Little pink monster blog

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But this is all on the unfounded precedent that there was a pain pill addiction (I believe those were the accusations as a result of her chronic illness) to begin with. We 100% know Kane has had periods of mental instability about it. He admitted so on camera. How is mental illness an honorable disease where actions are excusable, but addiction is not? (especially something as wicked as opioids)

Opoids addiction are well-known precursors to a spiraling path into drug overdosing, financial difficulties, and child abuse. Not only was/is Natasha an addict, but so is the man she married. Quite frankly - the parent who is NOT a drug addict has the responsibility to do all they can to shield and protect their children from the person with the problem.

I wouldn't want my daughters in that household either. The toddler Natasha conceived obviously has no choice in the matter, but the girls? Absolutely and that's why the courts ruled partially in Kane's favor. You can argue all you want that they're 'accusations' but a woman and mother doesn't lose full custody for any reason except child abuse, sexual abuse, or drug abuse.

Period.

She has regained custody. At least partially. So she has changed positively and proven she is responsible with the children. And once again everything you are saying is speculation.

And more importantly nothing she has ever done justifies using cameras to watch her when she is alone without permission or using the police to intimidate her. You are using something she did to gloss over or justify something deeply disturbing that he did. I'm not glossing over the potential effects of addiction and clearly she faced real consequences if she was in fact addicted via reduced custody and a stint at rehab. What consequences did he face for accessing cameras that spied on her without her permission?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did she say in her post that it was his weekend with the kids. Not sure I get the full story?

Oh I'm going to assume that she didn't get them back yet... When she does there will be a staged photo op and a long dramatic post about how traumatic their experience was and how she is so happy to have them home.

She never mentions how much time they spent with their father while she was in court ordered REHAB though does she? Has she ever disclosed that truth? Nope. Never.

So what? She appears to have done the work and bettered her life. Meanwhile he's watching her on security cameras while she's home alone.

Why do you keep repeating that? Her post about the security cameras is about when she still lived in the home they had when they were married. She doesn’t live there anymore.

Spying on someone via a security system when you are separated is completely effed up and a clear sign of a controlling abusive ahole. Regardless of whether the divorce was final and if they were living in the marital home.

Maybe you fall into temptation knowing spouse hasn't changed the codes. Fine. But to be found out and to show up with the cops to intimidate when your access is cut off?

Honestly that story makes me reevaluate what I thought Kane was capable of. I figured he was an egotistical jerk, but that type of behavior verges on sociopathic.

Signed a listener who stopped listening that day he laid into her on air because I have divorced parents and it left a terrible taste in my mouth. Someone not remotely associated with Natasha or Kane but someone who has known some controlling and terrible men in my life.

Who said it was ok for him to be spying on her? The question was why you keep bringing up the spying on her? Natasha’s post said it happened in the past, yet you keep writing as if it’s continuing to happen. There’s enough speculation in this thread - don’t add to it.

I was a new poster. I was responding to you seeming to act like this was no big deal and happened a long time ago so therefore irrelevant.

Given this was when they were newly separated and pre-rehab for N, I too would want to make sure I could check in on my kids when they were with their potential addict parent and would be in a total panic if my former spouse changed the passwords to prevent me from doing that

Yeah ok, so how about him watching her when she didn't have the kids? This is an effed up and sociopathic thing to do and just because he doesn't have the ability to do it today doesn't he wouldn't if he could and it does say a lot of relevant stuff about the content of his character generally that he would ever do it.

If you separate and your spouse has visitation you don't actually get to spy on them via their home security system regardless of how unfit a parent you believe them to be.

As a drug addict she probably wouldn't use when the kids were around. The kids out of the house and her alone would be the perfect time to get high. As he was and is fighting her for custody, while successfully being able to take her kids away (which she confirmed), I'd say his fears about her inability to cope without some kind of drug(s) were accurate.

I wouldn't leave my teenage son alone if I thought he had an addict either. Especially not any capacity that allowed him full care of younger siblings (or in this case - the kane/natasha girls).

Watch Ben is Back.

You're now citing a dramatized tv show to justify his behavior? That is pretty desperate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did she say in her post that it was his weekend with the kids. Not sure I get the full story?

Oh I'm going to assume that she didn't get them back yet... When she does there will be a staged photo op and a long dramatic post about how traumatic their experience was and how she is so happy to have them home.

She never mentions how much time they spent with their father while she was in court ordered REHAB though does she? Has she ever disclosed that truth? Nope. Never.

So what? She appears to have done the work and bettered her life. Meanwhile he's watching her on security cameras while she's home alone.

Exactly! And he's drinking on the job as well

How exactly do you know this?

Shelby was posting pics of alcohol and the crew was celebrating her last day and there was a video of everyone with cups including Kane. I get the celebrating, but he was picking up the girls from school later too. Unfortunately, after the crew was called out on it, Shelby deleted the post. But I'm sure it's still circulating out there somewhere. I'll see if I can find it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did she say in her post that it was his weekend with the kids. Not sure I get the full story?

Oh I'm going to assume that she didn't get them back yet... When she does there will be a staged photo op and a long dramatic post about how traumatic their experience was and how she is so happy to have them home.

She never mentions how much time they spent with their father while she was in court ordered REHAB though does she? Has she ever disclosed that truth? Nope. Never.

So what? She appears to have done the work and bettered her life. Meanwhile he's watching her on security cameras while she's home alone.

Why do you keep repeating that? Her post about the security cameras is about when she still lived in the home they had when they were married. She doesn’t live there anymore.

Spying on someone via a security system when you are separated is completely effed up and a clear sign of a controlling abusive ahole. Regardless of whether the divorce was final and if they were living in the marital home.

Maybe you fall into temptation knowing spouse hasn't changed the codes. Fine. But to be found out and to show up with the cops to intimidate when your access is cut off?

Honestly that story makes me reevaluate what I thought Kane was capable of. I figured he was an egotistical jerk, but that type of behavior verges on sociopathic.

Signed a listener who stopped listening that day he laid into her on air because I have divorced parents and it left a terrible taste in my mouth. Someone not remotely associated with Natasha or Kane but someone who has known some controlling and terrible men in my life.

Who said it was ok for him to be spying on her? The question was why you keep bringing up the spying on her? Natasha’s post said it happened in the past, yet you keep writing as if it’s continuing to happen. There’s enough speculation in this thread - don’t add to it.

I was a new poster. I was responding to you seeming to act like this was no big deal and happened a long time ago so therefore irrelevant.

Given this was when they were newly separated and pre-rehab for N, I too would want to make sure I could check in on my kids when they were with their potential addict parent and would be in a total panic if my former spouse changed the passwords to prevent me from doing that

Yeah ok, so how about him watching her when she didn't have the kids? This is an effed up and sociopathic thing to do and just because he doesn't have the ability to do it today doesn't he wouldn't if he could and it does say a lot of relevant stuff about the content of his character generally that he would ever do it.

If you separate and your spouse has visitation you don't actually get to spy on them via their home security system regardless of how unfit a parent you believe them to be.

As a drug addict she probably wouldn't use when the kids were around. The kids out of the house and her alone would be the perfect time to get high. As he was and is fighting her for custody, while successfully being able to take her kids away (which she confirmed), I'd say his fears about her inability to cope without some kind of drug(s) were accurate.

I wouldn't leave my teenage son alone if I thought he had an addict either. Especially not any capacity that allowed him full care of younger siblings (or in this case - the kane/natasha girls).

Watch Ben is Back.

You're now citing a dramatized tv show to justify his behavior? That is pretty desperate.

Drug addicts lose their rights to privacy when young children are in danger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did she say in her post that it was his weekend with the kids. Not sure I get the full story?

Oh I'm going to assume that she didn't get them back yet... When she does there will be a staged photo op and a long dramatic post about how traumatic their experience was and how she is so happy to have them home.

She never mentions how much time they spent with their father while she was in court ordered REHAB though does she? Has she ever disclosed that truth? Nope. Never.

So what? She appears to have done the work and bettered her life. Meanwhile he's watching her on security cameras while she's home alone.

Why do you keep repeating that? Her post about the security cameras is about when she still lived in the home they had when they were married. She doesn’t live there anymore.

Spying on someone via a security system when you are separated is completely effed up and a clear sign of a controlling abusive ahole. Regardless of whether the divorce was final and if they were living in the marital home.

Maybe you fall into temptation knowing spouse hasn't changed the codes. Fine. But to be found out and to show up with the cops to intimidate when your access is cut off?

Honestly that story makes me reevaluate what I thought Kane was capable of. I figured he was an egotistical jerk, but that type of behavior verges on sociopathic.

Signed a listener who stopped listening that day he laid into her on air because I have divorced parents and it left a terrible taste in my mouth. Someone not remotely associated with Natasha or Kane but someone who has known some controlling and terrible men in my life.

Who said it was ok for him to be spying on her? The question was why you keep bringing up the spying on her? Natasha’s post said it happened in the past, yet you keep writing as if it’s continuing to happen. There’s enough speculation in this thread - don’t add to it.

I was a new poster. I was responding to you seeming to act like this was no big deal and happened a long time ago so therefore irrelevant.

Given this was when they were newly separated and pre-rehab for N, I too would want to make sure I could check in on my kids when they were with their potential addict parent and would be in a total panic if my former spouse changed the passwords to prevent me from doing that

Yeah ok, so how about him watching her when she didn't have the kids? This is an effed up and sociopathic thing to do and just because he doesn't have the ability to do it today doesn't he wouldn't if he could and it does say a lot of relevant stuff about the content of his character generally that he would ever do it.

If you separate and your spouse has visitation you don't actually get to spy on them via their home security system regardless of how unfit a parent you believe them to be.

As a drug addict she probably wouldn't use when the kids were around. The kids out of the house and her alone would be the perfect time to get high. As he was and is fighting her for custody, while successfully being able to take her kids away (which she confirmed), I'd say his fears about her inability to cope without some kind of drug(s) were accurate.

I wouldn't leave my teenage son alone if I thought he had an addict either. Especially not any capacity that allowed him full care of younger siblings (or in this case - the kane/natasha girls).

Watch Ben is Back.

You're now citing a dramatized tv show to justify his behavior? That is pretty desperate.

Drug addicts lose their rights to privacy when young children are in danger.

How were young children in danger when she was alone in the home while he had the children? And they don't lose their right to KNOWING whether or not they have privacy.

[Anonymous]

I don’t even think this person is friends with Peter as much as they just hate Natasha. Event if she did the thing you accuse her of, she made amends as PP pointed out. They accusation that her and her husband are current addicts.... it makes you sound a bit unhinged and even less believable. We shouldn’t even be entertaining that the pain pill addiction could have been real, as no named person has said this.

[Anonymous]

If you're going to find fault with his using the cameras to spy then you also need to take issue with the fact that she had an addiction that required court-ordered rehab (not of her own volition). I think they cancel each other out. Neither is better than the other at this point. I'm surprised at all of the people defending her as being healthy now and not understanding the constant stress and worry that comes with co-parenting with an addict. You never know when/if they will relapse which is anxiety-inducing when young children are involved. This entire forum is littered with posts about parents not wanting their ILs, neighbors, etc to have their kids in any capacity if they've had even the slightest history of addiction yet somehow it's all fine and dandy with N because she's put up some flowery posts about how wonderful life is now. He's kept quiet in public about it yet she's evading acknowledgement that she ever had an issue while simultaneously throwing her ex constantly under the bus. They're clearly both messed up people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you're going to find fault with his using the cameras to spy then you also need to take issue with the fact that she had an addiction that required court-ordered rehab (not of her own volition). I think they cancel each other out. Neither is better than the other at this point. I'm surprised at all of the people defending her as being healthy now and not understanding the constant stress and worry that comes with co-parenting with an addict. You never know when/if they will relapse which is anxiety-inducing when young children are involved. This entire forum is littered with posts about parents not wanting their ILs, neighbors, etc to have their kids in any capacity if they've had even the slightest history of addiction yet somehow it's all fine and dandy with N because she's put up some flowery posts about how wonderful life is now. He's kept quiet in public about it yet she's evading acknowledgement that she ever had an issue while simultaneously throwing her ex constantly under the bus. They're clearly both messed up people.

PP most of us have not defended any type of addiction. We have pointed out that someone who underwent treatment and has regained custody via a court order has done some work that should be commended.

You however seem to be arguing over and over that his extremely inappropriate and abusive spying when children were not even in the house is perfectly justified simply because of a problem that we really have zero insight into the details of. It is simply never justifiable to spy on an adult that you are separating from alone in a home with cameras. That is extremely shady. It is worse to show up joking and intimidating her with police officers while your children ARE in the house.

We're not the people saying both people aren't messed up, you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're going to find fault with his using the cameras to spy then you also need to take issue with the fact that she had an addiction that required court-ordered rehab (not of her own volition). I think they cancel each other out. Neither is better than the other at this point. I'm surprised at all of the people defending her as being healthy now and not understanding the constant stress and worry that comes with co-parenting with an addict. You never know when/if they will relapse which is anxiety-inducing when young children are involved. This entire forum is littered with posts about parents not wanting their ILs, neighbors, etc to have their kids in any capacity if they've had even the slightest history of addiction yet somehow it's all fine and dandy with N because she's put up some flowery posts about how wonderful life is now. He's kept quiet in public about it yet she's evading acknowledgement that she ever had an issue while simultaneously throwing her ex constantly under the bus. They're clearly both messed up people.

PP most of us have not defended any type of addiction. We have pointed out that someone who underwent treatment and has regained custody via a court order has done some work that should be commended.

You however seem to be arguing over and over that his extremely inappropriate and abusive spying when children were not even in the house is perfectly justified simply because of a problem that we really have zero insight into the details of. It is simply never justifiable to spy on an adult that you are separating from alone in a home with cameras. That is extremely shady. It is worse to show up joking and intimidating her with police officers while your children ARE in the house.

We're not the people saying both people aren't messed up, you are.

Dp...yes most of you have defended her even in the face of addiction. You seem to keep arguing that her addiction is spotty at best. You’re right we have zero insight into the details of her addiction just like we have zero insight into if he actually came over to her house about the cameras. This is he said/she said and the issue is that you, along with a lot of other posters immediately believe her without any actual proof. The truth is, Natasha hasn’t moved on and thinks it’s ok to air her personal business for sympathy. Kane still hasn’t said anything about her and what she is claiming. From the outside it seems like she wants attention. If she was actually concerned she would be in the courts fighting instead of using a public forum. There is absolutely no reason for her to post about this on social media.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^whoever you are, you really want us to know that she went to rehab. Regardless if it’s true, we get it. You want EVERYONE to know you think Natasha has a problem and went to court order rehab and is now clean. Completely unconfirmed at this point, but we here you.

Do you now feel validated?

Do you?

Why is it that you want to gloss over her past but make sure everyone knows Kane’s?

You seem to be totally brushing off an unbelievable invasion of privacy on his part while highlighting a negative thing about her. To me that says you are somehow on team Kane, because I, unconnected to both of them, see how both of them have issues but cannot imagine brushing such a psycho thing under the rug. If her account is true that is totally over the line insane.

Addiction is a disease. Hers (if true) was treated in a center after which she found a new partner, got married and had a healthy baby and has secured shared custody of her children. No 'disease' makes you spy on your wife via a home security system and then bring police over to intimidate her in front of your kids. Addiction is a serious thing, hers seems to be treated and under control. Sociopathic tendencies cannot be cured. So if I was picking one of these two flaws to talk about how its relevant to who they are and how they're acting today I would say what he did is much more relevant to today than what she did.

Not brushing anything off. Genuinely curious why you believe her? What actual proof do you have that all her claims are true? You clearly don’t believe his so why do you believe hers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^whoever you are, you really want us to know that she went to rehab. Regardless if it’s true, we get it. You want EVERYONE to know you think Natasha has a problem and went to court order rehab and is now clean. Completely unconfirmed at this point, but we here you.

Do you now feel validated?

Do you?

Why is it that you want to gloss over her past but make sure everyone knows Kane’s?

You seem to be totally brushing off an unbelievable invasion of privacy on his part while highlighting a negative thing about her. To me that says you are somehow on team Kane, because I, unconnected to both of them, see how both of them have issues but cannot imagine brushing such a psycho thing under the rug. If her account is true that is totally over the line insane.

Addiction is a disease. Hers (if true) was treated in a center after which she found a new partner, got married and had a healthy baby and has secured shared custody of her children. No 'disease' makes you spy on your wife via a home security system and then bring police over to intimidate her in front of your kids. Addiction is a serious thing, hers seems to be treated and under control. Sociopathic tendencies cannot be cured. So if I was picking one of these two flaws to talk about how its relevant to who they are and how they're acting today I would say what he did is much more relevant to today than what she did.

All of this. ^^^ Even if she did have a problem (still total hearsay here) she has since cleaned up and gotten her life right. His behavior is deranged. Says so much about him as a person and what she's likely been dealing with for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^whoever you are, you really want us to know that she went to rehab. Regardless if it’s true, we get it. You want EVERYONE to know you think Natasha has a problem and went to court order rehab and is now clean. Completely unconfirmed at this point, but we here you.

Do you now feel validated?

Do you?

Why is it that you want to gloss over her past but make sure everyone knows Kane’s?

You seem to be totally brushing off an unbelievable invasion of privacy on his part while highlighting a negative thing about her. To me that says you are somehow on team Kane, because I, unconnected to both of them, see how both of them have issues but cannot imagine brushing such a psycho thing under the rug. If her account is true that is totally over the line insane.

Addiction is a disease. Hers (if true) was treated in a center after which she found a new partner, got married and had a healthy baby and has secured shared custody of her children. No 'disease' makes you spy on your wife via a home security system and then bring police over to intimidate her in front of your kids. Addiction is a serious thing, hers seems to be treated and under control. Sociopathic tendencies cannot be cured. So if I was picking one of these two flaws to talk about how its relevant to who they are and how they're acting today I would say what he did is much more relevant to today than what she did.

All of this. ^^^ Even if she did have a problem (still total hearsay here) she has since cleaned up and gotten her life right. His behavior is deranged. Says so much about him as a person and what she's likely been dealing with for years.

But his behavior is hearsay too. Why is hers hearsay but his isn’t?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^whoever you are, you really want us to know that she went to rehab. Regardless if it’s true, we get it. You want EVERYONE to know you think Natasha has a problem and went to court order rehab and is now clean. Completely unconfirmed at this point, but we here you.

Do you now feel validated?

Do you?

Why is it that you want to gloss over her past but make sure everyone knows Kane’s?

You seem to be totally brushing off an unbelievable invasion of privacy on his part while highlighting a negative thing about her. To me that says you are somehow on team Kane, because I, unconnected to both of them, see how both of them have issues but cannot imagine brushing such a psycho thing under the rug. If her account is true that is totally over the line insane.

Addiction is a disease. Hers (if true) was treated in a center after which she found a new partner, got married and had a healthy baby and has secured shared custody of her children. No 'disease' makes you spy on your wife via a home security system and then bring police over to intimidate her in front of your kids. Addiction is a serious thing, hers seems to be treated and under control. Sociopathic tendencies cannot be cured. So if I was picking one of these two flaws to talk about how its relevant to who they are and how they're acting today I would say what he did is much more relevant to today than what she did.

Not brushing anything off. Genuinely curious why you believe her? What actual proof do you have that all her claims are true? You clearly don’t believe his so why do you believe hers?

I think if she was lying he would have sued her by now. That is a big accusation and there haven't even been any Kane sympathizers on here denying that it happened.

I am curious why you believe him? What proof do you have that all of his claims are true? I believe that (if there is court decision evidence) if she had to go to rehab than she had a problem. I also believe that he has a big problem with women based on his long history with female cohosts and his decision to put his wife's personal problems on blast on his radio program.

So what information do we know fairly confidently?

1) Natasha at one point went to a court ordered rehab (I'm kind of taking your word on this that there is court evidence).
2) Kane has had numerous female cohosts quit or be pushed out due to conflicts with him
3) Natasha won back partial custody of the kids and is remarried with a new baby
4) No one on team Kane has denied her recent accusations
5) Previously cited former female cohosts have seemed sympathetic to Natasha.
6) Kane was at one point arrested for some type of domestic incident with Natasha.
7) Both have made questionable choices about the amount of information they share with the public regarding their relationship. IN MY OPINION, when he has done this it has been to humiliate her and when she has done this it has been in an effort to gain access to her children

What has been accused with no corroboration?

1) The crashing her car and parking it in the front yard accusation
2) The taking the kids and emptying the bank account and splitting to Florida accusation (by Kane of Natasha)
3) The extreme drug addiction to pain pills (I think personally there is a difference between someone with a chronic pain condition who needs to get treatment after being perscribed opioids and developing an issue and for example, someone hunting down oxy on the street to score)
4) Kane logged into security systems to spy on her when she was alone post separation

To me that shows a clearly dysfunctional relationship with two people that have a lot of fault. I also think there is a pattern of Kane treating women poorly. I think there is a pattern of Kane acting like women who clashed with him are 'crazy'. I think that Natasha appears to have changed a bit since 2015 or whatever. She's in a new stable marriage and has no problems maintaining custody of her son. Kane has not been in a stable relationship (not bad on it's own) and has continued to go through female cohosts (Mel). One seems to have changed their pattern of behavior and one seems not to have.

That isn't exonerating either for actions they took back then. It isn't saying either is blameless. It is saying that in the current situation, breaking a custody agreement is bad in general and very bad for the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^whoever you are, you really want us to know that she went to rehab. Regardless if it’s true, we get it. You want EVERYONE to know you think Natasha has a problem and went to court order rehab and is now clean. Completely unconfirmed at this point, but we here you.

Do you now feel validated?

Do you?

Why is it that you want to gloss over her past but make sure everyone knows Kane’s?

You seem to be totally brushing off an unbelievable invasion of privacy on his part while highlighting a negative thing about her. To me that says you are somehow on team Kane, because I, unconnected to both of them, see how both of them have issues but cannot imagine brushing such a psycho thing under the rug. If her account is true that is totally over the line insane.

Addiction is a disease. Hers (if true) was treated in a center after which she found a new partner, got married and had a healthy baby and has secured shared custody of her children. No 'disease' makes you spy on your wife via a home security system and then bring police over to intimidate her in front of your kids. Addiction is a serious thing, hers seems to be treated and under control. Sociopathic tendencies cannot be cured. So if I was picking one of these two flaws to talk about how its relevant to who they are and how they're acting today I would say what he did is much more relevant to today than what she did.

All of this. ^^^ Even if she did have a problem (still total hearsay here) she has since cleaned up and gotten her life right. His behavior is deranged. Says so much about him as a person and what she's likely been dealing with for years.

But his behavior is hearsay too. Why is hers hearsay but his isn’t?

I don't know them but he has a pattern of problems with people. Watch out John, it's only a matter of time until you're next. He has no consistent friends, relationships, or co-workers (other than his current minion, IJ).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^whoever you are, you really want us to know that she went to rehab. Regardless if it’s true, we get it. You want EVERYONE to know you think Natasha has a problem and went to court order rehab and is now clean. Completely unconfirmed at this point, but we here you.

Do you now feel validated?

Do you?

Why is it that you want to gloss over her past but make sure everyone knows Kane’s?

You seem to be totally brushing off an unbelievable invasion of privacy on his part while highlighting a negative thing about her. To me that says you are somehow on team Kane, because I, unconnected to both of them, see how both of them have issues but cannot imagine brushing such a psycho thing under the rug. If her account is true that is totally over the line insane.

Addiction is a disease. Hers (if true) was treated in a center after which she found a new partner, got married and had a healthy baby and has secured shared custody of her children. No 'disease' makes you spy on your wife via a home security system and then bring police over to intimidate her in front of your kids. Addiction is a serious thing, hers seems to be treated and under control. Sociopathic tendencies cannot be cured. So if I was picking one of these two flaws to talk about how its relevant to who they are and how they're acting today I would say what he did is much more relevant to today than what she did.

Not brushing anything off. Genuinely curious why you believe her? What actual proof do you have that all her claims are true? You clearly don’t believe his so why do you believe hers?

I think if she was lying he would have sued her by now. That is a big accusation and there haven't even been any Kane sympathizers on here denying that it happened.

I am curious why you believe him? What proof do you have that all of his claims are true? I believe that (if there is court decision evidence) if she had to go to rehab than she had a problem. I also believe that he has a big problem with women based on his long history with female cohosts and his decision to put his wife's personal problems on blast on his radio program.

So what information do we know fairly confidently?

1) Natasha at one point went to a court ordered rehab (I'm kind of taking your word on this that there is court evidence).
2) Kane has had numerous female cohosts quit or be pushed out due to conflicts with him
3) Natasha won back partial custody of the kids and is remarried with a new baby
4) No one on team Kane has denied her recent accusations
5) Previously cited former female cohosts have seemed sympathetic to Natasha.
6) Kane was at one point arrested for some type of domestic incident with Natasha.
7) Both have made questionable choices about the amount of information they share with the public regarding their relationship. IN MY OPINION, when he has done this it has been to humiliate her and when she has done this it has been in an effort to gain access to her children

What has been accused with no corroboration?

1) The crashing her car and parking it in the front yard accusation
2) The taking the kids and emptying the bank account and splitting to Florida accusation (by Kane of Natasha)
3) The extreme drug addiction to pain pills (I think personally there is a difference between someone with a chronic pain condition who needs to get treatment after being perscribed opioids and developing an issue and for example, someone hunting down oxy on the street to score)
4) Kane logged into security systems to spy on her when she was alone post separation

To me that shows a clearly dysfunctional relationship with two people that have a lot of fault. I also think there is a pattern of Kane treating women poorly. I think there is a pattern of Kane acting like women who clashed with him are 'crazy'. I think that Natasha appears to have changed a bit since 2015 or whatever. She's in a new stable marriage and has no problems maintaining custody of her son. Kane has not been in a stable relationship (not bad on it's own) and has continued to go through female cohosts (Mel). One seems to have changed their pattern of behavior and one seems not to have.

That isn't exonerating either for actions they took back then. It isn't saying either is blameless. It is saying that in the current situation, breaking a custody agreement is bad in general and very bad for the kids.

I never said I believed him or that his claims were true.

I believe they both have a lot of issues and that unless you actually know them everything is hearsay. I don’t think she is more sympathetic than he is nor vice versa. I don’t think him being single is a bad thing when you have two young daughters to look after. I also don’t think its bad that she remarried. Him suing her would be too petty and wouldn't be a good look for him. His best bet is to keep quiet. Airing her business just isn’t a good look no matter how you try to spin it. But at the end of the day there are 3 sides to a story and we have yet to hear the truth side.