It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


X-Men Director Bryan Singer Accused of Abusing Teenage Boy

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 12:41 AM
To clear up the whole, "He couldn't fly from here to there when he's working on a film" arguments.

During pre-production on a film, it is common for a director to be unavailable for a few days. Particularly if the production office is not where the studio headquarters are. Once the person is in LA they are free to do what they please.

If the person was legitimately in Toronto in pre production, it is feasible that he flew back to LA and then once there had a private jet take him to Hawaii. They are masters at efficient travel schedules. They could literally do this trip over the weekend.

Don't forget that the party doesn't stop on a private plane. Those "travel hours" are not wasted.

posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 04:21 AM
If this is a hoax being perpetrated against Singer then it is a pretty elaborate one. From what has been said publicly, the mother and son would have had to have started planning to frame Singer more than a decade ago...I don't think so.

And having receipts to prove you are in a certain location is extremely simple to contrive...and seems like an obvious step to take if you were going to perpetrate this sort of crime.

posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 05:20 AM
a reply to: mrwiffler

Yeah, that's my concern as well. It is not difficult to doctor a receipt up, not to mention for somebody that works in an industry whose trade craft is recreation of things. I also find it a little weird that he does claim to have receipts for his stay in Toronto. Who on earth saves those kind of records from 15 years ago? Legally, they'd only have to save things for 3-5 years for tax purposes. Singer must have a very large room filled with file cabinets in it.

posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 05:50 AM
I am so done with Hollywood. I have not paid to see a movie in forty years.

posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 07:55 AM
When accusations are directed at someone with wealth and fame, why do people always side with the accuser?

Is it an innate desire to see someone fall from grace? Do the "have nots" just enjoy watching the "haves" lose what they've worked hard to gain? Anytime a celebrity is accused of breaking the law, mobs of imbeciles accept that person's guilt without bothering to consider the facts.

I, for one, am going to assume Bryan Singer is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law... ya know, the way you're supposed to.

posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 01:56 PM
a reply to: Answer

People don't "always side" with the accuser. You're generalizing too much. I clearly stated that I'm waiting for the outcome of the courts to determine what is and what isn't actual in this case because I will not be privy to all the information.

I think it's kind of strange that you'd associate the sympathy expressed towards the accuser as being associated with the "desire to see someone with wealth and fame fall from grace". Feeling sympathy towards another human being who may have been mistreated grossly is actually a pretty normal human condition. Quite frankly, I hope the guy is making his story up because that would mean that it didn't actually happen to him and he wouldn't have to endure those sort of injuries for the rest of his life.

In that sense, it has nothing to do with whether or not Singer wins or loses; however, it has long been the case that there are sex offenders and a just as long history of differential treatment within the courts towards those who have wealth and power. See the DuPont heir for that one. That offenders will utilize their positions in the world to target victims and be protected is also quite the pattern. See the Catholic church and its pedophile priests or Sandusky of Penn State. There's also a pattern that Hollywood will turn a blind eye to pedophiles working within its industry.

Victor Salva, a previously lauded director, was arrested for engaging in oral sex with a 12 year old boy and pled guilty to that charge as well as child pornography charges. He served 15 months out of his 3 year sentence before getting paroled and was hired on to direct "Powder"--a movie featuring teen actors no less--by Disney after his release. One of his staunchest defenders? Francis Ford Coppola.

Roman Polanski raped a 13 year old girl in 1977 and pled guilty to the charges before fleeing the country just before sentencing. He's never spent a day in jail and continued to make films outside of the country. In fact, you can read articles these days on the subject like this in the Washington Post when Polanski was arrested by Swiss authorities in 2009, who then refused to extradite Polanski to the US. The author calls his arrest "outrageous"--the dude raped a child and never even served a sentence. I find that outrageous personally.

Marc Collins-Rector is another name being dropped. As a founder of Digital Entertainment Network, Collins-Rector was luring teens across state lines for sex and plying them with drugs. Collins-Rector also bailed out of the country and, when finally arrested and returned to the US, never served a day in jail on US soil. He was a free man. This article from 2007 talks about Collins-Rector and, interestingly enough, indicates that one of his friends within the industry was...Bryan Singer. Available on Wayback Machine, just add http to the following:

And Bryan Singer, himself, had a lawsuit brought against him by three extras of his film, Apt Pupil, who accused Singer of ordering them to strip fully naked for filming. How did that play out in the courts? Dismissed due to a "lack of evidence". Three boys who had this occur with them brought their case forward in 1997 and, apparently, their testimony was not enough.

Singer is apparently pretty notorious for having young men around him. In this photo, he's dressed up as a priest and surrounded by young men...Sure hope those young men are over 18 and etc. I'm betting Singer is probably regretting this photo op right about now.

So we'll see what happens. As for Egan's lawsuit, it's really hard to claim that he's just trying to profiteer off of the director's success. His lawsuit is only for $300,000 in damages, which could just be enough to cover his attorney expenses if those aren't covered in case of a win.

The Wrap actually published the lawsuit in its entirety and what it is alleging is pretty interesting. Apparently, Egan was placed on Collins-Rector's Digital Entertainment Network (all three founders were found with child porn iirc) on a salary of $1500 a week. It's a hell of a read and I sure hope with all my heart that it is not true. If it is, then it's the story of how a child pretty much got bought and paid for in Hollywood.

edit on 22/4/14 by WhiteAlice because: fixed broken wayback link

posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 02:05 PM
a reply to: Answer

It's not so much that I'm assuming that Singer is automatically guilty, but that it's known that Hollywood has a problem. How many child actors can you think of who have come out of there intact in the past decades?

Go on ...

I'm patient ...

Well, something happens to a lot of them. More than can be explained just by bad parenting or getting too much, too fast. Then there's the behavior by the top names to circle the wagons when people like Roman Polanski are outed as molesters. What does that tell you? If Polanski was an anomaly would they all have been so quick to defend him?

It's like my momma taught me when I was growing up - no matter who you are and what you do, people will see and judge you based also on whom you hang out with. Guilt by association.

Then there are all the other accounts.

So, while Singer may be innocent. He's standing in a very smoky place, and where there's smoke; there's fire ... even if those flames aren't right underneath him. It doesn't help him right now.

edit on 22-4-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 02:58 PM
This has kicked a hornet's nest.

Apparently, the naming of Marc Collins-Rector has caused a lot of fear in Tinsel Town because he owned a place called the M & C Estate where some more ... unsavory parties often took place and a lot of names went to these parties.

I spoke to one straight executive yesterday who gave me shocking details about parties at the Encino mansion called the M & C Estate owned by convicted sex offender Marc Collins-Rector, where Singer is accused of molesting Egan.

"This house was famous for this,” said the executive. “There were straight parties that turned into gay parties.” This executive has been to the house and a close associate was there frequently because he worked for Rector at the time. The associate told him at the time: “‘Dude, this # is crazy what goes on after hours. Something isn't right here. This is not cool. There are young boys running around naked. There is naked # going on in the pool late at night.”

He continued: “It was a trick. They would throw these lavish parties, they'd have these private planes, and they would get these 18-17-15-year-old guys, they brought their girlfriends, and they'd try to flip them. They'd take the lowest hanging fruit. They'd say, ‘You want chicks? You want planes?’ And they'd throw these straight parties and use it as a breeding ground to get guys.”

So, this is one anonymous source saying this, and there were a lot of people, powerful people in Hollywood who went to these parties. Apparently, there are also a lot of attorneys receiving nervous calls about whether or not they plan to file charges in California.

If true, it confirms a lot of people's worst suspicious about the morals of Hollywood.

And it also alludes back to this:

So, is this a strike against a possible "gay mafia" running things in Hollywood?

It's serious because it confirms some of the planet's worst suspicions about Hollywood — that this place is a moral cesspool. And it's serious because it tilts toward confirming what even the cognoscenti like to joke about this place, that it's run by a gay mafia (calling Michael Ovitz).

Or is this the opening salvo in a bigger problem because we all know Roman Polanski raped an underage girl and whatever happened to Lindsay Lohan and Miley Cyrus and Amanda Bynes wasn't done at the hands of gay men ... assuming they were the victims of sex abuse. Maybe the House of Mouse just does that to their child stars as a matter of principle?

posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 03:08 PM
a reply to: JonButtonIII

Yes I'm afraid it's not just Singer who's involved in this.

In an interview with the Daily Beast, Egan recognizes Singer as part of a ring of eight to ten abusers, including other Hollywood power-players not named in this lawsuit—“whose names you will recognize”.

Hmmm....I wonder who else's names he brought up?

A lot of creepy things were going on at the M&C estate where Egan alleged these vile acts took place. The estate is owned by a convicted sex offender named Marc Collins -Rector. The quote in your OP is what was alleged to have taken place there. Rector was convicted in 2004 for "transportation of minors with intent to engage in sexual activities".

More dirt on Singer:

Countless sources have gone on record to state that child abuse is rampant in Hollywood; Singer did attend parties at the M & C Estate which was owned by a convicted abuser. More importantly, it is not the first time that he is accused of “inappropriate behavior” towards a minor boy.
In 1997, a 14 year-old movie extra named Devin St. Albin filed a lawsuit against Singer claiming that the filmmakers had ordered him and other minors to strip for a scene that was shot in the showers of a school locker room.


If any of you guys have researched into this, I'm sure you have come to the conclusion that this extends above and beyond just Hollywood and the entertainment industry.

edit on 22-4-2014 by TrueMessiah because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 04:14 PM
a reply to: ketsuko

I definitely do not think that this is simply relegated to the gay portion of Hollywood. Like you said, what happened to Bynes, Lohan and Cyrus to make them crack? Remember a few years ago when there was that photo taken of Cyrus wrapped only in a sheet? Her dad was totally a-okay with the shoot but it did raise a lot of controversy and many questioned its appropriateness. A little review of that story and then seeing Cyrus today and the strings of falsity are just even more palpable.

While people were freaking about the whole twerking aspect of Cyrus' VMA performance not that long ago, I actually was freaking out about the entire performance from beginning to end as it was a terrifying glimpse into this girl's mind filled with freakishly sized teddy bears, skimpy outfits and tongue wagging.

Or Lohan. Last time I saw a photo shoot of Lohan, she was posing with guns in lingerie with blood splattered all over her. Here's a more T&C friendly one hosted via the Daily Mail. Wth?

One can argue that these girls do the extreme to fight the Disney image but I seriously doubt that as both of them basically annihilated their "good girl" images a long, long time ago. They aren't the only ones. The list of inappropriateness even outside of the possibility of pedophilia within Hollywood for young stars has a very long history. River Phoenix, Drew Barrymore, Macaulay Culkin, Tatum O'Neal, Corey Haim, Corey Feldman, Haley Joel Osmont, and more. Heck, Tatum O'Neal wrote that she was sexually molested at 12 by her father's (Ryan O'Neal) drug dealer, which, of course her father denies. Curiously enough though, nearly all of his children have drug problems.

What happened to them? Was it too much, too fast? Were the monumental crashes due to the pressures of society (because frankly, I've seen "countdowns" til some child actor is "legal" which flat out disturbs me)? Was it the industry itself? I don't know. All I can say is that Hollywood has a terrible track record when it comes to children and that stretches as far back as Shirley Temple Black.

posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 04:58 PM
a reply to: WhiteAlice

I think the wealth and power of popular culture has insulated and protected this sort of thing. I think this particular ring may very well be a gay abuse ring, but I'm betting it's just one of many. It's been known for a long time that Disney has problems with sneaking subversive and disturbing things into their "family friendly" stuff.

Things like the infamous penis tower in The Little Mermaid and several instances of animated "stiffies" in various cartoons.

Sure, it's all blink and you'll miss it, but that's what makes it subliminal.

edit on 22-4-2014 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 07:42 PM
a reply to: ketsuko

Ahh, I actually have a copy of that version of The Little Mermaid. I recall the explanation being the work of a "disgruntled employee". I'm not so certain about the subliminal stuff (and I am not quick to dismiss it either though as I've dug up some really interesting patents in the past on the subject of subliminal messaging). I think that there are far more tangible and things that would be hard for any to dismiss as being random chance or disgruntled employees, lol.

I am, however, very concerned about the sexualization of children. When I still had tv, I learned really fast to shut off Nick Jr at around the 3:30 hour because the shows thereafter featured sexually active teens. Toddlers and Tiaras is an abomination in my book. A&F's creepazoid CEO Mike Jeffries' attempt at peddling thongs for little girls is just mind popping and the list goes on and on. Look at Twilight. That's a series peddled to teenage girls where the "heroine" of the tale is not only a fickle flake but ends up with bruises and injuries from the wedding night and freaking Jacob "imprints" on her newborn child to become the child's future mate. I look at it all and think what the hell are we doing? It's simply making the regard that underage models and actors have had in the "artists" circles of Hollywood and across the world a societal standard. Last I checked, artists, albeit eccentric, is not a license to be a lowlife and it's sad that it's actually getting permeated out into the various media.

A lot of the kids that get picked up by the movie houses came through modeling agencies. My fiance had a professor discuss the issues with these modeling agencies including child exploitation and showed the class images of underage models that absolutely shocked them all when they found out their ages. There's been some strides within the industry to better protect these children but is it really going to work? It's appropriate to this thread because it is a step on the way for a lot of these children who may have been victimized. Heck, Polanski's victim was a 13 year old model.

posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 11:44 PM
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Kind of like watching old reruns of Top of the Pops with Scumbag Savile?

posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 12:07 AM
a reply to: Stormdancer777

Please don't drag Sir Ian into this. He is too much of a respected man to stoop to these levels.

Also, I hope you're not of the old set of thinking gay=pedophile either.

posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 01:03 AM
a reply to: WhiteAlice

I have a feeling this one turns out to be bs. I have no evidence. Don't know anyone involved.

Just a prediction. I think it's all too juicy. I can't imagine a group of ritch and famous celebrities risking it all just to do it togather. I think I'm flying to tai land or something. The risk of running an in country ring would be massive. It's only a 2 hour flight to Mexico.. It seams to sloppy and convieniently tabloid.

posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 08:52 AM
a reply to: ketsuko

Five of the top executives of Disney are gay, I have to be very careful here not to offend anyone.

edit on 083030p://bWednesday2014 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 08:55 AM

originally posted by: TheToastmanCometh
a reply to: Stormdancer777

Please don't drag Sir Ian into this. He is too much of a respected man to stoop to these levels.

Also, I hope you're not of the old set of thinking gay=pedophile either.

I didn't drag him into anything, just seems they are close companions with others involved,

I don't have any old set anything, and Sir(cough)Ian means nothing to me.

posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:06 AM
directed by Bryan Singer and starring Ian McKellen and Brad Renfro

Apt Pupil
Brad Renfro is dead BTW

For Apt Pupil, Bryan Singer filmed a shower scene in which Todd Bowden, saturated with horrific stories from Kurt Dussander, imagines his fellow showering students as Jewish prisoners in gas chambers.[34] The scene was filmed at Eliot Middle School in Altadena, California on April 2, 1997, and two weeks later, a 14-year-old extra filed a lawsuit alleging that Singer forced him and other extras to strip naked for the scene. Two boys, 16 and 17-years-old each, later supported the 14-year-old’s claim. The boys claimed trauma from the experience, seeking charges against the filmmakers including infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and invasion of privacy.[35] Allegations were made that the boys were filmed for sexual gratification.[36] The local news shows and national tabloid programs stirred the controversy. A sexual crimes task force that included local, state, and federal personnel investigated the incident. The Los Angeles District Attorney’s office determined that there was no cause to file criminal charges,[28] stating, “The suspects were intent on completing a professional film as quickly and efficiently as possible. There is no indication of lewd or abnormal sexual intent.”[36] The civil case was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.[37] The scene was filmed again with adult actors so the film could finish on time.[24]

The lawsuit reflected “a recent cultural concern” about nudity in showers being connected to “sexual or erotic forms of gazing”. The journal Body & Society wrote, “The ways in which the accusation that the director and other crew members identified as gay is seen to collapse gay identity into gay sexual behaviour, but the wholesale collapse of nudity into sexuality.” The incident reflected the cultural trend that being gazed upon while naked would cause different forms of distress, threatening the “stability of the self as subject”. This undermines the subject’s ability to perform and as a result of the discomfort, brings more into question what the displayed nakedness is for.[34]

posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:09 AM
Makes pretty good movies for a mad pedo though. You dont really hear about talented pedos much in the press.

posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 09:15 AM
February 8th, 2010

Ian McKellen has spoken out against Britain's new anti-pedophile database, insisting the new scheme will dissuade amateur theaters from casting children. The Lord of the Rings star fears the Vetting and Barring Scheme, which requires any adult working with children to register and submit a background check, will result in limited roles for young performers.

Adults who don't comply face a fine of up to $8,000 and a criminal record, which McKellen maintains is unnecessary in the world of amateur theater.

edit on 093030p://bWednesday2014 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in