, it is flippant at best, irresponsible at worst, to use them in such a way.

3 minutes ago, Avillart said:

That's all an attorney needs to know to destroy her. She simply has no case. 

If you think this, you know absolutely nothing about the judicial and legal system. Zilch, zero.

Abused girlfriends and wives stay with their abuser ALL. THE. TIME.

What rock are you living under?

[Avillart]

12 minutes ago, BluegrassBlues said:

I'm sorry your friend got shoved, he is really talented! But that 4th photo where it looks like Axl is getting spooned by that random dude is hilarious to me  

 

Haha yeah I was thinking the same. And to stay on topic - did he sue him for attempted assault? 

 

Speaking of photos - I had this on my IG feed 2 days ago. Great timing... my kind of humor LOL

[Blackstar]

21 minutes ago, BluegrassBlues said:

I'm sorry your friend got shoved, he is really talented! But that 4th photo where it looks like Axl is getting spooned by that random dude is hilarious to me  

I think that guy was actually a security guy. Looks like it could be John Reese (who later became their tour manager), but I'm not sure if he was working with them already in 1988 (he was definitely working with them in '89).

[Avillart]

6 minutes ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

If you think this, you know absolutely nothing about the judicial and legal system. Zilch, zero.

Abused girlfriends and wives stay with their abuser ALL. THE. TIME.

What rock are you living under?

Oh I do know a thing or two about the legal system. Again, I come from a family of lawyers. 

This woman was not a battered wife/girlfriend or in any way dependent on Axl. She went out to have fun with a rock star trophy who was at the peak of his financial success - see the documents quoted - and she decided to "have fun with him". She can't identify the hotel where the alleged assault happened and initiated sex with him after having established that he was on "all kinds of drugs" and "ready to explode". She even got a warning by his friend not to "go in there". He assaults her, she's in pain and bleeding but "is weirdly OK with it" and keeps having sex with her rapist. 

Really? LOL

But yeah, her lawyers might just try "Stockholm Syndrome".... 

[justynius]

39 minutes ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

Again, neither I nor anyone else here, as far as I can tell, has confidently asserted that the allegations are true. You're arguing a strawman.

I was responding to your post claiming there's "not proof it's a lie." That's a higher threshold than they need to meet. The defense does not need to prove the story is a lie, only that her side has failed to provide sufficient evidence it is true.

42 minutes ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

Saying that you were, at one time in the past, okay with being assaulted because you were starstruck, does not make it no longer assault.

Rough sex in itself is not sexual assault. Her own published words are credible evidence the alleged encounter was consensual.

43 minutes ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

Also, without the full context of those quotes within the book, it is flippant at best, irresponsible at worst, to use them in such a way.

Now you're the one grasping at straws. Below is the full context. What does this change?

I’m crying and bleeding. Axl slams the door and locks it. The other girl is gone. Rikki’s in the other room. And I lay there. And he fucked me, anally. And I could handle it because he wasn’t too big. Weirdly enough, I was okay with this. I had wanted to be with him since the minute I’d first laid eyes on him, and now I was getting him. Once he was done he untied me and we fucked around some more. I remember going down on him and sticking my finger in his ass and he really wanted that, he really got off on that. That’s what made him come.

[Blackstar]

3 hours ago, justynius said:

By her own admission, the other people were outside the room when the supposed 'assault' occurred, so anything they can offer (if they get involved at all) is speculative at best.

According to her account, Riki Racthman witnessed at least the beginning of the physical assault (and did nothing), so if he supports her story he can confirm at least that part.

He probably won't testify at all though. The jurisdiction of the court is in New York and I think he would have to be there or in close distance for the subpoena to be served. But he doesn't live there, so unless he visits NY and is located or wants to testify, he doesn't have to.

[Blackstar]

1 hour ago, JAxlMorrison said:

This. Going by the story in her book, and not by the verbiage the probable ambulance chasing lawyer crafted for the lawsuit, she’s trying to back the train up the tracks. You can’t brag about something and say you enjoyed it on multiple platforms, and then change your story because there’s a temporary law that may allow you to cash in. 

Her legal team seems to be very good and reputable, and specializes in this kind of cases:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McAllister_Olivarius