It’s hard to imagine a worse reaction to these accusations…
For those who missed it, back in December Steven Tyler was accused of sexual assault, sexual battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress of a minor. The lawsuit is new, but the incident took place back in 1973. When Tyler was 25, according to the claims, he had a sexual relationship with a girl who had just turned 16 years old. Julia Holcomb says after meeting her at a concert and taking her back to his hotel room, he began taking her all over the country as he toured with Aerosmith in the mid-70s. Their relationship ended, she said, when she got pregnant at 17 — and he forced her to have an abortion.
Now, five decades later, Holcomb, now 66 years old, filed suit due to California temporarily lifting the statute of limitations on childhood sexual abuse allegations. And of course, since she was only 16, this qualifies.
Well, we finally have Tyler’s official response. In legal docs obtained by Rolling Stone, the Love In An Elevator singer basically admits to the behavior he’s accused of. Yes, really! He just takes issue with the characterization of it — oh, and his legal responsibility, of course! Tyler and his legal team issued 24 affirmative defenses to all the accusations — these are reasons why a person would be excused from criminal liability, like say “duress.” They aren’t saying he didn’t do what’s been alleged — just that he’s not liable.
The first big one here is the legal argument that Holcomb’s “claims are barred in whole or in part by Plaintiff’s consent.” By her consent. He’s saying the sex was consensual, so it was OK? She was 16 years old! Legally she couldn’t give consent as the legal age was and is 18 in California. Yes, even in the ’70s.
Besides, that’s not even in dispute. Holcomb’s lawsuit clearly states Tyler “coerced and persuaded Plaintiff into believing this was a ‘romantic love affair.’” So he’s kind of agreeing with her? It’s not the best defense, right?
But here’s the real doozy. The rockstar actually has the cajones to argue the accusations should be discounted “because of immunity or qualified immunity to Defendant as caregiver and/or guardian.” He’s saying he should have immunity against accusations of sexual assault because he was the girl’s LEGAL GUARDIAN?!?
First off, we should note that’s totally accurate. Holcomb points out in her lawsuit that Tyler convinced her mother to let him become her legal guardian, promising to make her go to school and such (which of course he never did, she just toured around with the band). She even points to Tyler’s memoirs in which he previously freely admitted to all this, writing about the time he “almost took a teen bride.” He explained her parents “signed a paper over for me to have custody, so I wouldn’t get arrested if I took her out of state.”
The fact all this happened is NUTS. Obviously. But it’s just as ridiculous he’s trying to use all this as a defense! He was her guardian, so it’s OK he had sex with an underage girl? What is this, the R. Kelly defense? What the eff kind of argument is that anyway? It’s OK for legal guardians to have sex with their charges?? If that were allowed, wouldn’t it just automatically protect every child abusing parent and foster parent??
Attorney Jeff Anderson, representing Holcomb (now Julia Misley), called out the defense as “gaslighting,” accusing Tyler of “using a sham legal guardianship to avoid prosecution for sex crimes.” In a searing statement, he said:
“He’s heaping more pain on Misley and gaslighting her by falsely claiming that she ‘consented’ and that the pain he inflicted was “justified and in good faith. Never have we encountered a legal defense as obnoxious and potentially dangerous as the one that Tyler and his lawyers launched this week: Their claim that legal guardianship is consent and permission for sexual abuse.”
Couldn’t have said it better ourselves. ICK.
Source: Read Full Article
