SoulAlive said:

If this really happened,the lady had many,many years to report it while Rick was still alive.A dead person can’t defend themself.And at this point,what “proof” and evidence could she possibly have? I call bullshit on this.

True.

But some incidents don't get reported by the victim.

TrivialPursuit said:

*accused

It's innocent until proven guilty not the other way around.

luv4u said:

but thats entirely on the victim...if you dont report it when it happens, why wait 40 years? at which point any evidence or credibility has been diluted, diminished or disappeared altogether...smells like a whole lawn full of bullshit.

MotownSubdivision said:

TrivialPursuit said:

Well, just to play the other side, let's not dismiss her claim. Rick is known to be overly aggressive toward women in his life. It's on paper in sworn testimony. There's a responsibility we have to not give stars a pass on shit, and to believe the accuser until they are proven right or wrong. We have to err on their side first, until the truth comes out.

*accused It's innocent until proven guilty not the other way around.

Actually, no. We don't give a possible criminal the benefit of the doubt. We have a responsibility to believe the victim - assume they're telling the truth - until we can prove either they're telling the truth or that they're lying.

No one hears someone say, "I was raped," and then think "Well, we'll see about that!" Not sorry, but the assumption of innocence is for a court, not an investigation, especially in a case like sexual assault or rape. If a woman showed up bleeding, bruised, and clearly in distress, would anyone with a brain say, "Clean yourself up and tell me what happened?" No, we'd assume she didn't do it to herself, and we'd immediately help her. If she said, "that man over there just raped me," would someone say, "I don't know that, what proof do you have?"

!!!!!

Pokeno4Money said:

That's a wellbalanced, reasonable approach ... I like it!

For me, a big factor would be ... why did it take so long for the alleged victim to come forward? If they just recently discovered new evidence, okay cool. If not, I would probably be more suspicious.

I didn't know that about the military, learned something new - thank you!

Unfortunately, the world was quite different in 1979 than it is in 2020. There weren't avenues to talk about sexual abuse or rape like there are today. Not that women didn't speak up, but in 1979, women were barely able to have a credit card or charge card in their name much less be believed about rape. So for a 15-year-old, in that world, to be raped and possibly believe she had no way to report it or be believed, she probably internalized it. That can lead to PTSD, drug use, alcoholism, or suicide. For someone to hide in shame for a long time - not so unusual. It doesn't negate or lessen her experience. There's no timeline on this stuff. We don't know anything about her, yet.

I don't know who "they" are, but we have to hear from the victim here. Can they find other band members, management, friends, whoever that can corroborate the story? Is there anything that can put James there at that time? I mean, it's a good time for the proverbial blue dress to show up.

On a larger note:
I'm just not giving anyone a pass on sexual abuse or rape, not even a dead man. Fuck it if he's not here to defend himself. The act still happened, and doesn't get erased just cuz he died. Doesn't work that way.

TrivialPursuit said:

Unfortunately, the world was quite different in 1979 than it is in 2020. There weren't avenues to talk about sexual abuse or rape like there are today. Not that women didn't speak up, but in 1979, women were barely able to have a credit card or charge card in their name much less be believed about rape. So for a 15-year-old, in that world, to be raped and possibly believe she had no way to report it or be believed, she probably internalized it. That can lead to PTSD, drug use, alcoholism, or suicide. For someone to hide in shame for a long time - not so unusual. It doesn't negate or lessen her experience. There's no timeline on this stuff. We don't know anything about her, yet.

I don't know who "they" are, but we have to hear from the victim here. Can they find other band members, management, friends, whoever that can corroborate the story? Is there anything that can put James there at that time? I mean, it's a good time for the proverbial blue dress to show up.

On a larger note:
I'm just not giving anyone a pass on sexual abuse or rape, not even a dead man. Fuck it if he's not here to defend himself. The act still happened, and doesn't get erased just cuz he died. Doesn't work that way.

Well the burden of proof is definitely on her, as it should be. Nobody should be found guilty based just on prior reputation. Like you said, let's see if she's got concrete evidence or if it's just a nothingburger.

TrivialPursuit said:

You're partly right. The thing is this is an accusation that's over 40, almost 50 years in the making. Whatever evidence there could be lies mostly in this woman's word. On top of that, the alleged perpetrator has been dead for almost 20 years now.

We should not just assume she's telling the truth, especially considering the circumstances.
[Edited 2/21/20 13:08pm]

MotownSubdivision said:

TrivialPursuit said:

Actually, no. We don't give a possible criminal the benefit of the doubt. We have a responsibility to believe the victim - assume they're telling the truth - until we can prove either they're telling the truth or that they're lying.

No one hears someone say, "I was raped," and then think "Well, we'll see about that!" Not sorry, but the assumption of innocence is for a court, not an investigation, especially in a case like sexual assault or rape. If a woman showed up bleeding, bruised, and clearly in distress, would anyone with a brain say, "Clean yourself up and tell me what happened?" No, we'd assume she didn't do it to herself, and we'd immediately help her. If she said, "that man over there just raped me," would someone say, "I don't know that, what proof do you have?"

!!!!!

You're partly right. The thing is this is an accusation that's over 40, almost 50 years in the making. Whatever evidence there could be lies mostly in this woman's word. On top of that, the alleged perpetrator has been dead for almost 20 years now. We should not just assume she's telling the truth based on these circumstances. [Edited 2/21/20 10:38am]

What if she has jizz-stained clothing or something, that would be enough evidence probably. That shit don't go away after half a cent, trust me!!

Pokeno4Money said:

If she actually possesses that then it definitely counts for something. Still, I'll withhold any deeper belief in her claims until actual evidence can be brought to light.
[Edited 2/29/20 12:58pm]

It’s like those two guys who are now going after Michael Jackson.They could have said something when he was alive,but they choose to go after him when he is not here to defend himself how convenient,huh?

On a side note....I can now see why Prince’s estate didn’t approve “those two songs” for the 1999 deluxe edition.Any woman come come forward and make a claim against him,using those songs as part of their “evidence”

SoulAlive said:

...what songs?

SoulAlive said:

On a side note....I can now see why Prince’s estate didn’t approve “those two songs” for the 1999 deluxe edition.Any woman come come forward and make a claim against him,using those songs as part of their “evidence”

Oh come on now ... I do hope you're being facetious!

MotownSubdivision said:

I'm sure SoulAlive is talking about "Extra Loveable" and "Lust U Always" because both songs use the word rape in them.

Phase3 said:

MotownSubdivision said:

...what songs?

I'm sure SoulAlive is talking about "Extra Loveable" and "Lust U Always" because both songs use the word rape in them.

yep,those are the two songs that I'm talking about.Both tracks are excellent,but in this day and age,you gotta be careful

If they’re too rapey, I’m glad they were kept off and prince was right to not release them though at the same time he was a misogynist in his early days and got away with a lot.

alphastreet said:

If they’re too rapey, I’m glad they were kept off and prince was right to not release them though at the same time he was a misogynist in his early days and got away with a lot.

Unfortunately in the 80's rape was tolerated somewhat. One band even had album artwork depicting a female cartoon rape victim.

As for those two songs, Prince should have just removed those few lyrics. That's what's been done with a lot of popular songs that had offensive words. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Women THREW Themselves @ Rick! I HIGHLY DOUBT IT!!!!!

woogiebear said:

That doesn't mean he couldn't have raped one of them.