Skip to content


A former Penthouse magazine model sued Guns N’ Roses singer Axl Rose on Wednesday, claiming he raped her in a 1989 attack at a New York hotel that left her with anxiety and depression and harmed her career.

Everyone’s going to get a fair trial at this late date, right?

12 thoughts on “1989?”

  1. The lawsuit was filed against Rose, 61, of Malibu, California, under a temporary New York law, the Adult Survivors Act, that lets adult victims sue over attacks that occurred even decades ago. The law expires after Thursday.

    How timely that she remembered she’d been “raped” back in 1989 before this Thursday’s deadline came up.

    What’s the point of having a statute of limitations if they’re going to pull this sort of procedural stunt to dredge allegations up after decades which precludes any possibility of a fair trial.

    “Mr. Rose, what were you doing on the evening of 20th March 1989 between 7PM and the following morning at 7AM.”

    “Dunno, but drugs is a big possibility”.

    Nonsense on stilts.

  2. Me Too, Harvey Weinstein….means that Something had to be Done. This is the Something that was Done.

    Everybody wins: politicians who passed the law (look at how we did something noble), the Authorities who carried it out (see we’re not as bad as we used to be), the pressure groups (proves there was a problem, keep the funding going while we sort the rest of it out), endless columnists who score an easy article, victims who might get a settlement….sorry Axl, you’re outnumbered. Your Rights have to be balanced against other peoples feelings.

    If you want a picture of the future, Winston, imagine a boot^h^h^h^h lawbook stamping on a (specially selected) human face – for ever.

  3. Isn’t this the law which specifies that in order to be prosecuted it is a requirement that your surname is Trump?

    Thus I think Mr Rose is safe from prosecution…..

  4. “But the victims did not come forward until ‘many years’ later, by which time Jones was ‘in the public eye’ as a result of becoming a successful entrepreneur.”

    The trial will hear evidence about the different drugs that Jones may have used based on the women’s accounts.

    WTF? He’s found guilty and then they look at drug likelihoods?

    . . .
    “Jones’s barrister highlighted how Women C and D only came forward after the business grew to become ‘of some financial worth’.”

    That’s two other women. An unfortunate pattern.

  5. Her career as what? *Some* women did *separate* spreads in Playboy (not Penthouse) as part of a long-term popularity thing.

    But if you were a Playboy/Penthouse model – well, that was your peak baby. You had your 15 minutes.

  6. Didn’t they pass this exemption just to allow someone to sue Trump, doubt this will make
    Liberals realise that creating weapons to attack your enemies is dangerous

  7. His defence should be “I fucked a lot of pretty girls in the 80’s and 90’s. Probably ugly ones too. Playboy or Penthouse centre folds? Perhaps but I don’t remember any, as in I don’t remember any of the girls. I certainly don’t remember ever having met or seen her in a magazine. It was a long long time ago. All I can remember is that those decades were fun”

  8. @ AndyF

    A vague memory is not much of a defence against a specific accusation. Better to say he knows for sure he didn’t rape any of the people he had sex with, because not rapist. Then it doesn’t matter if he doesn’t remember every particular person.

  9. This sort of case frightens me because I don’t know how one could defend it. All one could do was say, Yes I did have sex with her but it was consensual. No, I can’t prove it because there was no-one else there and it was forty years ago. No, I can’t speculate on why she says I raped her, because I haven’t seen her for forty years and have no idea what sort of person she is now.

    Actually these days it’s not so much myself I’m frightened for but my sons. Something like this could happen to just about any man who has been sexually active. And in general there is no way of discovering the truth. If I were on a jury in any such case I would acquit automatically even if I thought the guy was probably guilty. Because you cannot know for sure.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *