There was PLENTY of substaniation in the R. Kelly case. In fact, there was enough to convict him.

In THIS situation, which is nothing like the R. Kelly case, there are at least 2 people that could corroborate the story, and who knows, maybe somewhere in the 9hrs they do, but we haven't seen or heard about it, so....

As a now old woman who grew up with a physically abusive father and faced physical abuse in an adult relationship I say to Jill Jones and company, show the receipts. If you are going to accuse a dead man who can't defend himself decades later then prove it. Back up your allegations with evidence or shut up.

purplethunder3121 said:

As a now old woman who grew up with a physically abusive father and faced physical abuse in an adult relationship I say to Jill Jones and company, show the receipts. If you are going to accuse a dead man who can't defend himself decades later then prove it. Back up your allegations with evidence or shut up.

So gross.

FancyLesbian said:

purplethunder3121 said:

As a now old woman who grew up with a physically abusive father and faced physical abuse in an adult relationship I say to Jill Jones and company, show the receipts. If you are going to accuse a dead man who can't defend himself decades later then prove it. Back up your allegations with evidence or shut up.

So gross.

Unsubstantiated allegations especially against a dead person. male or female, are "gross."

FancyLesbian said:

purplethunder3121 said:

As a now old woman who grew up with a physically abusive father and faced physical abuse in an adult relationship I say to Jill Jones and company, show the receipts. If you are going to accuse a dead man who can't defend himself decades later then prove it. Back up your allegations with evidence or shut up.

So gross.

Clearly some of us believe in "innocent until PROVEN guilty" while you believe in "guilty IF accused" which is beyond "gross". It's downright disgusting.

In my not-so-humble opinion, of course.

djThunderfunk said:

FancyLesbian said:

So gross.

Clearly some of us believe in "innocent until PROVEN guilty" while you believe in "guilty IF accused" which is beyond "gross". It's downright disgusting.

In my not-so-humble opinion, of course.

This isn't a court of law, and no one is pressing charges. I believe if you knee jerk don't believe someone when they say they were assauted, you better have something to back that up. It's not like Jill Jones is some rando who is suddenly suspicious.

FancyLesbian said:

djThunderfunk said:

Clearly some of us believe in "innocent until PROVEN guilty" while you believe in "guilty IF accused" which is beyond "gross". It's downright disgusting.

In my not-so-humble opinion, of course.

This isn't a court of law, and no one is pressing charges. I believe if you knee jerk don't believe someone when they say they were assauted, you better have something to back that up. It's not like Jill Jones is some rando who is suddenly suspicious.

Reply #449: I said: "I'm not saying she's lying. I believe her, actually. But my belief or your feelings don't make it truth."

If someone says they were assaulted, they better have something to back that up.
It's not like Prince is someone known for being violent towards women.

See how that works?

FancyLesbian said:

I think it's really gross to call Jill Jones' claims "unsubstantiated". They are substantied by her. There's no reason to think she's lying. Can we just not do that, ya'll? Whatever anyone decides to do with that information is a seperate issue.

So if Prince was accused of killing or having someone killed and all there is to support the claim is the word of someone who can't offer details into the circumstances around the allegation, should people accept the accusation sight unseen simply because the person has no reason to lie? Version of events is not the same as the truth.

bashraka said:

FancyLesbian said:

I think it's really gross to call Jill Jones' claims "unsubstantiated". They are substantied by her. There's no reason to think she's lying. Can we just not do that, ya'll? Whatever anyone decides to do with that information is a seperate issue.

So if Prince was accused of killing or having someone killed and all there is to support the claim is the word of someone who can't offer details into the circumstances around the allegation, should people accept the accusation sight unseen simply because the person has no reason to lie? Version of events is not the same as the truth.

Typically people who are killed can't give firsthand accounts of what someone did to them. Let Jill Jones describe what happened to her

It is insane seeing a token very vocal few folks making up every exuse in the book to handwave the idea that Prince was a fallable human being who made errors. That is definitely manifesting in some folk's strong desire for the documentary to be blocked

[Edited 10/3/24 22:16pm]

I don't have any reason not to believe Jill (Sheila would be another story...), but this is something that happened 40 years ago and that, unless I'm mistaken, was never mentioned before. It's reasonable to be at least just a little bit skeptical. As djThunderfunk says, Prince was not known to be violent. A complete asshole sometimes, yes, but not violent.

olb99 said:

I don't have any reason not to believe Jill (Sheila would be another story...), but this is something that happened 40 years ago and that, unless I'm mistaken, was never mentioned before. It's reasonable to be at least just a little bit skeptical. As djThunderfunk says, Prince was not known to be violent. A complete asshole sometimes, yes, but not violent.

.
Let me just add a couple of thoughts:
– criminal history is full of people who weren't known to be able to do bad things, yet, at some point, for some reason, they committed something bad.
– victims of abuse often struggle for decades with what happened to them, and in many cases, it can take a whole lifetime for them to go from "it was my fault" to "I'm just the victim, it was their doing"
– P shouldn't get 'cancelled' but I strongly believe Jill has the right to tell her truth the way she lived it
.
Ask yourself: if P would've accused someone unknown with something bad, we probably would've believed him, right? After all he's famous and talented and all that, and we're his fans. This bias towards him is now making it harder for us to take Jill's word, but I believe we have to. I just accept it as one of the bad things he did, but I know about plenty of good things he's done too that far outweights the bad, and that's before I even start viewing him as an artist.

djThunderfunk said:

If someone says they were assaulted, they better have something to back that up.
It's not like Prince is someone known for being violent towards women.

.

He litterally beats a woman in Purple Rain.

FancyLesbian said:

djThunderfunk said:

Clearly some of us believe in "innocent until PROVEN guilty" while you believe in "guilty IF accused" which is beyond "gross". It's downright disgusting.

In my not-so-humble opinion, of course.

This isn't a court of law, and no one is pressing charges. I believe if you knee jerk don't believe someone when they say they were assauted, you better have something to back that up. It's not like Jill Jones is some rando who is suddenly suspicious.

Burden of proof is on the person making a claim, in this case Jill Jones. Everybody has a right to BELIEVE something no proof or evidence needed for that.
I believe something happened but some who've seen the doc have said she made her claims bigger over the years. I don;t know and honestly don't really care, she pounded on him and he pounded back, it is what it is.

funkbabyandthebabysitters said:

He did permit the pr sde, underrated here, which says something.

.

He did not. It was part of the 2014 deal, but he obviously sabotaged it and what we got was compiled after his death.

databank said:

Similarly, the homophobic incident with Wendy & Lisa was upsetting to us at the time, but we also know that except for his brief period as a fanatic Jeovah's Witness, Prince was mostly a progressive and liberal person who wrote Uptown's lyrics, spent years fooling the world into believing he was gay and usually didn't care about his collaborators' sexual orientation.

.

I recall that there was some reporting that he also uttered homophobic slurs on occasion in the 1980s; let's not forget that Prince grew up a Seventh Day Adventists and those aren't exactly progressive people.

.

bizzie said:

He litterally beats a woman in Purple Rain.

I guess djThunderfunk was thinking about actual, real violence, and not fictional violence in a movie.

Kares said:

Ask yourself: if P would've accused someone unknown with something bad, we probably would've believed him, right? After all he's famous and talented and all that, and we're his fans. This bias towards him is now making it harder for us to take Jill's word, but I believe we have to. I just accept it as one of the bad things he did, but I know about plenty of good things he's done too that far outweights the bad, and that's before I even start viewing him as an artist.

You're right. We should listen to what Jill has to say and take her seriously.

I'm not sure I have a bias towards believing Prince more than people around him, though. The way he described reality was often - let's say - creative...

bizzie said:

djThunderfunk said:

If someone says they were assaulted, they better have something to back that up.
It's not like Prince is someone known for being violent towards women.

.

He litterally beats a woman in Purple Rain.

can't believe this has to be said but...he is literally acting in a movie