Axl Sued For Sexual Assault

[justynius]

35 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

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.

The language in the NY Adult Survivors Act is pretty specific to sexual misconduct. I would expect statute of limitations to be expired for allegations of physical assault related to the hairpulling. Definitely not a legal expert though, and Rikki's testimony would at least lend credibility to her story. However, as you said, can't see him being very eager to step in this pile of shit, and even if he's served he can probably say with honesty that he doesn't remember an event from 34 years ago.

[Blackstar]

2 minutes ago, justynius said:

The language in the NY Adult Survivors Act is pretty specific to sexual misconduct. I would expect statute of limitations to be expired for allegations of physical assault related to the hairpulling. Definitely not a legal expert though, and Rikki's testimony would at least lend credibility to her story. However, as you said, can't see him being very eager to step in this pile of shit, and even if he's served he can probably say with honesty that he doesn't remember an event from 34 years ago.

I'm not an expert either, but I guess it depends on whether the physical assault is directly connected to the sexual assault, and in this case it is.

[vloors]

5 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.

 

 

Axl should change his name to sue

[justynius]

2 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

I'm not an expert either, but I guess it depends on whether the physical assault is directly connected to the sexual assault, and in this case it is.

Even if that's true - and I don't see anything in the act implying it is - you'd still need success on the sexual assault allegations, the physical assault wouldn't stand on its own. By her own admission, "Axl slams the door and locks it. The other girl is gone. Rikki’s in the other room." Unless they try claiming the book is false, Rikki can't testify to witnessing a sexual assault.

[vloors]

1 hour ago, Blackstar said:

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

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

Shes sold 2 different stories via a book and a documentary. Goodluck trying to sell another different story in court. 

Axl should countersue for defamation

[Blackstar]

18 minutes ago, justynius said:

Even if that's true - and I don't see anything in the act implying it is - you'd still need success on the sexual assault allegations, the physical assault wouldn't stand on its own. By her own admission, "Axl slams the door and locks it. The other girl is gone. Rikki’s in the other room." Unless they try claiming the book is false, Rikki can't testify to witnessing a sexual assault.

It's probability: if her allegation about the physical assault that preceded the sexual assault is confirmed, that gives more credence to her allegation about the sexual assault.

[justynius]

11 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

It's probability: if her allegation about the physical assault that preceded the sexual assault is confirmed, that gives more credence to her allegation about the sexual assault.

Does it really though? Rikki’s testimony can reinforce the events described in the book, a consensual sexual encounter. She needs evidence/testimony that disproves her own words, and I’m not sure that exists. This is the hole she’s dug.

[Blackstar]

1 minute ago, justynius said:

Does it really though? Rikki’s testimony can reinforce the events described in the book, a consensual sexual encounter. She needs evidence/testimony that disproves her own words, and I’m not sure that exists. This is the hole she’s dug.

In the book the physical assault is part of the sexual assault: she's pulled by the hair and dragged into the bedroom to be sexually assaulted. Someone is not get dragged violently to have consensual sex. The two are interrelated. And then the sexual assault is followed by consensual sex.

Anyway, all this is just in theory, because it's highly unlikely that Riki Racthman will confirm her story. He either won't testify at all (more likely) or, if he testifies, he'll say he doesn't remember or he'll support Axl.

[justynius]

4 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

In the book the physical assault is part of the sexual assault: she's pulled by the hair and dragged into the bedroom to be sexually assaulted. Someone is not get dragged violently to have consensual sex. The two are interrelated. And then the sexual assault is followed by consensual sex.

Anyway, all this is just in theory, because it's highly unlikely that Riki Racthman will confirm her story. He either won't testify at all (more likely) or, if he testifies, he'll say he doesn't remember or he'll support Axl.

In the book, she goes out of her way to directly say the sexual activity was welcome. She needs to prove her written description of the events behind that locked door were false. Unless she was lying about the extent of Rikki’s involvement, his testimony only accomplishes the opposite. 

[Blackstar]

39 minutes ago, justynius said:

In the book, she goes out of her way to directly say the sexual activity was welcome. She needs to prove her written description of the events behind that locked door were false. Unless she was lying about the extent of Rikki’s involvement, his testimony only accomplishes the opposite. 

I don't interpret the "I was okay with it" as consent or that that particular sexual activity was what she wanted. She describes being scared and crying. She was "okay with it" afterwards: it wasn't the kind of sex she consented to, but she settled for it because she wanted Axl. Then they had more sex and then he apologized to her.

Now in the documentary it's a bit different: she said Axl apologized to her for physically hurting her and became gentle with her before any sexual activity occurred. So in this version, although she can still claim that she didn't consent and was just terrified as a result of the physical violence, it's more hazy.

Edited November 25, 2023 by Blackstar

[BucketEgg]

7 hours ago, Avillart said:

 

Watching the documentary, what was missing to me in her telling the story was the emotion. The distress that she claims she's still feeling. It's good to watch the whole documentary and see how the other women tell their stories. They are absolutely credible as they get emotional (without streaming tears or other exaggeration) and you can see how they walk through their ordeals again. In that Sheila's case it was like she was telling someone else's story, like it was a script. It's hard to describe here but when you watch it for yourself you might see what I mean. I'm also an abuse survivor and no matter how much "work" I did, I still get emotional and even physically sick when remembering things again. 

 

There's a part where this discussion has extended beyond whether Kennedy seems reliable or not, and into whether other people reading will feel like shit, because they're going to be wondering if they're going to believed when recounting their own story to others, because their personality inclines them to act in a different way emotionally while recounting it.

[Free Bird]

5 hours ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

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.

We're on a music forum. Nobody here is an expert and knows for sure. Even less, when nobody's has ever talked to the victim about this case. We're drawing conclusions from the distance and you're acting like anybody has an idea what has happened.

Everybody is talking outta his ass, including you, but from what we've read, written by herself, I don't believe her. Expert or not LOL

[Avillart]

8 hours ago, vloors said:

Shes sold 2 different stories via a book and a documentary. Goodluck trying to sell another different story in court. 

Axl should countersue for defamation

 

Actually, there's even 3 versions. The first time I heard about it, it was yet another different wording. I quoted one segment of it here in the thread, someone posted it on FB this week, so it was indeed another public version, not false memory on my behalf or anything. It's been a while since I read it back then and I don't remember where it was that it was published because I already found it laughable at the time but yes, this third version does exist. 

EDIT: I even just found it on another thread here in the forum (the Matt Sorum book thread). Blackstar shared it there and it was a video interview Sheila Kennedy did with the Daily Mail. 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1245272/Sheila-Kennedy-s-night-Guns-Roses-singer-Axl-Rose.html

This version is different again, she says it was an afterparty and Axl invited her. No mention of her wanting to have him after her friend told her all ahout him. Oh, and Axl and Riki had a "bromance".

She "got scared" while her facial expression and her emotionless voice couldn't contradict this more. Like in the Look Away documentary, she couldn't sound more bored. Just like her pulling these faces all the time, like when her friend tells her he's the lead singer of Guns N Roses and she goes "Okay" . What's this face supposed to express, it's like he was beneath her somehow. While she was so on fire to get him in her book version. Nothing adds up there.  

She also comes with that Howard Stern thing again, that Axl supposedly told HS that he was late because he was up all night with a Penthouse Pet. As we know from how the interview really took place and what Axl and HS talked about - Axl even mentioning "crazy psycho bitches" when Howard kept asking him about his sex life as a rock star - there was no mention of a Penthouse Pet. And Axl could've mentioned it cause he was always very open about his love of Penthouse magazine, even quoting articles in interviews and having copies around on the tour bus, backstage and other places. But he does not mention it and Howard also does not lecture him for being late. But yes, I guess Sheila will be able to produce said Howard Stern interview that we're all too stupid to find when this goes to court.

[GnR Chris]

14 hours ago, evilfacelessturtle said:

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.

 Decades later, she still described it as a consensual night of sex. Until one day she decided it wasn’t. 

[DeNfr]

17 hours ago, Blackstar said:

Not all drugs have the same effect or arel all "recreational". It also depends on the combination and the quantity.

sure, but that never stopped Axl from writing, otherwise we wouldn't have all these fantastic songs

[DeNfr]

17 hours ago, JoJo Bonetto said:

Not always. I write and have had a novel longlisted. I know a fair bit of which I speak and you can't adopt a one size fits all approach to creativity.

probably not always, but the point is, if it works even sometimes, this invalidates your “never” argument.

[Blackstar]

19 minutes ago, DeNfr said:

sure, but that never stopped Axl from writing, otherwise we wouldn't have all these fantastic songs

That doesn't mean that Axl wrote the songs while under the influence. By all accounts, although he would use various substances, he was never addicted to them (in Slash's words: "he was never strung out") with the exception, as per Marc Canter, a brief heroin period in 1986. And even in the case of addicts, some people can be "functional addicts" and be creative. But there also have been examples of artists whose creativity and mind were blocked or destroyed by drug use, especially when there was an underlying mental illness, like Syd Barrett and Brian Wilson.

But I think you're conflating two different things here. Writing songs while under the influence is a different situation and mindset from remembering what you did on one of many partying nights under the influence of a cocktail of substances.

Edited November 25, 2023 by Blackstar

[justynius]

12 hours ago, Blackstar said:

I don't interpret the "I was okay with it" as consent or that that particular sexual activity was what she wanted. She describes being scared and crying. She was "okay with it" afterwards: it wasn't the kind of sex she consented to, but she settled for it because she wanted Axl. Then they had more sex and then he apologized to her.

Consent does not require direct verbal communication. Her own published words reiterate through multiple events in the night how much she "wanted" Axl and the actions she took to make that happen, then she directly specifies she was okay with what happened because she was finally getting what she wanted. You're gonna have a very tough time selling that as an unwilling participant.

Now she does consistently say in every version of the story that she only wanted sex with Axl and was unquestionably against the prospect of group sex, there is valid evidence she was against that activity. But every version also implies she did not actually participate in the group sex, let alone having been forced to. Even further, if the events described are true then they disbanded that activity specifically in respect to her lack of consent.

12 hours ago, Blackstar said:

Now in the documentary it's a bit different: she said Axl apologized to her for physically hurting her and became gentle with her before any sexual activity occurred. So in this version, although she can still claim that she didn't consent and was just terrified as a result of the physical violence, it's more hazy.

That is her problem - was she lying in the book, was she lying in the documentary, or is she lying now? It will be challenging enough to prove Axl was even in the room 35 years after the fact. It will be nearly impossible to find evidence that supports her current narrative while not directly leading to "I was okay with this because ... now I was finally getting him."

[AtlasShrugged]

Guilty when it's Fernando, innocent when it's Axl 

[Ratam]

Poor Beta....she two "sons" acussed about sexual assault.

[allwaystired]

1 minute ago, Ratam said:

Poor Beta....she two "sons" acussed about sexual assault.

I blame the parents. 

[DSTK]

3 hours ago, GnR Chris said:

 Decades later, she still described it as a consensual night of sex. Until one day she decided it wasn’t. 

Probably because her bank balance is now low

[JoJo Bonetto]

2 hours ago, DeNfr said:

probably not always, but the point is, if it works even sometimes, this invalidates your “never” argument.

It would only invalidate my 'never' argument if I had made a 'never' argument. In fact, I am not arguing at all about anything. You are. 

[DeNfr]

1 hour ago, JoJo Bonetto said:

It would only invalidate my 'never' argument if I had made a 'never' argument. In fact, I am not arguing at all about anything. You are. 

oh so I'm arguing alone then, well ok so I'm right. 

[JAxlMorrison]

On 11/22/2023 at 6:50 PM, evilfacelessturtle said:

Yahoo comments are notoriously right wing, so that doesn't tell us anything about the broader public perception.

If you go home with a girl and you want to have sex, but she ties you down and shoves a dildo up your ass, is that consensual because you wanted sex? You tell me.

Some of the comments in this thread are just deliberately obtuse.

Would I tell friends and documentarians and write in my own book that I wanted it, liked it, and continued having sex til morning? I mean, if we’re attempting to make comparisons here…

21 hours 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.

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.

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?

You’re aware that a one night stand is different than a relationship where people invest time and more in the other person, right?