Bryan Singer | Film | News

Bryan Singer's Accuser Michael Egan Says He Never Left The Continental U.S.

Michael Egan

Bryan Singer's accuser Michael Egan says he never left the continental United States. Which is a pretty big deal given that the alleged rape of Egan took place in Hawaii. From the deposition with Egan:

Q. Did you ever take any trips with them?

A. Yes. several trips.

Q. Where to?

A. Las Vegas, Lake Havasu.

Q. Anything outside the continental U.S.?

A. Never had any trips outside the continental U.S., no.

Q. Do you know if [redacted] did?

A. Yes, I know he did.

Q. Where do you know that he went?

A. From what I recollect, I believe he went to Hawaii, went to --

It should also be noted that Hawaii has an extended statute of limitations, which for Egan's case would have ended April 24, 2014. Egan's complaint was filed on April 16, 2014.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. You can look on the next page of the deposition where the "Questioner" immediately says he "means the continental US to mean Alaska, Hawaii and the Caribbean". What the hell does that mean? Egan says later his mom never let him travel "outside of the United States". I doubt it's going to be difficult to prove whether he was in Hawaii or not.

    Posted by: MIke | May 16, 2014 8:41:07 AM


  2. No matter. This shouldn't be a legal problem for Bryan Singer. Since Mr. Singer claims to be "bisexual", I'm sure he'll testify he was in his straight phase and, therefore, into women - totally - during the dates he supposedly was having sexual relations with an underage Michael Egan and other young men. Oh, the humanity of it all!!!

    Posted by: HadenoughBS | May 16, 2014 9:24:26 AM


  3. Money Grab Soap Opera. Stay tuned........

    Posted by: David From Canada | May 16, 2014 9:49:50 AM


  4. You fail to mention (1) that this deposition took place in 2003; (2) that the majority of the complaint focuses on Singer's behavior in Los Angeles, not Hawaii; and (3) that Egan may have been confused about the definition of "continental U.S." I have no opinion re: the extent to which Egan is or is not telling the truth, but this post is a hit job.

    Posted by: Journalistic standards? | May 16, 2014 10:10:34 AM


  5. You fail to mention (1) that this deposition took place in 2003; (2) that the majority of the complaint focuses on Singer's behavior in Los Angeles, not Hawaii; and (3) that Egan may have been confused about the definition of "continental U.S." I have no opinion re: the extent to which Egan is or is not telling the truth, but this post is a hit job.

    Posted by: Journalistic standards? | May 16, 2014 10:10:35 AM


  6. This is not a journalistic site so it doesn't need to have standards. It's a personal blog with sometimes head-scratching agendas like Davey Wavey or a new Gaga album.

    Posted by: Felix | May 16, 2014 10:31:17 AM


  7. @jounalistic Standards? You fail to grasp that the statute of limitations for sex crimes in Los Angeles was already up so anything that happened in L.A. doesn't matter.

    You failed to notice that the only reason he was able to file a sex abuse claim that took place over 15 years ago was because he filed in Hawaii. Hawaii, recently extended their statute of limitations. So for his case to be filed, Hawaii is CRITICAL. No sex abuse in Hawaii equals No Case.

    He was not confused about the definition of the continental U.S. Read again and you'll see that he refers to another young man being taken by Collins-Rector, Shackley and Pierce to Hawaii. The next page of the deposition asked why he wasn't included in those trips.

    He answers that his mother would freak out if he went somewhere closer like Las Vegas and that she wouldn't allow him to go anywhere a great distance. He states in his deposition that she would basically lock him in his room before allowing him to go to any great distance.

    IN 2003 when the deposition was given he was not a child but 21 years old. He understood what he was saying was under oath.

    Posted by: m.r. | May 16, 2014 10:34:55 AM


  8. TMZ also filed a story yesterday that says that in the court case that was done in 2000 Michael Egan said that there was no one, besides Shackley, Pierce and Collins-Rector, who were involved in the sexual abuse taking place.

    "Egan's 2003 declaration states, "I have never had any kind of physical contact with David Neuman other than what is normal and appropriate between non-sexual acquaintances."

    (David Neuman's lawyer is now filing for dismissal of the lawsuit)

    "During Egan's sworn deposition in the earlier case, he said no one other than the 3 defendants were "partaking in all this stuff." Egan now claims Singer was partaking, but his sworn words a decade ago flatly contradict that.

    Posted by: m.r. | May 16, 2014 10:39:44 AM


  9. Singer is guilty. Just wait and watch.

    Posted by: Tristram | May 16, 2014 10:41:56 AM


  10. Someone needs to come up with a complete timeline of the alleged events.

    Posted by: anon | May 16, 2014 11:21:03 AM


  11. Let's debunk this one fast. Because we know nothing like this has ever happened! Can there be a timeline on lust?

    Posted by: Arrow | May 16, 2014 12:09:10 PM


  12. In the 70's it might have been confined to "The Continental Baths."

    Posted by: GB | May 16, 2014 1:58:33 PM


  13. This case smells really bad - the Egan story is full of contradictions and impossibilities, and no court will believe that he's anything but an opportunist out for cash.

    Of course, some people assume that every accusation of sexual misconduct is true, no matter what - especially against a man who leads an interesting and varied sex life. "Oooo, he went to an orgy? That kind of immoral person would do anything."

    Luckily, judges tend to like real facts.

    Posted by: Edgar Carpenter | May 16, 2014 8:41:21 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Vote On Houston’s LGBT Rights Ordinance Delayed: VIDEO« «