Bryan singer accused of evil things


Movies

1 to 50 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
The Exchange

if he did, they should rip him apart at a tractor pull.


So, if I understand it right, the guy suing was okay with what happened when Singer was leading him on saying he would get him a role...and so waited till after the statute of limitations was up...and when he hasn't gotten a role after so long...is finally suing?

Hmmm...I think this is a little more difficult to be looking favorably at the accuser than not, since apparently they would have been okay with it if they had gotten a movie role perhaps?

On the otherhand, if it was rape, Singer should pay the penalty.


Given that the "accuser" was underage when this allegedly happened, I don't particularly care what his motives were.

OTOH, given that the alleged events occurred 16 years ago, evidence is going to be hard to come by. Also, the statute of limitations has apparently expired for criminal charges.


This early in and with a noticeable lack of evidence available to the public, I'd rather hold off on judging Singer until some real facts are released.


Thus "alleged". :)

But I'd also like to not prejudge the accuser's motives.

Liberty's Edge

thejeff wrote:

Given that the "accuser" was underage when this allegedly happened, I don't particularly care what his motives were.

OTOH, given that the alleged events occurred 16 years ago, evidence is going to be hard to come by. Also, the statute of limitations has apparently expired for criminal charges.

Depends where the acts happened and that wasn't clear from the article. The Plaintiff was underage in California, but he was of age in Hawaii.


GreyWolfLord wrote:

So, if I understand it right, the guy suing was okay with what happened when Singer was leading him on saying he would get him a role...and so waited till after the statute of limitations was up...and when he hasn't gotten a role after so long...is finally suing?

Hmmm...I think this is a little more difficult to be looking favorably at the accuser than not, since apparently they would have been okay with it if they had gotten a movie role perhaps?

On the otherhand, if it was rape, Singer should pay the penalty.

Sex under false pretenses is still rape. Just because someone was engaged in one crime (essentially prostitution) when they are subject to another doesn't mean they weren't a victim. Having sex with someone while promising them payment you back out on is the same as having sex with someone while impersonating someone.


Krensky wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Given that the "accuser" was underage when this allegedly happened, I don't particularly care what his motives were.

OTOH, given that the alleged events occurred 16 years ago, evidence is going to be hard to come by. Also, the statute of limitations has apparently expired for criminal charges.

Depends where the acts happened and that wasn't clear from the article. The Plaintiff was underage in California, but he was of age in Hawaii.

The article didn't cover it? This is NOT for young people to read

Spoiler:

Presumably the first time they were at one of Collins massive parties and the kid was introduced to Singer while in the pool. They then went to the Jacuzzi where Singer told him about movies and movie roles and supposedly fondled certain parts of the accusers body.

Singer then performed certain acts on the accuser and then asked for reciprocation. When the accuser refused, Singer held his head under water and forced the issue. They then got out of the hot tub and supposedly Singer forcibly had sex with the accuser.

Singer supposedly then placated the accuser with offers of movie roles for not saying anything. In addition, the accuser, had other instances but was always placated by Singer by the promise of movie roles if they didn't say anything.

Hopefully that's not graphic enough but descriptive enough for you to understand what the accusations are.

The offer of movie roles apparently never materialized.

I think it's very suspicious myself, and while I don't discount that it may have happened (and that Singer was careless in his choices), it seems more like a disgruntled person who was promised something that never was given and so is trying out a revenge lawsuit.

If Singer really did do those things, of course I hope he has to pay the full measure, but from the accusers description, (which is one sided) it sounds very much like the accuser was expecting movie roles or some such and did not get them.

17 is over the age of consent, the accusation is therefore, rape.

If Singer is guilty, these cases are very hard to prosecute anyways, even when the evidence is there and the situation is new.

Of course, if these things happened as the accuser says they did, there should be dozens of witnesses (seeing how big those parties were) at a minimum.

We'll see, but I think the accuser is trying to get a settlement more than go to court and have everything held under scrutiny.

IMO.

Liberty's Edge

Yeah, I read the article.

Did the act happen in California or Hawaii. I couldn't find any info on it in that article or a cursory search.

Age of consent in the former is 18, in the later its 16.


Krensky wrote:

Yeah, I read the article.

Did the act happen in California or Hawaii. I couldn't find any info on it in that article or a cursory search.

Age of consent in the former is 18, in the later its 16.

The Collins-Rector Estate where the first alleged events took place is in Encino, thus California. The kid was 17 and I assume Singer was more than 3 years older at the time, so he would have been open to felony charges.


Someone may want to put a trigger warning on that spoiler.

The acts described in the spoiler'd portion of GWL's post are unambiguously rape. No question.

TW:nonconsent:
This isn't "He promised me a role for sex and didn't come through," it's "He raped me and tried to get me to keep quiet about it by promising me a role."

Liberty's Edge

Thank you Jeff.


GreyWolfLord wrote:

If Singer is guilty, these cases are very hard to prosecute anyways, even when the evidence is there and the situation is new.

Of course, if these things happened as the accuser says they did, there should be dozens of witnesses (seeing how big those parties were) at a minimum.

We'll see, but I think the accuser is trying to get a settlement more than go to court and have everything held under scrutiny.

Well I think...as far as I can understand...the accuser is going for a civil suit. Which means the rules of evidence and such are alot lighter in this regard and the determination of guilt. That is why OJ was cleared in the criminal case but hit hard in the civil suit.


Krensky wrote:

Yeah, I read the article.

Did the act happen in California or Hawaii. I couldn't find any info on it in that article or a cursory search.

Age of consent in the former is 18, in the later its 16.

The reason the lawsuit was filed in Hawaii was because the act alleged took place in Hawaii.

Since this wasn't filed in criminal court AFAIK this is probably just an attempt to extort money or get media attention.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alex Smith 908 wrote:


Sex under false pretenses is still rape.

That would make what, 90% of the male population rapists?

I'm a doctor!
Of course I'm employed
This has never happened to me before
The water was cold
I love you...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can we stop with the victim blaming? There are lots of reasons why it may not be possible to proceed with a criminal trial, such as the acts being beyond the statute of limitations.

As for false pretenses, I don't think that a person who says they can get someone a role in a movie in exchange for sex could reasonably be considered to be raping that person if they don't intend to follow through. Exploitative, yes, but consent is not being violated. However, that's not what's being alleged. Read the article, and see what acts are actually being described. They are clearly non-consensual, and are obviously rape if true.


Or women.

I'm on birth control.
I'm not looking for a relationship.
I don't usually do this.
Oh god! OH YES!


Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Can we stop with the victim blaming? There are lots of reasons why it may not be possible to proceed with a criminal trial, such as the acts being beyond the statute of limitations.

Let me just stop you right there. No one is victim blaming. As far as I know, victim blaming is, ya know, blaming the victim. No one is doing that.

What we ARE doing, or at least what I'm doing, is questioning why it happens to be going down now not the past 17 years.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Coming forward about sexual abuse can be difficult. It can be because of fear, shame, the pain of exposing something that one may have attempted to bury. So it can take a long time for some. Some never do, even to their families or other loved ones.

I can't imagine how much more difficult doing so publicly must be.

I want to wait until further details come out too, but I have to pipe in and say that the delay can be understandable.


Mikaze wrote:
I want to wait until further details come out too,

I think I'll wait too- too many unprovens here to make a call.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Alex Smith 908 wrote:


Sex under false pretenses is still rape.

That would make what, 90% of the male population rapists?

I'm a doctor!
Of course I'm employed
This has never happened to me before
The water was cold
I love you...

Sorry for poor wording. A better version is "Sex with a significantly imbalanced power dynamic runs the risk of being rape. Using this power dynamic to coerce someone into sex or using this power dynamic to create false pretenses that necessitate sex is definitely rape." Thus the line "I'm a doctor" is edging into uncomfortable territory. Whereas "I'm an immigration officer" to convince and illegal alien is rape regardless of whether or not you are an immigration officer.

Dark Archive

I don't have a source to cite (heard it on news radio) but it's starting to look bad for Singer. Vic says it started when he was 16 and they did in fact go to the police but their may have been a coverup when it occured.

So IDK, when this first came out the timing seemed very suspect, but if there was a police cover-up plus other complications (reluctance to present issue again) I could see it taking several years to put this in motion.

Again - no link, but if this is true i'm sure it will bubble up to the top.


wow, this story is somewhat shocking..I'm cynical enough to believe it happens more often in Hollywood than is reported, but sheesh this is pretty horrendus if true.

I lived in Toronto in 2000 and was dating a film editor. One day she had a run in with Singer who threw his weight around and made everyone else leave the editing studio so he look at his dailies of x-men. I've disliked him as a pompus ass every since but this alleged incident..holy...yuck.


Singer says he was Canada for X-Men during timeframe of alleged assault. This would seem to be pretty easy to corroborate or refute.

I don't know what to think. He still very well be a pompous ass, or possess a variety of other character defects. If the encounters weren't consensual (including being under-aged), then he should face justice, but being a pompous ass shouldn't by itself be a prison-sentence-worthy offense.


I'm not saying being an ass is a jailable offence, if it was half of Hollywood would be locked up. But the way he carried himself even back then with only one good movie under his belt, the sense of entitlement,the bullying behaviour, makes it easier for me to believe him capable of worse.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and the details of this accusation seem light on proof. If this actually happened, a crime was committed and Singer should be punished. If it didn't, then Singer is a victim of libel.


Ummm... I thought rape was cases where the sexual act did not have consent in and of itself. Using your position as a doctor/immigration officer/whatever is wrong, and illegal under other charges, but still not in itself rape. Doesn't America have things like sexual coercion and similar crimes, or is "rape" American for "sex that was bad in some way"?


Sissyl wrote:
Ummm... I thought rape was cases where the sexual act did not have consent in and of itself. Using your position as a doctor/immigration officer/whatever is wrong, and illegal under other charges, but still not in itself rape. Doesn't America have things like sexual coercion and similar crimes, or is "rape" American for "sex that was bad in some way"?

In the case of an immigration officer, they can throw you in jail. Thats the implicit (and sometimes explicit) threat of force which is functionally the same as putting a gun to your head.


Sissyl wrote:
Ummm... I thought rape was cases where the sexual act did not have consent in and of itself. Using your position as a doctor/immigration officer/whatever is wrong, and illegal under other charges, but still not in itself rape. Doesn't America have things like sexual coercion and similar crimes, or is "rape" American for "sex that was bad in some way"?

Rape is both a technical legal term for a specific charge and a common use term for certain types of unwanted sexual contact. The use of the technical term varies from state to state. Connecticut for example does not have a crime called rape. It has various degrees of sexual assault instead. We still refer to it in non-legal terms as rape.

In this case, at least in California, the alleged acts would qualify as statutory rape, since the accuser a minor and Singer was significantly older at the time.

As for using your position to get sex, it depends, as Alex Smith 908 said, on the level of power imbalance: Doctor, probably not. Movie director, I would agree not. Police/immigration officer, who can let you go or throw you in jail/deport you, very definitely. That's consent under duress, not really any different than someone "consenting" because they have a gun pointed at them.


Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Can we stop with the victim blaming?

Where?


Arnwyn wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Can we stop with the victim blaming?
Where?

From the 2nd comment on there have been comments about the guy was okay with it and he waited too long and he's just in it for the money and if he'd gotten a movie role he wouldn't have done anything.

That's all victim blaming. Maybe not quite to the level of "But she wore a sexy skirt", but it's still all about trashing the victim and his motives.


Regardless of the victim's motives, if what he's saying is true, then Singer is, at the very least, guilty of trading empty promises for sexual favours with a 17-year-old kid. Whether it was illegal or not, and whether the statute of limitations has expired or not, it's still morally reprehensible.

Of course, if we all stopped watching movies produced by morally reprehensible filmmakers, we wouldn't have much left to watch.


thejeff wrote:
That's all victim blaming. Maybe not quite to the level of "But she wore a sexy skirt", but it's still all about trashing the victim and his motives.

Just as long as we bear in mind that, technically, we're still dealing with an "alleged victim" as opposed to a "victim.


thejeff wrote:
Arnwyn wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Can we stop with the victim blaming?
Where?

From the 2nd comment on there have been comments about the guy was okay with it and he waited too long and he's just in it for the money and if he'd gotten a movie role he wouldn't have done anything.

That's all victim blaming. Maybe not quite to the level of "But she wore a sexy skirt", but it's still all about trashing the victim and his motives.

Alleged victim.

Innocent until proven guilty is still a core concept in justice systems in North America.

There is no victim blaming in this thread. (Later on, once more information is available, there might be.)


Arnwyn wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Arnwyn wrote:
Paladin of Baha-who? wrote:
Can we stop with the victim blaming?
Where?

From the 2nd comment on there have been comments about the guy was okay with it and he waited too long and he's just in it for the money and if he'd gotten a movie role he wouldn't have done anything.

That's all victim blaming. Maybe not quite to the level of "But she wore a sexy skirt", but it's still all about trashing the victim and his motives.

Alleged victim.

Innocent until proven guilty is still a core concept in justice systems in North America.

There is no victim blaming in this thread. (Later on, once more information is available, there might be.)

Fine. Alleged victim blaming.

There's a difference between acknowledging that a crime may not have been committed or that the accused may not have been the one to commit it and accusing the alleged victim of only coming forward because he's greedy and didn't get what he wanted.

Consider a more blatant rape case: A woman claims to have been grabbed on the street, dragged into an alley and raped. Someone claims she wanted it because she was wearing a short dress. Obviously not victim blaming because it hasn't yet been proven in court that she was actually raped, right?


If Singer manages to prove, as he claims to be able to, that he was in Canada when the crime was to have taken place in Hawaii, I'd say it's pretty darn clear it's not a case of victim blaming of any kind, but rather, you know, the truth.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

As for the "more blatantly raped woman" above, when does someone actually BECOME a victim? When subjected to a crime? When going out with having been subjected to the crime? When the perpetrator of the crime is sentenced? What happens if DNA testing (for example) later exonerates the perpetrator? What happens if it's judged to be a false accusation in court? During which of these periods is the person a victim?


Sissyl wrote:

If Singer manages to prove, as he claims to be able to, that he was in Canada when the crime was to have taken place in Hawaii, I'd say it's pretty darn clear it's not a case of victim blaming of any kind, but rather, you know, the truth.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

As for the "more blatantly raped woman" above, when does someone actually BECOME a victim? When subjected to a crime? When going out with having been subjected to the crime? When the perpetrator of the crime is sentenced? What happens if DNA testing (for example) later exonerates the perpetrator? What happens if it's judged to be a false accusation in court? During which of these periods is the person a victim?

Well, given that at least some of the victim blaming comments were accepting that the encounter took place, but that it wasn't really rape, just the alleged victim being greedy because he never got the movie deals, I'd have a hard time calling them "truth". Even if Singer proves he wasn't there.

Scarab Sages

thejeff wrote:


There's a difference between acknowledging that a crime may not have been committed or that the accused may not have been the one to commit it and accusing the alleged victim of only coming forward because he's greedy and didn't get what he wanted.

There is also the fact that if this is not true, it's a public attack on Singer to extort money at the cost of destroying his livelihood. This accusation is being brought forward fifteen years after the alleged events took place, and the onus of proof is on the accuser. If Singer actually was in Canada at the time of this party, then it's clearly not true.

While rape of any kind is a serious offense, an unsubstantiated rape accusation can ruin a persons life, even if it is later proven to be completely untrue.

The chance of monetary gain or spite are both motives for false charges. While Singer may be a pompous ass, the fact that he is being accused does not mean he is guilty.

It's not victim blaming if I don't want to break out the torches and pitchforks when an accusation is made after the statue of limitations is over when there is a clear monetary motivation to make a false accusation.


Again... if Singer wasn't THERE, there is NO VICTIM, at least not to a crime matching that description perpetrated by Singer. Without a victim, it IS difficult to call it victim blaming.


Sissyl wrote:

If Singer manages to prove, as he claims to be able to, that he was in Canada when the crime was to have taken place in Hawaii, I'd say it's pretty darn clear it's not a case of victim blaming of any kind, but rather, you know, the truth.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

As for the "more blatantly raped woman" above, when does someone actually BECOME a victim? When subjected to a crime? When going out with having been subjected to the crime? When the perpetrator of the crime is sentenced? What happens if DNA testing (for example) later exonerates the perpetrator? What happens if it's judged to be a false accusation in court? During which of these periods is the person a victim?

Victim blaming is a thing even if it turns out in this particular case there wasn't a victim.

If you're claiming it couldn't have been rape because she was dressed sexy or it couldn't have been rape because she willingly went to his apartment or because she'd had sex with other guys then you're victim blaming.
It's a thing the person doing the blaming does. The actual status of the alleged victim doesn't matter as much.

But I'll turn it back on you: Many rape survivors, including child abuse survivors never come forward or don't for many years. Many rapists are never prosecuted or convicted. In cases where the victim doesn't know the attacker, the attacker may never even be identified. Does any of that make the person not a victim of the crime?
If someone is murdered, but the murderer isn't caught, is he not a victim of murder?
So I'd say, When the crime occurs. Some may be lying about it, but that possibility doesn't mean the stereotypical attacks are acceptable.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

To clarify, it's never OK to assume that wanting a movie part or wearing a short skirt invites a crime like rape. Hopefully no one is claiming that, or they should get their head examined ASAP. What people seem to be asking is, in evaluating whether a crime took place (a crime for which there is currently no evidence except for the accusation itself), is it reasonable to consider what the accuser might have to gain by fabricating an accusation?


Yes, but carefully please. Things like "since apparently they would have been okay with it if they had gotten a movie role perhaps" go over the line for me.

If there's no evidence other than his testimony it'll be a really hard case for him to win. If Singer can prove he was in Canada then it all collapses of course.

And remember that the same accusations were thrown at many of the clergy sex abuse scandal victims: "They're just coming out now for the money."

Isn't that always true of any lawsuit? Anyone suing for money has that motivation to be fabricating the accusation. How much weight should that be given in court?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Isn't that always true of any lawsuit? Anyone suing for money has that motivation to be fabricating the accusation. How much weight should that be given in court?

If there are corroborating witnesses, other accusers with less to gain, the possibility of obtaining other evidence, etc.? Not so much. If only one accuser, no witnesses, and no chance of obtaining any evidence at all? Maybe somewhat more so.

Granted, the fact that I hope the thing being accused didn't happen, in a sane world, might be coloring my thinking a bit... but I hope some logic is still there.

EDIT: I'm contrasting with the accusations against unnamed Hollywood "power players" from Corey Feldman not too long ago, about which a lot of his co-workers said, "Yes, everyone knew they were being abused." That sort of corroboration would certainly help solidify the accusations against Singer, I should think.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Isn't that always true of any lawsuit? Anyone suing for money has that motivation to be fabricating the accusation. How much weight should that be given in court?

If there are corroborating witnesses, other accusers with less to gain, the possibility of obtaining other evidence, etc.? Not so much. If only one accuser, no witnesses, and no chance of obtaining any evidence at all? Maybe somewhat more so.

Granted, the fact that I hope the thing being accused didn't happen, in a sane world, might be coloring my thinking a bit... but I hope some logic is still there.

EDIT: I'm contrasting with the accusations against unnamed Hollywood "power players" from Corey Feldman not too long ago, about which a lot of his co-workers said, "Yes, everyone knew they were being abused." That sort of corroboration would certainly help solidify the accusations against Singer, I should think.

For what it is worth, one of the other people being accused (and whose home the incident occurred at) has already plead guilty to sex with a minor and fled the jurisdiction. So the claims of sexual abuse are not without credence.

Sovereign Court

i can't even bring myself to read the whole article... wow... rich and powerful people grabbing servants' asses and telling them "you know we're rich and s@#*"... this is breaking news indeed and has probably never happened in history!

I mean, some people have perfect bodies, some people are rich, some people have power; sometimes people lacking one of these things have another one of these things to offer in exchange. Sometimes people that have one or more of these things are known to lack morality... I heard it happens.


meatrace wrote:
Krensky wrote:

Yeah, I read the article.

Did the act happen in California or Hawaii. I couldn't find any info on it in that article or a cursory search.

Age of consent in the former is 18, in the later its 16.

The reason the lawsuit was filed in Hawaii was because the act alleged took place in Hawaii.

Since this wasn't filed in criminal court AFAIK this is probably just an attempt to extort money or get media attention.

Jurisdiction in a civil case is wherever the defendant can be found. That's why it was filed in Hawaii. Singer lives there.

There can be concurrent jurisdiction in civil cases which may include where the act occurred, or in the case of businesses where there are sufficient ties to the locus. Civil jurisdiction is a complicated thing. If you have specific questions you should always contact an attorney.

Criminal jurisdiction almost always has to be in the location in which the crime was committed.


Alex Smith 908 wrote:


Sorry for poor wording. A better version is "Sex with a significantly imbalanced power dynamic runs the risk of being rape. Using this power dynamic to coerce someone into sex or using this power dynamic to create false pretenses that necessitate sex is definitely rape." Thus the line "I'm a doctor" is edging into uncomfortable territory. Whereas "I'm an immigration officer" to convince and illegal alien is rape regardless of whether or not you are an immigration officer.

But this is a movie producer, not an immigration officer. Not "paying" him with a movie role is breech of contract, not rape.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Alex Smith 908 wrote:


Sorry for poor wording. A better version is "Sex with a significantly imbalanced power dynamic runs the risk of being rape. Using this power dynamic to coerce someone into sex or using this power dynamic to create false pretenses that necessitate sex is definitely rape." Thus the line "I'm a doctor" is edging into uncomfortable territory. Whereas "I'm an immigration officer" to convince and illegal alien is rape regardless of whether or not you are an immigration officer.

But this is a movie producer, not an immigration officer. Not "paying" him with a movie role is breech of contract, not rape.

He would effectively be the employer in the power dynamic. That's enough to count as rape if the allegations prove to be true.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We've been having a lot of historical underage sex/rape/sexual asault cases against famous people going through the UK courts right now dating back to the 60s, 70s and 80s. What seems to be the clearest thing is that (a) social mores have changed and (b) proving anything beyond reasonable doubt is pretty impossible, and a lot of it seems to lack any credibility, hence a lot of Not Guilty verdicts. This stuff seems to do nothing other than drag people's reputation through the mud for very little gain to anyone, except possibly the media


Indeed. The Polanski case felt quite surreal. It was... Quite a while ago now, and the victim didn't want anything to do with it, as I understood it.

1 to 50 of 93 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Movies / Bryan singer accused of evil things All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.