The actor was successful in the trial of rape allegations against the rock star.
Los Angeles (did)- Surprisingly, Marilyn Manson dropped the libel lawsuit against his ex-girlfriend Evan Rachel Wood, and the musician also agreed to pay around $327,000. The sum covers the actor’s legal fees.
Serious allegations and counterclaims
Manson, real name Brian Warner, filed the lawsuit in Los Angeles in 2022 against Wood and her friend Illma Gore. He accused them of publicly defaming him as rape and abuse and of encouraging other women to make similar allegations against him.
In 2021, Wood became the first woman to publicly accuse Manson of rape, aggravated sexual abuse and other crimes. Wood shared, among other things, details about the video for “Heart-Shaped Glasses (When The Heart Guides The Hand)”, apparently agreeing “simulated sex scene” to see. But as soon as the cameras were rolling, says Wood, Manson began to affect her.
As a result, other women have come forward with serious allegations of abuse against Manson, including “Game Of Thrones” actress Esmé Bianco who sued Manson. To this day, the rock star denies any guilt and went straight into the legal offensive.
Wood sees success, Manson closes the chapter
Then, in 2023, a judge largely dismissed Manson’s defamation lawsuit against Wood and ordered Manson to pay $500,000 in legal fees and Gore. Manson’s appeal also failed.
The actress and her legal team now view the withdrawal of the lawsuit as a victory and an admission of Manson’s guilt: “Manson’s attempt to silence Wood and undermine the credibility of his accusers failed“, he says in a statement. But the rock star’s lawyer was also happy and explained that his client was happy to end this chapter of his life. Manson had already reached an out-of-court agreement with Esmé Bianco at the beginning of the year 2023.
Return to the stage
Things had become relatively quiet recently for the musician in terms of the law, while Manson was working on his return to the stage at the same time. The new album “One Assassination Under God – Chapter 1” will be released on November 22. Dates for his European tour next February are also on sale.
How might Marilyn Manson’s decision to drop the lawsuit influence public perception of similar cases in the entertainment industry?
Time.news Interview: The Legal Battle Between Marilyn Manson and Evan Rachel Wood
Interviewer (Editor of Time.news): Welcome to Time.news. Today, we’re diving into a compelling and complex legal case that intertwines issues of celebrity, allegations of abuse, and the nuances of defamation law. Joining us is Dr. Jane Thompson, a legal expert specializing in entertainment law. Thank you for being here, Dr. Thompson.
Dr. Jane Thompson: Thank you for having me.
Editor: Let’s start with the recent developments in the case between Marilyn Manson and Evan Rachel Wood. Manson has dropped his libel lawsuit against Wood and is paying her legal fees. What does this signify in terms of legal strategy and public perception?
Dr. Thompson: It’s quite significant. By dropping the lawsuit, Manson might be signaling a recognition of the challenges he faced with his allegations. The public narrative around such claims can heavily influence legal battles, especially when they revolve around accusations as serious as rape and abuse.
Editor: Absolutely. Wood’s initial allegations had a substantial impact, as she was the first to speak out publicly against Manson, prompting several other women to come forward. How does this community response affect legal claims like those Manson was making?
Dr. Thompson: When a high-profile individual makes such a serious allegation, it often encourages others to share their experiences. This collective voice can create a powerful narrative that may complicate the legal standing of the accused. Manson’s attempt to silence Wood might have been viewed as an attack on that collective movement, which could influence public sympathy and jury perceptions.
Editor: Speaking of legal tactics, what might have prompted Manson to abandon the lawsuit now after initially pursuing it back in 2022?
Dr. Thompson: There are several potential reasons. Firstly, the legal costs and time involved in continuing a high-profile defamation case can be significant. His decision may have been driven by a strategic assessment of his public image versus the potential outcomes. Additionally, the media and public response surrounding such cases can shift considerably, and Manson may have calculated that continuing would further damage his reputation.
Editor: He agreed to pay approximately $327,000 for Wood’s legal fees. How does this financial aspect correlate with the nature of such cases in the entertainment industry?
Dr. Thompson: Financial settlements are not uncommon in defamation cases, especially when they involve public figures. It’s a way for the accused to potentially buy some peace, avoid further negative publicity, and navigate the complexities of ongoing litigation. It’s also noteworthy that Manson’s admission of this payment can be interpreted as a tacit acknowledgment of some merit to Wood’s claims.
Editor: Wood’s allegations of serious crimes like rape and abuse have prompted a broader discussion about victim rights and the challenges they face. What implications does this case have for other victims in similar situations?
Dr. Thompson: This case has the potential to embolden other victims, showing them that speaking out can lead to acknowledgment and support, even if it doesn’t always result in legal victory. The conversations it spurred about consent, accountability, and the responsibilities of influential figures in society are crucial in changing the culture around such allegations.
Editor: That’s incredibly insightful, Dr. Thompson. As we look ahead, what do you think the future holds for individuals navigating similar allegations in the entertainment industry?
Dr. Thompson: I believe we will continue to see more victims coming forward as societal attitudes shift towards supporting those who speak out. Additionally, there may be an increased push for legal reforms surrounding the handling of such cases, particularly in how they interact with public discourse and media representation. It’s a crucial time for accountability in the industry.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Thompson, for your expertise and insights on this evolving situation. It’s clear that this case isn’t just about celebrity disputes, but rather it opens the door to discussions that impact us all.
Dr. Thompson: Thank you for having me. It’s an important topic, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss it.
Editor: And thank you to our audience for tuning in. Be sure to join us next time as we continue to explore the intersection of law, celebrity, and society.