Appetite for Distortion - Welcome to the Lawsuit(s)

[Gambit83]

Decided to have a rational n' reasonable discussion about the recent suits against Axl and Fernando. I invited a lawyer/GNR fan to help break it all down. Hope you enjoy.

 

 

[Blackstar]

I watched it. Very interesting and informative.

[meadsoap]

Finally watched the whole thing. I have a lot of thoughts on this. And before I start, I wanna go thank you for putting this episode out there. None of the opinion that follow are a criticism of the content of the podcast conversation, just adding on.

1. The conversation only did a general sweep of the "prior acts" that Axl was accused of in the lawsuit, but I think a lot of that absolutely will get thrown out. A lot of the things that they list aren't very relevant to Sheila's case (like the original AFD cover that has nothing to do with the actions Sheila accused Axl of) or hinge on knowledge of rumors that are both unprovable and most likely false (as in the part about Axl participating in the group rape of a 15 year old girlfriend that never existed, on the basis of the littlemichellelives woman that was excluded from the Look Away documentary by the creators of it because of how bogus her claims were). To me, the only part of that section that matters is the "Battered Beauties" article in People magazine. But who's to say Erin Everly does not come to his defence on that portion of the suit, considering she defended him a couple times before (for example, in 2012 she sent a cease and desist letter on Axl's behalf to an LA artist that accused Axl of graffiting her house with vile words after an argument, not to mention her history of defending him on social media). 

2. As far as Sheila Kennedy's story is concerned, you two talked about how she initially claimed it was consensual in the documentary, but later said it was not. I get the point about it being explained away, saying that she came to some kind  of realization in the 2 years since the doc blah blah blah... But what I'm more concerned about is the inconsistencies in the surrounding details. For example, how will she be able to explain that fabricated Howard Stern interview that she said happened? The one where she claimed Axl left her early in the morning to go interview with Stern and directly bragged about being with a Penthouse Pet the night before. None of that ever happened. Axl was woken up out of his sleep completely alone in his hotel room and said nothing about even having sex the night before, let alone as specific as what Sheila said. So how does she reconcile this? Was she sensationalizing details to make the story sound better (which casts doubt on the credibility of the other claims)? Did her brain somehow fabricate words and events that never happened (and if so, what else did her brain fabricate/misremember about the alleged encounter)? And what about Rikki Rachtman, who she claims witnessed it all and that she befriended after the alleged events. Rikki cryptically posted on social media that "anyone can say anything" directly after the lawsuit was made public. It doesn't sound like Rikki is going to back her up on this, if he can even  be subpoenaed. I don't see that going down well in court at all.

3. I question the idea that she had a change of heart like people say. This woman knowingly appeared in a documentary specifically about sexual violence in the rock music industry and made direct allegations of assault, criticized Axl for allegedly being violent on increasingly public platforms, says that she's not a fan, that he got what he deserved when his life was falling apart, etc etc. And even after all that, she still went out of her way to emphasize how she wasn't raped and that she was an active participant (like putting a surprise finger up his ass as an experiment without him asking her to do that, which is a really weird thing to say when she also claim she was only lying back letting things happen because you were too afraid to take action) and that she enjoyed the sex after he stopped being in whatever rage state he was in. It seems like she already came to a realization long ago about her bad experiences with the encounter and has been very vocal about it. This whole claim about her being afraid to confront her true feelings or trying to avoid blowback seems very flimsy within that context.

4. The part about Axl's possible mental illness issues (like his struggle with mood swings that are possibly related to bipolar disorder) could come into play imo, depending on the statutes in New York civil law. A large part of the court filing is saying he had an intent to harm her based on her gender. But what she claims in her book (saying he apologized, seemed contrite, says directly and verbally that he didn't mean to hurt her) seems to fly in the face of the claims that he intended to use his celebrity status to harm her.

5. I have other thoughts related to Axl's position of simply not remembering the events that Sheila alleges and how that might be a tricky thing to balance in court. But again, I'm not familiar with the laws in New York to say specifically how his lawyers might manoeuvre around that while arguing in Axl's defence. But on the surface from what I know, I think Axl might be backing himself into a unfortunate corner if he sticks with that.

Edited December 13, 2023 by meadsoap

[meadsoap]

Anyway, I apologize for how long that was lol. I just needed somewhere to put my (many) thoughts about this issue.

TLDR: If this goes to court, this will be far from an easy time for Sheila Kennedy. Very curious to see how it plays out (if it doesn't settle first).

[Gambit83]

15 hours ago, meadsoap said:

Anyway, I apologize for how long that was lol. I just needed somewhere to put my (many) thoughts about this issue.

TLDR: If this goes to court, this will be far from an easy time for Sheila Kennedy. Very curious to see how it plays out (if it doesn't settle first).

No need to apologize. I appreciate you taking the time to listen and write all that. Good points all around.

Doing an episode on this subject wasn't an easy decision, but since I base my content on honesty and not blind fandom, I'd be fake if I didn't discuss it at this time. That littlemichellelives woman wanted to get on my podcast a few years ago, but it felt like I was being used as a way to legitimize her story. Didn't feel right. I didn't want that. 

 

Edited December 13, 2023 by Gambit83

[meadsoap]

On 12/12/2023 at 10:48 PM, meadsoap said:

And what about Rikki Rachtman, who she claims witnessed it all and that she befriended after the alleged events. Rikki cryptically posted on social media that "anyone can say anything" directly after the lawsuit was made public. It doesn't sound like Rikki is going to back her up on this, if he can even  be subpoenaed. I don't see that going down well in court at all.

So I went back to Rikki's Facebook page to see if he commented anything else about the case. And what I found was very telling.

 

He added this on a few days after his initial post.

 

[meadsoap]

Just now, meadsoap said:

So I went back to Rikki's Facebook page to see if he commented anything else about the case. And what I found was very telling.

 

He added this on a few days after his initial post.

 

So if this goes to trial, Rikki is clearly not going to back up Sheila's story. The only other eyewitness they have  (the other model that Axl allegedly had sex with and then scared out the room) is a woman that has yet to be indentified. Either because Sheila doesn't know her or because she has refused to become involved.

If that woman doesn't come forward and Rikki testifies that he knows nothing about this... Sheila's case is already not in a good state.

[Avillart]

On 12/13/2023 at 5:48 AM, meadsoap said:

Finally watched the whole thing. I have a lot of thoughts on this. And before I start, I wanna go thank you for putting this episode out there. None of the opinion that follow are a criticism of the content of the podcast conversation, just adding on.

1. The conversation only did a general sweep of the "prior acts" that Axl was accused of in the lawsuit, but I think a lot of that absolutely will get thrown out. A lot of the things that they list aren't very relevant to Sheila's case (like the original AFD cover that has nothing to do with the actions Sheila accused Axl of) or hinge on knowledge of rumors that are both unprovable and most likely false (as in the part about Axl participating in the group rape of a 15 year old girlfriend that never existed, on the basis of the littlemichellelives woman that was excluded from the Look Away documentary by the creators of it because of how bogus her claims were). To me, the only part of that section that matters is the "Battered Beauties" article in People magazine. But who's to say Erin Everly does not come to his defence on that portion of the suit, considering she defended him a couple times before (for example, in 2012 she sent a cease and desist letter on Axl's behalf to an LA artist that accused Axl of graffiting her house with vile words after an argument, not to mention her history of defending him on social media). 

2. As far as Sheila Kennedy's story is concerned, you two talked about how she initially claimed it was consensual in the documentary, but later said it was not. I get the point about it being explained away, saying that she came to some kind  of realization in the 2 years since the doc blah blah blah... But what I'm more concerned about is the inconsistencies in the surrounding details. For example, how will she be able to explain that fabricated Howard Stern interview that she said happened? The one where she claimed Axl left her early in the morning to go interview with Stern and directly bragged about being with a Penthouse Pet the night before. None of that ever happened. Axl was woken up out of his sleep completely alone in his hotel room and said nothing about even having sex the night before, let alone as specific as what Sheila said. So how does she reconcile this? Was she sensationalizing details to make the story sound better (which casts doubt on the credibility of the other claims)? Did her brain somehow fabricate words and events that never happened (and if so, what else did her brain fabricate/misremember about the alleged encounter)? And what about Rikki Rachtman, who she claims witnessed it all and that she befriended after the alleged events. Rikki cryptically posted on social media that "anyone can say anything" directly after the lawsuit was made public. It doesn't sound like Rikki is going to back her up on this, if he can even  be subpoenaed. I don't see that going down well in court at all.

3. I question the idea that she had a change of heart like people say. This woman knowingly appeared in a documentary specifically about sexual violence in the rock music industry and made direct allegations of assault, criticized Axl for allegedly being violent on increasingly public platforms, says that she's not a fan, that he got what he deserved when his life was falling apart, etc etc. And even after all that, she still went out of her way to emphasize how she wasn't raped and that she was an active participant (like putting a surprise finger up his ass as an experiment without him asking her to do that, which is a really weird thing to say when she also claim she was only lying back letting things happen because you were too afraid to take action) and that she enjoyed the sex after he stopped being in whatever rage state he was in. It seems like she already came to a realization long ago about her bad experiences with the encounter and has been very vocal about it. This whole claim about her being afraid to confront her true feelings or trying to avoid blowback seems very flimsy within that context.

4. The part about Axl's possible mental illness issues (like his struggle with mood swings that are possibly related to bipolar disorder) could come into play imo, depending on the statutes in New York civil law. A large part of the court filing is saying he had an intent to harm her based on her gender. But what she claims in her book (saying he apologized, seemed contrite, says directly and verbally that he didn't mean to hurt her) seems to fly in the face of the claims that he intended to use his celebrity status to harm her.

5. I have other thoughts related to Axl's position of simply not remembering the events that Sheila alleges and how that might be a tricky thing to balance in court. But again, I'm not familiar with the laws in New York to say specifically how his lawyers might manoeuvre around that while arguing in Axl's defence. But on the surface from what I know, I think Axl might be backing himself into a unfortunate corner if he sticks with that.

 

Very eloquently written. I wholeheartedly agree.

Like I mentioned in the other thread, I (reluctantly) purchased her book just to get context to it all, and I'm glad I did. Despite the fact that she had "ghostwriters" the book is all over the place and it portrays a deeply disturbed and immature person who lived for nothing but sex and money (I'm taking her upbringing into consideration, yes, but would never accept it as an excuse) and the identical descriptions of scenarios - like these (rock promoter Howard Stein in screenshot 1, Axl in screenshot 2) - make me go hmmm.

 

  

 

I also wonder what her actual "mission" was. What she was aiming for by sleeping with all these men - if they were so horrible and if it wasn't for her pleasure. This is still my number 1 question when it comes to her. 

We've discussed the "case" pretty thoroughly in the other thread, so I don't want to write much more here but as someone coming from a family of lawyers and someone who also met Axl (back then and nowadays), I'm following this story. Thanks to all involved for the discussion.

Edited December 14, 2023 by Avillart

[axl666]

Just listened to the interview. Very interesting. Your guest really outlined very clearly the complexity of the legal situation. I thought that he was able to explain everything really well.

You're a very good interviewer. I appreciated how you gave the guest the chance to provide his expertise without interrupting him.

 

 

 

[Scream of the Butterfly]

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.

[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.

[meadsoap]

1 hour ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

 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. 

 

Being indirect doesn't mean Rikki hasn't made his actual position clear. He doesn't believe her (hence "anyone can say anything post"), he is not invested her case ("who cares"), and he saw nothing (hence the picture of the hands over his eyes). He didn't have to say anything at all, so that fact that he went out of his way to address it is the big thing here.

Edited December 15, 2023 by meadsoap

[Stay.Of.Execution]

8 hours ago, Scream of the Butterfly said:

 

What was not a balanced view was the excerpt from Doug Goldstein's memoir. 

Yea that part was a bit of a drag. 

[Gambit83]

21 hours ago, Stay.Of.Execution said:

Yea that part was a bit of a drag. 

 

On 12/14/2023 at 6:07 PM, Scream of the Butterfly said:

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.

fyi there was still so much work to be done with his book...phrasing, narratives, fact-checking. Consider these "excerpts" just well-organized stories and thoughts. I enjoy sharing some stories when they make sense to, otherwise they'll just sit on my OneDrive taking up space.

Edited December 16, 2023 by Gambit83