Kesha Lying Under Oath Explained

[js4754394o9823 6,882]

d

[js4754394o9823 6,882]

f

[CheapGin 561]

1 hour ago, SharGaga said:

I don't like either of them. People forget Gaga got a psychotic break because of a deposition. The only reason she had to go for a deposition is because Kesha lied about Katy being r***d in texts with Gaga. She didn't need to make up those lies as Gaga already supported and believed her. She didn't have to put Gaga in that spot but I guess guilty until proven innocent

It was actually an Interscope executive who told Gaga that Katy was assaulted by Luke.

[CheapGin 561]

1 hour ago, Pineapple said:

Who actually is the victim? Is there a victim? Are they both victims? I think that’s what some posters are trying to identify. 

Kesha is obviously the victim of power and manipulation at the very least

[Natalia Kills 378]

On 4/12/2023 at 3:32 PM, CheapGin said:

Kesha is obviously the victim of power and manipulation at the very least

That's realistically for the court to decide, not folks like us.

[alfio 97]

It is a lot harder to prove assault, especially sexual assault and verbal abuse. This is not just about the mental toll on the victim recounting the hurtful events that happened to them. 

The courts can only do their job of assessing proof- strong, hard proof like medical assessments and records after the fact. This is why we cannot "trust" the courts in this case. Sexual assault and verbal abuse typically do not have that and would just end up to a he said, she said. It's hard to assess evidence and probability of an abuse with the current workings of the court.

Dr. Luke already has an abusive reputation among Hollywood circles, but the court also cannot just judge him based on that. This is why he can run from it. Not to mention those who want this to be over with and keep everything hush hush bec the producer makes hits for the label.

Pretty sure Kesha was told by her lawyers how hard would this be, but still went with the courts and went public with it so she can renegotiate with Sony, so she won't be working with and see her abuser ever again.

[hELXIG 42,853]

If they don't hurry up and settle this in court before AI advances any further they will soon be able to create fake voice messages from her using a database of her talking in interviews and nothing will be provable 

[tigerteeth 660]

On 4/12/2023 at 5:34 PM, LoliLux said:

None of us knows the truth, yet  a large part of the pop music fandom treats Dr Luke as a criminal despite no conviction because he is an Older White Men and Employer, and Kesha is Young and a Woman and somehow an Employee, and [lots of] people somehow want to believe than an Older White men must be guilty if a young woman says so even if judges arrive at another conclusion. The Dr Luke vs Kesha case is a prime example of how people belonging to the same group prefer to believe the words of their own group rather than being unprejudiced.

I have been initially impartial but after the years went by I stopped believing Kesha after she self-assuredly said multiple times  - with much media attention and for the media -  that she has evidence, yet in court it turned out that none of her self-declared evidences meets the critieria of a real evidence and everything was rightfully dismissed and any rational person would have known that these "notes" cannot serve as evidence and therefore would not present them as such in advance for the media. Only people whose intention is to destroy a reputation would act that way, I believe. The case has similarities to Amber Heard, yet we cannot conclude from Amber Heard to another case because each case is unique and to be treated individually.

Her goal probably has been to destroy the reputation of Dr Luke b/c she was trapped in oppressive contracts and she had other visions of her future career that Dr Luke did not allow.

It would be better if the music business had more employee-friendly laws that temporarily limit the time an artist has to serve under her/his employer, so that artistis won't be put into this miserable position in first place nad has more freedom to change his or her musical projects.

That being said I don't know the truth, Kesha may be a blatant liar. Or Dr. Luke may be a monster. Both can be victims in different ways and the situation is really hard. This was a case for the American Justice System and they ruled that Kesha's accusations have irregularities and are not proven, so I don't consider Dr Luke to be a rapist. People shouldn't either blame Kim Petras for working with him, I read these accusation a lot on her twitter. Kim Petras surely also checked this case carefully before she signed to Dr Luke and decided in an unprejudiced way.

 

 

Well said and thanks for your view on the matter at hand!

[MonsterofFame 1,785]

The problem I have with Dr. Luke is that he is a narcissistic and manipulative liar. He was forcing Kesha to sing slutty songs and act like a ***** when she didn't want to anymore. It almost seems like a form of sexual assault. He threatened her and verbally abused her.

There's a long list of celebrities who don't like him and said he's a very arrogant and nasty person.. Sharon Osborne, Pink, Miley, Kelly Clarkson, Becky G. Not a single person in the industry came forward to defend Luke's character as a person. That says a lot.

I do think he deserves every bit of destruction he got to his career. 

Such a shame, because I do believe he is the best producer of the 2010's.

[sillynate 6,170]

5 hours ago, Helxig said:

Mods delete this comment 

Why you gotta come up in here and give them ideas? 

[VTV 12,779]

Do we know when and at what point Gaga went to Dr Luke's studio and saw Kesha?

[Future Lovers 6,747]

8 hours ago, Pineapple said:

That's realistically for the court to decide, not folks like us.

And it’s attitudes like this that allow abusers to get away with it. 

Luke is a rich white straight man, he will be protected at all costs. A court is unfortunately not impartial as people seem to like to believe they are. If you have influence, you can get away with whatever you want.

A court said OJ was innocent, but are we really going to pretend that was correct? 

[Vaporwave 4]

6 hours ago, alfio said:

It is a lot harder to prove assault, especially sexual assault and verbal abuse. This is not just about the mental toll on the victim recounting the hurtful events that happened to them. 

The courts can only do their job of assessing proof- strong, hard proof like medical assessments and records after the fact. This is why we cannot "trust" the courts in this case. Sexual assault and verbal abuse typically do not have that and would just end up to a he said, she said. It's hard to assess evidence and probability of an abuse with the current workings of the court.

Dr. Luke already has an abusive reputation among Hollywood circles, but the court also cannot just judge him based on that. This is why he can run from it. Not to mention those who want this to be over with and keep everything hush hush bec the producer makes hits for the label.

Pretty sure Kesha was told by her lawyers how hard would this be, but still went with the courts and went public with it so she can renegotiate with Sony, so she won't be working with and see her abuser ever again.

This is actually a pretty common misconception about how courts work. In criminal cases at least, a large portion of what the courts do is determine guilt in ‘he said, she said’ situations. Witness evidence is still evidence, and often it can be the only type of evidence available - meaning plenty of convictions have to be made on the basis of witness evidence alone. It’s the jury’s job to decide whether the testimony is believable, often without any ‘strong, hard proof’ to guide things one way or another, and as long as they have satisfied themselves that the crime is beyond reasonable doubt based on that witness evidence then they can make a conviction.

Even where there is ‘hard evidence’, a competent defence will attempt to weave it into the narrative of the defendant’s case in a way that is believable - meaning you’re once again back in a situation where the credibility of the defendant vs the opposing witnesses is really the deciding factor. It’s actually become an issue in a lot of criminal cases that juries are less and less willing to convict on witness testimony alone since TV shows glamorise criminal investigations and make it seem like there should be DNA evidence gathered at every crime scene and clear, forensic proof before a conviction can be made. The realities of police work and a lack of public funding for prosecutors mean that this kind of evidence gathering and meticulous case handling is not available in the majority of cases, and the standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ has to be met without that kind of ‘hard proof’.

The good news is that ‘believability’ isn’t just a gut feeling that the judges and jurors have to decide on - it involves a complex assessment of each side’s narrative looking for internal contradictions, inaccuracies in the story, parts where a person’s documented actions or behaviour don’t line up with what is claimed, previous statements made by them to friends and family, whether their narrative has shifted over the course of the proceedings, whether there is contemporaneous evidence to support or oppose their narrative, whether there is a lack of contemporaneous evidence from which adverse inferences should be drawn, how credible they appear in the witness box, whether what they say in court lines up with what they’ve claimed in their prior statements, how well they perform under cross examination, how adequately they can justify ‘holes’ in their story that are exposed during questioning, how they (and their narrative) react to and account for new evidence that arises during the course of the proceedings, and occasionally whether expert opinion (e.g. psychologists) lends credibility to their narrative or undermines it.

Obviously it’s a lot easier to determine guilt where the evidence is clear and insurmountable, but ‘he said, she said’ situations are the bread and butter of the court system and it’s not realistic to assume that they can’t make effective determinations of guilt without anything more.

[Natalia Kills 378]

3 hours ago, Future Lovers said:

And it’s attitudes like this that allow abusers to get away with it. 

Luke is a rich white straight man, he will be protected at all costs. A court is unfortunately not impartial as people seem to like to believe they are. If you have influence, you can get away with whatever you want.

A court said OJ was innocent, but are we really going to pretend that was correct? 

There’s exceptions of course but the court is probably the most impartial you can get.

I don’t think his gender, race and sexuality are grounds for his criminality, if anything it adds to his case for defamation. The same works in other situations, it’s unfair to assume a black man is more likely to commit a crime by virtue of his skin colour and gender.

For context, I’m not defending him and I suspect something has happened but I don’t think we can make that conclusion with minimal legal experience and not being there to hear the evidence.

If we want to change it, we have to change the policy itself more widely rather than focusing on a high-profile case. The court just serves the law. 

[Economy 49,262]

On 4/12/2023 at 3:28 PM, CheapGin said:

It was actually an Interscope executive who told Gaga that Katy was assaulted by Luke.

Woa. What do we know about this? I did not know this