Does the truth matter? Well, that’s a matter of “opinion” in the Evan Rachel Wood case

 

This Memorial Day weekend finds  truth-seekers reloaded with fresh ammunition in the battle against the forces  of falsehood and fabrication: a California court ordered Evan Rachel Wood to give up custody of her child to former partner Jamie Bell, which I'm sure comes as a "shock" to people who during all this time have "understood" Wood to be the long-suffering victim of the bogeyman Marilyn Manson. Something is not quite right here, but then again people who have an interest in this case have known that for some time now.

I wondered why Wood and Bell had broken up so soon after their son was born, so I did some investigating. I found this 2014 story in Jezebel:

According to a source, Evan Rachel Wood and Jamie Bell split because Wood prioritized motherhood over her relationship. In a seemingly contradictory detail, Wood also reportedly thought Bell wasn't "edgy" enough.

The couple welcomed a son last July, and he became the focus, the source adds. "Evan loves being a mom. After her son was born, he has been her No. 1 priority. The marriage always came in second. They have different goals for the future and want to pursue them separately."

As for Wood's romantic future, the source adds: "Evan is very edgy and adventurous and wants to find a partner that she can share that with."

Well, first off, it seems that Wood was just using Bell to have a child and then discarded him as no longer needed. The article is in the "Dirt Bag" section of the website, and the writer, Lindy West, provides a few hints about who she thinks the "dirt bag" is here, as if it isn't obvious.

But the other part of this is very interesting because it doesn't have to do just with Bell, but Manson as well.  The “straight” definition of “edgy” or "on edge" is being “nervous” or “uptight.” But in a “not normal”—i.e. “adventurous”—individual, it means someone who “breaks social conventions,” has “controversial attitudes,” and is “unafraid to challenge societal norms or push boundaries.” 

People would say that Marilyn Manson was this kind of “edgy.” Was that what attracted Wood to Manson, because he was into the “very edgy” like herself? Or did she feel a need to be "different," and Manson showed her a way to "express" this, and she decided this was for her at the time?

While we can surmise that Wood was not serious about having a long-term relationship with Bell (note that like Amber Heard she has “bisexual” predilections), it is still a fair question to ask what exactly did she consider “very edgy” then—since what she says now can only be taken as self-serving and not the truth. What is quite certain is that Wood realized she had no credibility about being a MeToo "victim" if it was known she was into "very edgy" things back then. Thus she had to change the narrative and claimed she was forced  to do "edgy" things against her will.

This is a good starting point to examine the credibility of Wood’s accusations against Manson, particularly since in that article her alleged issues with Manson are not mentioned at all as if that was all over long ago, and she is portrayed as entirely at ease with a lifestyle outside the "normal." 

She may claim now she was “groomed” by Manson, but she was an adult when she met him, and she wasn’t a “naïve child.” If she had an “adventurous” nature, it wouldn't be surprising that she would think that the “scene” Manson was involved in was “cool.” And exactly what kind of “adventures” did Wood have in mind that Bell was not prepared to share with her?

Of course Wood denies all now, but why should we believe her any more than Amber Heard? The facts rather strongly suggests that she is being disingenuous and opportunistic at the very least—and more likely someone dealing with “remorse” about her previous life choices, and with the help of her former partner Illma Gore, chose to blame men for it. 

Who was the most convenient target? Why not Manson, whose artistic “tastes” and public persona were already bizarre enough to most people who were even aware of it? Nor would it be too difficult to find women involved in Manson’s projects to make check marks on a list. But just because something is “weird” doesn’t make it a “crime” or even "abuse."

Although a California judge used the state’s anti-SLAPP law to protect Wood and her co-conspirators from answering for perpetuating a hoax against Manson, there have been too many other defeats for Wood that continue to sink her credibility. The latest is Bell’s custody case against Wood that has just ended with a California court ordering Wood to hand over principle custody to him. In court documents that were not sealed, we see why this occurred. Wood, by moving from California to Tennessee, deliberately attempted to subvert the custody agreement and prevented Bell from seeing his son:

 

Bell discovered that the FBI letter Wood was using to “protect” their child was fake:

 

Wood was evading summons to appear in court to explain herself:

 

Even when Wood agreed to mediation, she and her representatives continued to block any resolution:

 

Bell provided testimony concerning how Wood was inflicting psychological abuse on their son:

 

Another effort at mediation was a failure due to Wood’s intransigence:

 

This was apparently too much even for a California court that would normally rule in a mother’s favor at every turn. Wood was clearly not acting in good faith, and now was apparently seen as “unfit” to continue having principle custody of the child because of her increasingly bizarre and unstable behavior. Of course Wood would need to “spin” the story to conceal the truth, and through some sublet media outlet called The Blast we we told “Evan Rachel Wood Gives Up Custody Of Son After Alleged Marilyn Manson Threats.”

This was immediately responded to by both Manson, who insisted he neither has had any contact with Wood in nearly a decade, nor has threatened her son. Bell also asserted in a statement that Manson had nothing to do with the custody decision, and that the decision to relieve Wood of custody of their son was due solely to evidence of her unfitness as a parent. Regardless of what side people are on, for a California court to remove a child from a mother's custody has to raise all kinds of red flags about what is really wrong with Wood.

Evidence of Wood's psychological defects should finally convince those on the “fence” or have no opinion that at the very least Wood's case against Manson is shaky at best, and dependent upon whether you can suspend your belief enough to accept the word of someone whose story has slowly crumbled in the face of reverses such as one case (by Manson’s former personal assistant) being dismissed for lack of evidence, and an former accuser (Ashley Smithline) signing a sworn statement that she was pressured to make false claims by Wood and Gore. These along with former partners who claimed that they resisted pressure from Wood supporters to make false claims, and one who “arose from the dead” to contradict claims made about her by Wood and her co-conspirators, could only lead to questions of what the real truth is.

Of course the "truth" for some people is often based on their opinions or choosing to deny what the evidence (or lack thereof) tell them. On one reddit discussion page we find the usual failure to inform oneself of the facts:

Attacks on the father:

 

Revelations of personal politics and bias:

Was this meant to be "sarcastic":

As noted before, Wood didn't seem "scared" of Manson back in 2014; Wood's relationship with Bell was clearly from the start all about her own selfishness, and now claiming Manson is responsible for the loss of custody is just another way to "remind" people what this was all "really" about.  Of course not everyone wants to understand just how disturbingly odd Wood's claims are, and just run with it without looking where it leads:

Some people admit that they didn't read the court documents before making an ill-informed statement of "fact":

A few people wondered what the hell is going on with these people:

 

 

Someone even had the audacity to suggest that Wood was lying about Manson:

 

And then there are the wingnuts who think a violent response is the appropriate answer:

 Of course I added my two-bit to the discussion:

The facts are clear enough in the Manson case: you have a disturbed woman who “suddenly” discovered these “revelations” that her “very edgy” behavior had become something of an embarrassment for her. Everyone has these  “revelations” where they remember some embarrassing thing they did from the distant past that brings a brief pang about wishing not having done “that.” 

Usually these feelings are temporary because you can’t do anything about it; it's over, you hope nobody else remembers it. Wood apparently had many of these “embarrassing” moments that she wishes people wouldn’t remember or know about, and the MeToo movement provided her with a way to "explain" herself by blaming someone else.

Of course for some people the truth isn’t really the point—it is the “feeling” one has when they are looking for scapegoats to explain their own “issues.” We see people with their own "issues" vicariously “connecting” with a celebrity who gives them a sense of "power" and "credibility." Unfortunately for these people in the cases of Wood and Heard, they picked the wrong horses. The truth doesn't matter; the more the evidence piles up that makes their supporters look foolish, the need to become even more foolish.