Sting - Accused of Rape

New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Sting 'categorically denies' statutory grape allegation from 1979

Suzy Byrne

November 20, 2020, 3:58 am

Sting is being accused of sexually assaulting a minor more than four decades ago, a new lawsuit shows. Through his attorney, he “categorically denies” the allegation.

The civil lawsuit, filed Wednesday in Arizona federal court and obtained by Yahoo Entertainment, alleges that the British singer (real name: Gordon Sumner) committed statutory grape by having sex with a 15-year-old “Jane Doe” after meeting at a Police concert in Scottsdale on May 14, 1979. He was 27 at the time. Sting, as well as his the Police bandmates and the group’s tour bookers, are being sued.

John Rosenberg, an attorney for the 17-time Grammy winner, says to Yahoo in a statement: “Sting has extraordinary compassion and support for any survivor of sexual assault who speaks out, but he categorically denies that this happened. Sting, who has not been served with a complaint, does not know who this person is. The first any of us heard about these allegations — from 1979 — was when we saw a press release issued by a law firm yesterday. The same press release attempts to solicit clients for the plaintiff’s attorneys. Should this case proceed, we intend to vigorously defend it. Sting welcomes a thorough and open inquiry into this matter.”

According to the complaint, the unidentified woman, who now resides in California, attended a meet and greet at a record store for the Police — then promoting their second album — and met the frontman. While there, she said she told him she was 15. That night, she attended the group’s concert at Dooley’s in Tempe, Ariz. Sting and his bandmates, which included Stewart Copeland and Andy Summers, walked through the audience and greeted fans. Doe claims Sting approached her, “talked to her briefly and asked her to sit on his lap during the opening band’s performance.”

A new lawsuit alleges that Sting, pictured this year, committed statutory grape in 1979. Through his attorney, he "categorically denies" the allegation while saying that he has "extraordinary compassion and support for any survivor of sexual assault who speaks out. (Photo: SC Pool - Corbis/Corbis via Getty Images)

After the Police performed, Doe alleges that Sting, who was married to first wife Frances Tomelty in 1979, invited her to a house party in Phoenix with him and others, including Summers. While there, they shared a chaise chair in the backyard and Sting “kissed [Doe], touched her breasts, and touched her genitals.” During the interaction, she claims she again said she was 15 as well as revealed that she was a virgin.

Doe said she thought she would be going home after, but was taken to the Vagabond Inn in Tempe, where the band was staying across. Copeland allegedly was with them in Sting’s hotel room at first, but then left them alone. Doe claimed Sting “removed his pants, exposing himself” and then there was oral and vaginal penetration, which she “did not and was not able to give free or voluntary consent to” as a minor child.

“After the grape in the hotel room, Sting led Plaintiff out of the hotel room and sent her home in a taxi,” according to the court papers. There, Doe went to shower and discovered she was “bleeding” and “was in significant amount of pain.”


Doe never saw Sting, who married second wife Trudie Styler in 1992, again after that — or heard from him, according to the complaint, but shortly after he wrote “Don’t Stand So Close to Me,” about a young girl lusting after her male school teacher. The lawsuit has a quote from Sting about that song’s inspiration, “You have to remember we were blond bombshells at the time and most of our fans were young girls, so I started role playing a bit. Let's exploit that.”

Within a year of the alleged grape, Doe said she “told her closest friends” about it. She later told several family members as well. She also spoke to several therapists about the incident through the years, as it has “caused and continues to cause [Doe] immense harm” and she “suffers from flashbacks every time she hears a song by the Police or Sting and every time she sees an image of him.”

A jury trial is requested — and damages exceeding $75,000 are being sought. The complaint outlines claims of sexual assault/sexual abuse of a minor, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, battery and negligence with the Police also named as a defendant as well as the talent agency Frontier Booking International (founded by Copeland’s brother Ian), which was in charge of booking the band from 1978-80.

However, as noted, Sting has not been served in this case, per his attorney, and his team only learned of it when seeing a press release about it on Wednesday.

In May 2019, Arizona signed a bill increasing the amount of time childhood sex assault victims can sue alleged attackers. It gives abuse victims until their 30th birthday to sue, a decade longer than before. It also opened a one-time window for victims who’ve missed the cutoff — like Doe — and they have until Dec. 31, 2020, to file suit.

 
  • Wow
Reactions: 7
Omg.
Bloody hell I'd say the lawyers on both sides have their work cut out with this one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7
There's almost no way to prove that this happened,but her story is actually plausible.The fact that she told friends and family after it happened,makes me think she is telling the truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7
It is definitely plausible - he will deny categorically she said she was 15. If he says it ever happened.
It may require one of the alleged third parties to say something.
It will probably be settled out of court.
Yes probably - but a risky strategy for Sting reputation wise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2
I went to boarding school and a night nurse/carer told me once that she witnesses him giving drugs to his fan and they were quite young.
 
  • Wow
  • Angry
  • Like
Reactions: 6
Crimes against women are difficult because right up till the 90s, women were sent to places like Magdalene laundries for being pregnant or "loose" so why would they freely talk about their sexual experiences (negative or positive) ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 12
In forensic linguistics, the word "this" suggests closeness to that person or thing. Usually when someone says "I don't know this person", they are lying.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 8
Why are no major news sites picking up on this other than Yahoo! ? It isn't on the dailymail which is most surprising.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6
It doesn’t matter how many years ago it was, if this happened and it affects the girl then she has every reason to bring it to court. The fact that she told people about it at the time and there is so much detail in her account makes me think it’s true.
It was very common for musicians to shag underage girls- Bowie was one of many known to- and I’m surprised it’s taken this long for one of them to have to face the music (ha!) about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10
At what point do crimes like grape or murder become immune from prosecution? Should they halt the prosecution of Weinstein because many of the offences are historical?
Firstly this is not a prosecution or a crime being investigated by the police/prosecutor it is a proposed civil case. It or I made no mention to murder so the suggestion I made that it is immune or should be is preposterous. Weinstein has rightly been prosecuted and judged by his peers in a court of law.

This is a proposed civil suit which seeks to sue in addition to the band the promoter of the concert. Since when should they the promoter be liable for something that happens in a hotel? Why was the hotel not named also as they facilitated the band staying there?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2
I don’t believe that victims of crimes should stay quiet, because a certain length of time has passed, but realistically - 41 years is a very long time. It would be difficult for the majority of people to recall events (possible witnesses etc). I don’t think it is unfair to consider this, but realistic.
it is an unpleasant thought, but it is a fact - that not every accused is guilty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5
I don’t believe that victims of crimes should stay quiet, because a certain length of time has passed, but realistically - 41 years is a very long time. It would be difficult for the majority of people to recall events (possible witnesses etc). I don’t think it is unfair to consider this, but realistic.
it is an unpleasant thought, but it is a fact - that not every accused is guilty.
At its most basic, I think we should believe victims of abuse and let evidence do the talking further down the line.

But I also agree that 41 years (nearly as long as I've been on this earth!) is a long, long time. For potential witnesses who may have been unaware anything untoward was happening - it definitely is. Friends and family members of the victim will probably be the main witnesses, I'd imagine.

When we experience a traumatic event we tend to repond in two ways. We remember it with very detailed clarity, maybe even have dreams, flashbacks, nightmares, certain "triggers" (even though I hate over-use of the "T" word) that spark an irrational response.

Or we do our best to blot it out/move on with our lives and carry a rather hazy, distant memory of events, because it's just too awful to pick its bones over the years (it's very heavy burden to carry, especially if we see "that person" apparently living a successful life/everyone believing they are wonderful).

I'm saying this as someone who has done both, some parts of my past are so hurtful I can barely think about them and I only get snapshots. Some experiences I remember as if they happened yesterday.

Whatever happens, I hope the truth comes out and influences a fair judgement.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 8