WHY DIDN'T JEORDIE SUE?
This is a point that I have seen Jessicka, her husband and her supporters continuously hold against him. It's always ”He knows he did it, he didn't even deny it and he didn't sue us either!!” And well, since very often these points they like to use against Jeordie have lead me to discover even more proof of his innocence, I decided to look into this.
First of all, he denied it. I don't understand how him making a formal statement about it has been somehow missed by Jessicka. He did deny it. Though it was a vague statement, but it's very obvious what "I do not condone non consensual sex of any kind" means. The statement obviously was written with the advice of an attorney, do you expect me to believe that if he'd said "I didn't do it." that it would have in any way changed anything? It would've just made Jessicka go after him harder, guessing by how she's made this her full time job. When Marilyn Manson denied the allegations against him, did it stop the public beating? No. You really expect me to believe this wouldn't have just turned into a "Well of course he would deny it he doesn't want to be held accountable." sort of a discussion? That's what they always say. And suing for defamation is also an "admission of guilt, an abuser silencing a victim" now, according to feminists following the MM and JD cases so I don't really see what argument this "he didn't sue, he didn't deny" even is, it wouldn't matter to these people if he did.
03.06.2022 addition. Johnny Depp won his defamation case against Amber Heard. He was able to prove in court that Amber made false claims with malicious intent. I was sent screenshots of Jessicka retweeting tweets that showed vague support to Amber. Even if Jeordie sued, even if he won, it'd just be "flawed justice system" and whatever. "He didn't sue" is officially just a bunch of noise and rubbing it in Jeordie's face that it's hard for him to clear his name. I was sent for example this screenshot from the day after the Johnny Depp case verdict was final.
Jessicka additionally has claimed that Jeordie said he "doesn't remember that" which is not true and that whole issue is discussed on the can't remember page. But in claiming he'd stated so, isn't that a denial in itself? At least a "Not that I'm aware of?" Just that well he didn't say that, but had he, what would it exactly mean?
You can google this too the headlines are either "responds to" or "denies allegations." Depending on the source, but clearly a lot of people understood it as him denying it and I'm not the only one.
The truth most likely is that Jeordie didn't sue them because he can't. I imagined the answer would be something like this as his girlfriend in a post on her instagram (included on this page) stated that he has ”lost his voice along with the right to prove his innocence.” I was thinking, what could it be that somehow disables him from suing?
I don't know how Americans don't seem to understand this. What's going on is that the freedom of speech laws in California are strict, and if he sued for defamation, he could get an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) case against him. As in, if he didn't have enough proof, it could be seen as him trying to intimidate Jessicka out of accusing him and he could be sued for that. Suing her would just be a big risk.
Excerpt from wikipedia sorry I'm too lazy to edit out the wikipedia source links just deal with it okay:
A strategic lawsuit against public participation (also known as a SLAPP suit or intimidation lawsuit) is one intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.
In the typical SLAPP, the plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs, or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organization's ability to operate. A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is often preceded by a legal threat. SLAPPs bring about freedom of speech concerns due to their chilling effect and are often difficult to filter out and penalize because the plaintiffs attempt to obfuscate their intent to censor, intimidate, or silence their critics.
To protect freedom of speech some jurisdictions have passed anti-SLAPP laws (often called SLAPP-back laws). These laws often function by allowing a defendant to file a motion to strike and/or dismiss on the grounds that the case involves protected speech on a matter of public concern. The plaintiff then bears the burden of showing a probability that they will prevail. If the plaintiffs fail to meet their burden their claim is dismissed and the plaintiffs may be required to pay a penalty for bringing the case.
”You said he has no proof you said it yourself!!” Well, neither does Jessicka. And since he hasn't really commented on this much more we can't know how much proof he could actually have. Could have quite a lot of receipts but maybe he thought it'd be too much stress to even try, you have seen how hard Johnny Depp has had to fight to prove his innocence. This, and why this ”he didn't sue” part is included in this timing of the allegations section, is because I think this was part of the plan. She knows very well how hard it is to disprove historical claims of sexual assault and how the public's sympathy would be on her side.
If you read the previous page, 2013-2017, it seems that Jessicka very clearly saw the Jackie Fox rape scandal and then later the #metoo discussion as an opportunity to get back at Jeordie for the whole stolen dress claim and having that fling with Courtney Love in 1994. The Jackie Fox case likely gave her an idea, that maybe if she accuses Jeordie of rape and abuse that allegedly took place decades ago, she could have him ”cancelled” and get the upper hand in her decades of competition and grudges against Jeordie. 2007 page and the Big Machine page explain how she had a problem with Jeordie only after his return to Marilyn Manson and how in the 2000s she'd had a perfect chance to come out with her story but didn't because her problem was the Twiggy persona and Jeordie dropped it in the 2000s.
Then she has these excuses why she didn't come forward earlier, be it the record label or whatever, that she didn't sue him because she doesn't want his money or whatever. As you can read on the pages of this timing of the allegations section, her story doesn't actually stay together at all, nor does it really make any sense. It's the classic ”Everyone saw it and witnessed everything but I only remembered it now and no one knew at all because it was a secret thing that happened behind closed doors but everyone knew but no one knew.” Classic repressed memories point is of course mentioned too.
And with the case of her witness, as you can read on the Pete page, it comes through that the narrative is that their witness Pete witnessed the rape but kept being friends with Jeordie for years until Jessicka told him he'd witnessed a rape and only then did Pete end his friendship with Jeordie as knowing this about him was too much... Like he apparently witnessed it but waited decades to be told about it. Not only that but he was conveniently left partially unnamed because there's a photo of him with Jeordie "one of his best friends" easily available online.
But the thing is, what comes through very well is that Jessicka took to social media instead of the authorities simply for this reason: Social media and the #metoo discussion offered an instant conviction without any need for proof. The social discussion and the public outcry inverted the situation so that the responsibility to provide proof was only put on Jeordie.
See, if she'd tried to sue Jeordie, proving any of this would be very hard anyway, but especially as there'd be multiple witnesses heard, people from the times. The responsibility to prove the claims would fall on Jessicka and she could absolutely not prove this ever happened. Because it didn't and the reasons why I believe it didn't are all on this site. The stolen dress claim for example in itself is provably a complete lie and it being a lie means the rest of her statement has no credibility whatsoever.
But on social media she doesn't have to prove anything, especially when she delivers the story in a tearful ”I couldn't get justice then I'm going to social media and making this public now because I couldn't get justice otherwise.” There are people who have done this who have been genuine, she is really just ruining their chances of getting taken seriously here.
So as she publishes her claims on social media, as I said, it offers an instant conviction. There is no jury, there is no evidence, there are no witnesses to be heard, there is no investigation. She can say anything she wants and it will be seen as true.
And the situation turns completely upside down now, where the accused suddenly is the only one who's expected to prove his claims. This is not how criminal convictions go! This is not how it should be handled. If even saying ”Innocent until proven guilty” is ”rape apologist”, this world has gone completely mad. It should not be "guilty until proven innocent" and I don't see why I'm a bad person for saying this because "Innocent until proven guilty" would benefit Jessicka too?
Jeordie has been completely disabled from defending himself. If he sued Jessicka for defamation, he would have to have bulletproof evidence that this stuff didn't happen. Or else he'd be seen as trying to intimidate the poor victim Jessicka into not telling her story. This is a completely inverted situation isn't it. But this doesn't mean he's not innocent or that he didn't consider suing. Maybe he just saw it as too big of a risk really.
And I think Jessicka's story is written with this in mind. There is actually nothing to respond to. There are no dates for example, the timeline is very vague. Everything is very vague. She doesn't name anything really and a lot of the situations are described so that there was no one around. All of the claims are something that would be impossible to prove now as so much time has passed.
An actual lawsuit would be something that has dates and times, everything is very specifically laid out and the investigators try to build a very detailed picture of what exactly happened and who were there so witnesses and the accused can respond to the claims.
There's nothing to respond to, he doesn't know what Jessicka means. He's not given a ”when” or ”where” literally at any point. There are no dates, no nothing, there is no chance for him to go ”See I have this flight ticket I actually was in Brazil on that day” because there is nothing that he could respond to. It took me multiple reads to figure out the timeline of when these things would have allegedly happened. It's a completely made up story and the timeline is a mess that doesn't make any sense, it would be a complete nightmare trying to gather the amount of evidence that this would need. But the responsibility for proof is not his!!!! Its Jessicka who is responsible to prove these things, she is the accuser.
And by the looks of it she knows her claims don't hold up because she pretty much searches out people who try to defend Jeordie and threatens them with lawsuits while going "I don't need to explain anything, I don't need to prove anything! Think of how much it hurts my feelings that you're questioning my story!" Well no you don't need to, I never asked you, but then accept that people won't believe a story that doesn't add up.
Jeordie didn't sue because he can't. Jessicka constantly reminding us that he didn't sue just means that she's holding that against him and wrote her terrible fanfiction so vaguely with the intention that there's nothing to respond to. She can't prove those things either so how could Jeordie prove in court they didn't happen? You can try to imagine yourself into this kind of a situation, someone stating that in 1994 you did something, where would you start? What would you do? Well I could show my ID and say I wasn't born yet at the time but you know what I mean.
Like for example: Someone followed me home and tried to get into my apartment while going "I know you live alone, let me in, I have been watching you." I was fucking terrified. How do you know this happened or not? How would I prove it happened? How would they prove it didn't? This was a year ago on valentine's day. Now if I claimed this was Jessicka in a vague timeline like fall 2012 for example.... How would she prove it didn't happen? I give no location, date, no nothing. This isn't a simple issue at all, but you can't just decide that "Ok this person spoke first and also emotionally manipulated me to feel bad for them so they are telling the truth". I don't believe a thing Jessicka said because besides the things that are impossible to prove, there are lies, conveniently leaving details out, intentional misleading and exaggerations - her credibility is gone. I can't trust her word.
This only further convinced me that something's not right. Had she actually been abused by Jeordie and was looking for justice through social media and different media outlets... Put yourself into the shoes of such a person. This kind of a person would absolutely not try to twist things, they would maintain their story without adding to it constantly. This kind of a person would try their best to be taken seriously. If you compare the online behavior of Jeordie and Jessicka relating to this issue, it's actually Jeordie who has acted more like a victim of abuse would; Just say what needs to be said and preserve your dignity by not taking part in it further with online arguing. A victim of abuse has already been humiliated and would not want to pay attention to the subject further.
Jeordie's behavior has been seen by some as an admission of guilt, but I don't think that's the case; more so, why hurt oneself by constantly taking part in a discussion that makes you feel distressed, when the public outcry is not on your side and it would only further hurt you. On the other hand, if he was acting like Jessicka is, he'd be seen as guilty too, he'd be seen as too desperate. When you're deemed "guilty until proven innocent" you can't win the argument.
Not a good comparison but I was an outcast in elementary school and I was accused of cheating in a test, a kid that didn't like me ratted me out to the teacher because I had drawn random stuff on my hands with a marker, she just wanted to get me in trouble. The teacher saw me as a bad kid and didn't need proof to punish me. It did not matter that I actually could prove I didn't cheat. That the drawings in my hands had nothing to do with the test subject. It didn't matter even that there was no need for me to do that as I was pretty good at school, no one wanted to admit to being wrong. Me defending myself was answered to with "Don't try to justify your behavior." until I admitted to doing it just so I could get to go home finally. They couldn't admit that they were wrong because it was "for the greater good" to have that shit go down that way, it showed an example to the others.
"Oh but you can't prove it didn't happen." I can't. I never claimed I could, but a victim of sexual assault would not make up more to the story and while doing so risk their credibility. Sexual assault is always hard to prove especially years later. Had she just said "He raped me" I would have been ready to give it a better chance than with the garbage fire this case has turned to, I originally did go "How could I know, what if? but as more started coming it turned ridiculous. The original facebook posts in 2015 were already ridiculous. I did go through the thought process of "Can I be a fan of his, how am I supposed to react? Can I continue supporting him? Can I support Twiggy if the man behind the character has done something like this? Do I like Twiggy or Jeordie?" but when everything else in the story is so questionable, even provably false, details are left out or change, the impossible to prove parts lose all meaning. If I were in this position, I would not gormandize (I don't know if this expression works in this context in english but you get the point) with the subject.
”He didn't even sue” does NOT mean he's guilty. It just means that he didn't sue and there are valid reasons for him not to. Tired of the Addams' smug ass attitude with everything.
After Jessicka fabricated a story about me, falsely accusing me of crimes, it has been confirmed to me even more than before that she absolutely is a false accuser. A false accuser that used the social discussion and the public's sympathy at the time to ruin someone's life.
And honestly, this "didn't sue" argument can be used against Jessicka too. She has absolutely no grounds to sue a Jeordie fan for saying he's innocent. She always threatens Jeordie's fans with lawsuits when they talk about him being innocent but has never actually taken any legal action because she has no grounds to sue. She has allegedly threatened fans with "I have lawyers through Christian's employment at SONY"
Like as if your husband's employers legal team would take part in online drama that has to do with your personal life.... Pretty sure that a lawyer you have through your employment helps with issues arising from that employment and not with fighting online with people who didn't like your Facebook post.
And what, Jessicka would sue for defamation when someone implies they don't believe her story... Wouldn't she have to prove it to be true then? That implying she's a false accuser is defamation, she'd have to prove she's being genuine? Well that's the thing, she hasn't sued because her claims are bullshit, she can't prove them to start with, and she's all talk and nothing else.
A Facebook post is not a criminal conviction. This should not be a controversial statement.
A Facebook post especially cannot be a criminal conviction if at the same time, Jessicka herself admitting to abusive behavior publicly, or social media comments about her somehow aren't enough. Same rules for everyone. To believe Jessicka you would have to give her the benefit of the doubt all the time, you would have to disregard other people's personal experiences like Laney saying she was not abused. Who would know this better than Laney? Jessicka who has likely never even met her? To believe Jessicka you would have to constantly forget what she's said earlier; you would have to believe she has lied in the past to believe her in the present. You would just have to take her word in literally everything all the time. No. That's not how it works.