Where did you read up about that night? I don’t know much about it and would like to learn more. That article seems heavily biased and the tone isn’t good so I don’t trust itQuote:
Originally Posted by Meerstern
Printable View
Where did you read up about that night? I don’t know much about it and would like to learn more. That article seems heavily biased and the tone isn’t good so I don’t trust itQuote:
Originally Posted by Meerstern
Google “Don Henley and underage girls.” It’s a fairly well-known incident. Henley has claimed he was set up. It led to his writing “Dirty Laundry.”Quote:
Originally Posted by YoungEaglesFan
Here are some articles:
http://people.com/archive/lois-chile...-vol-19-no-15/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/m...-be-alive.html
https://news.google.com/newspapers?i...g=2985,3949520
https://calendar.songfacts.com/november/21/11551
According to what I read around on the net, most people can't bear Don.
I saw the first link that Meerstern posted weeks ago online, but didn't post it because technically its old news that's popping up because with everything that's going on in the news. Plus with this not really circulating around the internet(which is good because they would had definitely picked up on it by now), I didn't post it. Some things I just don't post especially when it happened 37 years ago and we knew about it.
Its different if it was a secret and it never came out until now, but it did came out 37 years ago. Don was arrested and fined for it.
I have posted it because it seems that for Don there is legal troubles in sight next year.
(I wonder why exactly next year and not now or three years ago, anyway).
OT: I can't put a picture as avatar, the upload fails everytime. Already did three attempts with two different browsers but it just doesn't work even having resized the pic :headscratch:
I don't know what to think about this but 2018 is right around the corner ... so I guess we will find out more details shortly
That is certainly old news. Don claimed he did not give the girl the drugs and did not know how old she was. It was a party for Eagles roadies. I have never read/heard anything about the second girl. When this happened, it was all over the news - tv and newspapers.
Question - Did I miss something ? What legal troubles will Don have next year ? :headscratch:
I have no clue. I am rereading.Quote:
Originally Posted by New Kid In Town
I just came across this too! As soon as I read the first paragraph I knew it was Don. If it's all true, man oh man dirty laundry indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meerstern
A couple of thoughts:
1) If there is new evidence that could lead to a successful prosecution, why leak the details to a gossip site in advance?
2) It's quite easy to build a conspiracy story around information that has been around for a long time - it accounts for many films and books. Just because part of the story matches with what we've already read, doesn't guarantee that the rest is true.
I don't have a particular wish to defend Mr Henley, but I'm taking this with a large dose of salt.
I am not an attorney but, there are two things I see wrong with this.
1) Don was already sentenced for this and was placed on probation, fined, and ordered to attend and complete drug counseling. He complied and his probation was successfully completed. To charge Don again violated the laws of Double Jeopardy. He can not legally be charged for the same crime twice.
2) In addition, this offense occurred 37 years ago and the Statue of Limitations has more than likely expired.
This is just someone's idea of a vicious, nasty rehash of a 37 year-old story.
I agree. You can't charged someone for the same crime again. Even if you have new evidence come up or can they?, Oh well.
Its different if this incident was kept a secret for many years and we didn't know about it until 37 years later. Yes Don should be worried if it happened that way. I would be very pissed at Don, BUT that didn't happened that way. Don is different with his situation since this was in the news back in 1980 and this wasn't a secret.
With everything that's happening with actors, producers, and politicians where stuff happened from years ago popping up, I guess this person wants to bring up this dirty laundry again even though Don was arrested and sentenced.
Don was not proud of that and that's probably one history he doesn't ever want to see again. This smells fishy IMO.
It was troubling then and now - these were very young girls 15 and 16 years old.
I finally have some time today ... what can I say I love Cyber Monday shopping LOL ... and am going to go back and reread and see what this is all about.Quote:
Originally Posted by New Kid In Town
Quote:
Originally Posted by UndertheWire
You're right actually, I forgot this detail as I am not american :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by New Kid In Town
Anyway I read many comments under the article and some speculated that there may be something bigger behind, given that the ex underage girl is now married to a politician in the public eye.
Well, I read most of the comments under the story. This is just MHO, but I can't see anything new coming from this. Don was sentenced on this case 36 years-ago. Both girls allegedly were runaways and allegedly worked as prosts. who may have lied about their ages. Both girls were arrested and the 16 year-old was charged. Both were turned over to Child Protective Services. Apparently the 15 year-old was not charged. The case, according to the story, was allegedly investigated by Child Protection Services. Allegedly, the then 15 year-old girl is now married to a Republican Congressman from Calif.
While I also find/found the whole thing disgusting and troubling, I can't imagine what else can be said that has not already been said in the news/press for the last 37 years.
I agree but then again why would someone want to open up such a big can of worms?Quote:
Originally Posted by New Kid In Town
This is from the linked article:Quote:
Originally Posted by New Kid In Town
While I’m doubtful of this article’s claims, theoretically it does appear that any new criminal charges will be based on different causes of action. In other words, “racketeering” and “criminal conspiracy” are different crimes from “contributing to the delinquency of a minor” or whatever Don pled out to back then. So double jeopardy wouldn’t attach. Someone familiar with California criminal law may provide some insight about the Statute of Limitations but depending on the criminal charge it’s not as clear-cut as it may seem (e.g. what if the conspiracy is on-going).Quote:
She's prepared a criminal charge against them for many of their misdeeds (which include racketeering and collusion and criminal conspiracy), and is also hitting them with civil charges – with any funds being set aside for childhood victims. Because, you see, those Polaroids she swiped that night? She blew town with them. Years later she found them and put them in a safe deposit box.
The civil charges are a whole different $$ballgame$$.
That's easy. With everything that's going on in the news, she wants to join the party. I still say this story is very fishy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawn
I guess we will have to wait and see. She could be calling buff because IMO this story would had came out by now (name or no name mention)when the article was published on that gossip website which seem like nobody in the big media haven't even notice. Hmm. The media are not that stupid. They can put two and two together if they keep digging. I only saw it on my google notification and that was it. I couldn't find it anywhere else.
Thanks Delilah - I did not see the link to read. This whole thing sounds crazy. Why did she wait 36-37 years ? I would be surprised if anything came out of this. The police investigated this 37 years ago. Even civil lawsuits have a statue of limitations. I don't see how they can suddenly level these charges now. Mary Calif. would maybe know more about the laws regarding this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Delilah
This whole thing sounds like a bunch of crap to me. I am not saying Don was completely innocent, but he was charged and paid some dues at the time. IMO, someone is stirring the pot.
Incidentally, how is it that Jimmy Page managed to sleep with 13 year old girls and instead of being penalized he was given an honour by the Queen? Perhaps it was in that contract he made with Lucifer? :headscratch:
Lol, VG. He, David Bowie and many others...it’s amazing what they got away with back then.Quote:
Originally Posted by VillageGirl
I have no idea what happened that night all those years ago -- only those in the room know for sure and they have to live with it. Was there wrongdoing? Yes. Who knows if the punishment fit the crime or if should have been tougher, but "justice" (as defined by our legal system) was served,so why rehash it now?
Also, I find it hard to believe that the 15-year old just happened to have a Polaroid camera with her and took pictures all over the place and no one noticed. Those cameras were not exactly small or quiet back then. And if she had the pictures all that time, why didn't she produce them back then? It doesn't make any sense.
I find the incident very sad, but I don't think it makes any sense to bring it up again now. This could throw a damper on all the work Don's done for Walden Woods and Caddo Lake, and I really, really hope Don's wife and kids are not hurt by it.
She didn't have the camera, Henley did. She just happened to take a few of the polaroids he took with her without anyone noticing.Quote:
Originally Posted by maryc2130
What's with all the victim blaming here?
Nobody has done any victim blaming. The whole thing is a sordid mess. She had 37 years to pursue this and now decides to do something. The whole thing was investigated by the police, if they felt there was more to it they would have filed additional charges. The whole thing appears to be politically motivated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowland07
It could very well be. I hope not. As for the police. LAPD in particular. They took years to properly investigate a violent murder committed by one of their own. Google Stephanie Lazarus. I mention this because I just saw "One Of Their Own" a CBS 48 Hours Mystery on You Tube. It truly shocked me.Quote:
Originally Posted by New Kid In Town
Second, just saw this link in the comments section. It's an article in New York Magazine.
It's a good overview of politics and rock and roll at least back then.
"Squeezing Money Out Of Rock" by Maureen Orth. Feb 1980
https://books.google.com/books?id=We...0brown&f=false
Yes it is. I have read this before but I can't remember where.
I love Maureen Orth, she is a very good investigative journalist.Quote:
Originally Posted by New Kid In Town
She is also the wife of the late Tim Russert who I admired very much and miss alot.
OMG - I did not know she was Tim Russert's wife. I loved Tim Russert ! I still miss him when I watch election night. He sure is missed by me and gone way too soon.:cry:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dawn
We lost a damn good guy and giant in the news business. Nobody asked the tough questions like Tim. And nobody ever loved the Bills or Bruce Springsteen more!Quote:
Originally Posted by New Kid In Town
Well, I certainly hope that this is just an elaborate, highly fictionalized version of that night so many years ago, sensationalized to draw traffic to the website. It appears we will have our answer in 2018.
Jeez, I was thinking the exact same thing and wondering what recourse anyone would have to stop/prevent things like this from happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by sodascouts
It appears that defamation laws apply to Blind Items where the individual can be easily identified. However, bringing a lawsuit could draw attention to it.
I don't condone anything Don Henley may or may not have done but I distrust Blind Items.
I didn't mean to imply that the victim should be blamed or that she shouldn't come forward, if things did happen the way this account states they did. I was just questioning whether this was the truth or not. If it is the truth, I hope she does make people pay. If not, I hope she doesn't cause too much trouble for Don.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadowland07
Either way, I feel sad for the innocent victims -- namely, Don's wife and kids.
Turning the tables a little. Here's an article from last night's benefit concert in Ft. Worth.
http://www.star-telegram.com/enterta...187028563.html
If the the mainstream media has noticed I would imagine they would be concerned about thoroughly vetting all sources same with print and online tabloid publications. I'm not a journalist or lawyer. This is just common sense.
Especially when the person in question has a very powerful and vindictive manager. I think it's too hot to touch. Our lawyer friends would know better though.
I don't know what to make of the story: it's got a lot of detail (the amounts of each kind of drug!), but it also reads a bit like a conspiracy web site.
If I remembered correctly, I don't think she gave his name. It was the readers putting two and two together.
Unless you've been living under a rock or don't follow Don or the Eagles, nobody probably would had known it was Don.
Whether this news will come out next year or not, the big media should had picked up on this already. The media are not that stupid, but they show are acting like it. Why wait? That was the only reason I thought this new stuff was fishy. If it was true, you would had came out with it not wait. Nobody else is waiting until the holidays are over.
Sh did not use names, only #1, etc. You would have to have had lived in a cave to not know who she was talking about. Everyone who left a comment picked out who she was talking about in terms of #'s 1,2 & 3. This is old news, maybe that's why we haven't heard anything. However, in this day and age with everything going on now who knows.
Thanks for the link, Shun! It sounds like a great show for a worthy cause. Bass Hall is just beautiful. I would have loved to hear Don and Clint duet on “Desperado.”Quote:
Originally Posted by shunlvswx