Case against Bryan Singer dropped

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**LuciusAR**

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/aug/28/bryan-singer-sex-abuse-case-dropped

A 31-year-old man has withdrawn a high-profile lawsuit that accused X-Men director Bryan Singer of sexually abusing him when he was an aspiring teen actor.

Michael Egan filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of the civil lawsuit brought against Singer in April, according to court documents filed in Hawaii.

Singer had filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, calling the claims a “sick, twisted shakedown”. A representative for the director did not immediately respond for comment on Wednesday.

Egan had also filed three other lawsuits claiming he was sexually abused as a teen by entertainment and TV executives Gary Goddard and TV executives David Neuman and Garth Ancier, all of which have been dismissed.

The lawsuit dismissal on Wednesday wrapped up the months-long saga in Hollywood that was initially highly publicised by Egan’s former attorney Jeff Herman.

Herman and fellow lawyer Mark Gallagher, who both represented Egan, resigned from the case last month.

Interesting news here, particularity for X-Men fans. Though if I may ask a quick question as someone who isn't familiar with US law, why exactly is a case of sexual assault being dealt with via a lawsuit? Isn't Sexual Assault a case of criminal law?

**Breotan**

Statute of limitations.

**Kilkrazy**

Does the Stature of Limitations apply to civil lawsuits?

**LuciusAR**

Ah I didn't realise the US operated a Statute of limitations.

We don't have one of these in the UK, hence we are currently pursuing a number of high profile abuse cases based in incidents that allegedly occurred 40 years ago. It's all a bit farcical and illustrates why a Statute of limitations may not actually be such a bad idea.

**Kilkrazy**

To be fair the Statute of Limitations doesn't apply to all crimes, and a serious sex crime might be excepted. Roman Polanski is still on the run from the US, for example..

The problem in the British sex abuse cases is when it comes down to someone's word against someone's else's word, due to lack of other evidence. However the Max Clifford case had some very good supporting evidence as well as the claims of the victims, so that seemed a fair verdict.

I don't believe the case against the Hairy Cornflake, though.

**sebster**

Given this guy's other accusations, his case sounded pretty dodge and this is the best result.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Roman Polanski is still on the run from the US, for example..

I have no idea if the statute of limitations applies to sex crimes like Polanski's, but even if did it wouldn't apply in Polanski's case. He was already convicted of the crime, and skipped out on bail before sentencing.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

The problem in the British sex abuse cases is when it comes down to someone's word against someone's else's word, due to lack of other evidence.

Yep, and not only is one person's word against someone else's, trying to determine who sounds more believable becomes much harder when those people are recalling events from decades ago.

**d-usa**

Another factor might be the jury.

If I recall correctly, in a criminal case you have to convince every single juror that a crime occurred. If one of them isn't convinced then you get a "not guilty".

In a civil case you only need to convince the majority of jury members I think.

Could be wrong though...

**timetowaste85**

The fact that this kid/guy/whatever has cases against 4 separate people is pretty telling. 4 different directors told him "hey, gimme a handy and I'll put you in my movie" followed by "but I'm too young...advantage!!!" I don't buy it. At all. Good to hear the case is dropped. Hope he enjoyed his 15 minutes of fame, and he'd best prepare never to work the spotlight again-I doubt any director will touch him. Literally or figuratively.

**Ouze**

Kilkrazy wrote:
To be fair the Statute of Limitations doesn't apply to all crimes, and a serious sex crime might be excepted. Roman Polanski is still on the run from the US, for example..

The statute of limitations doesn't apply to convicted rapist Roman Polanski. He fled before setencing.

As far as I know the only offense in the United States to which there is no statute of limitations is murder.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oops. I've got to start reading the rest of the responses before posting.