TMZ

Our TV Shows

Got a Tip?

Call TMZ at (888) 847-9869 or Click Here

Mel's Alleged Mistress:

I Have Text Messages

8/15/2010 10:30 PM PDT BY TMZ STAFF

The woman who claims to have been Mel Gibson's mistress at the time of the now-famous January 6 blowout says she was badgered by Mel's bodyguard to keep her mouth shut ... this according to sources who have been in touch with the woman.

0813_Mel_Violet_Oksana_getty_tmz_ex
Sources say Violet Kowal claims she was communicating with Mel on January 6 about his blowup with Oksana Grigorieva

In the days following -- January 7, 8 and 9 --  Violet Kowal claims she was contacted by one of Mel's bodyguards.  We're told Kowal says the bodyguard sent text messages, warning her that she couldn't talk about the incident and that she should "disappear" for a price.

And sources say Kowal -- who is now repped by Gloria Allred -- has phone records and text messages.

Sources also say ... Kowal claims to have an email she received recently from the L.A. County Department of Children and Family Services, the Sensitive Case Unit, informing her they wanted to speak with her.  So far, we're told, Kowal has not met with anyone from DCFS.

1214 COMMENTS

No Avatar
136.

azlee    

@hahaha,
Don't apologize for something you feel strongly for :-). I am tired of it too, freedom of speech is getting lost in this country.

1495 days ago
137.

thehoch    

I have no doubt that some of these posters on here defending Mel Gibson are being paid by his "team". Anyone else notice a pattern on here?

Trying to change public opinion of a monster like Mel through a TMZ blog.

Now that's pathetic!

1495 days ago
138.

Angel     

post 134

have you got a bi- polar disorder as you seem to know alot about it

Thank you for sharing that with us here on TMZ

1495 days ago
139.

Jacqueline13    

Hi Lee,

What some don't understand, is that you cannot smear a hollywood figure. It's impossible. But when you try to extort money from them, then, you have committed a crime and should be committed yourself!

1495 days ago
140.

janet    

Gloria Allred has always been a media whore. The only ones loving this and bleeding all of this crap dry are the lawyers. GET ALL THOSE BILLIBLE HOURS. These guys get paid regardless of the outcome.

1495 days ago
141.

Jacqueline13    

Ox extorts Mel. Gloria extorts her clients. Only legally.

1495 days ago
142.

lee    

Hi Jacqueline!

...have you gotten your check, yet???
I'm still waiting for all these supposed payoffs, did my name get lost in the DCFS e-mail search for Violet's personal e-mail??

1495 days ago
143.

Tired of toxomom    

Violet wasn't a mistress because Mel wasn't married to OG. She was just another booty call.

1495 days ago
144.

Jacqueline13    

Lee...you know it. I have been paid in cash, all along. And I didn't have to "be kind" to anyone, to get it!

1495 days ago
145.

Tired of toxomom    

I have no doubt that some of these posters on here defending Mel Gibson are being paid by his "team". Anyone else notice a pattern on here? Trying to change public opinion of a monster like Mel through a TMZ blog. Now that's pathetic! Posted at 8:28 AM on Aug 15, 2010 by thehoch

-------------------------------------------------------

When all else fails, accuse those with an opposing opinion of being paid...

1495 days ago
146.

jeanie     

WHY DOES ANYONE REALLY CARE ABOUT THIS?

1495 days ago
147.

Tara    

It's all about the cash to come in any civil lawsuit that Oksana launches. Kowal has consistently served as back-up in Oksana's escalating shake-down of Mel and now she has been positioned to provide direct evidence to back up Oksana's tale of abuse on January 6th.

However, her story changes consistently including these brand new never-before-mentioned text messages about the alleged abuse of Oksana and from Mel's body guards. On Geraldo, all she has was phone records of calls made from Mel's cell and home phone. Now she has texts about the alleged night of domestic violence. How can anyone believe this??

There is an evidence factory somewhere that is regularly producing whatever Oksana needs to try to make her story credible.

1495 days ago
148.

Jacqueline13    

toxomom...

Dont' you just hate the word "mistress"? Why not just calling it what it is: Whore.

1495 days ago
149.

V    


Specifics regarding SCU cases:


http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HFSro8tDmegJ:dcfs.co.la.ca.us/policy/hndbook%2520cws/0050/005050385Sensitivereferralsv060...9.doc+los+angeles+child+and+family+services+Sensitive+case+unit&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

1495 days ago
150.

V    

OK - haven't read any of the comments yet. And still contemplating much of the claims made in this publication.

I have found a few links to help ME understand what is happening out there in CA. Keep in mind each state has different priorities and procedures when it comes to defining
"BEST CHILD WELFARE".

CA, from all that I have read works doggedly to KEEP children in their HOME. There was a lawsuit not that long ago dealing with children's mental health and many changes happened supposedly within the LA Department of Child & Family Services.
(if you want to learn about the specifics. Katie's Law is the google trigger)

There are two ways for a case to land in the "Sensitive Case Unit" BTW- that unit CALLED THAT BECAUSE OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED, high profile - i.e. celebrity or even law enforcement officers. From what I read, SENSITIVE is synonomous with HYPER-CONFIDENTIAL caseload practices.

Sort of surprised to read an account where a third party (VIOLET) would be ELECTRONICALLY contacted. Only because it breaks the chain of CONFIDENTIALITY, doesn't it? But then I guess when it is all said and done - whether it is a call, voicemail, text, or email, just asking someone to contact them would not specifically interfere with confidentiality. And the matters which do require confidentiality would not be relayed via email would they? So it would be supposition as to WHY Violet was contacted by anyone in that department wouldn't it?

Let's disect TMZ's last sentence:

"Sources"

Hey TMZ sources REPRESENTING or AGENTS OF WHOM? Violet or LA DCFS? Matters A WHOLE LOT doesn't it?

"also said ..."

HUMMMMMMMMMMM. wonder what the ... was and why TMZ felt OK to treat it this way? our curiosity? Convey much more was mentioned?

"Kowal claims to have an email" -

The reality is someone told TMZ something Koval asserts, right?


Well, if true, it means Violet either shared the email with someone or someone took Violet at her word. The TIME of WHEN THIS ALL HAPPENED IS VERY IMPORTANT ISN'T IT? Because as of August 7th, Violet had LEGAL COUNSEL.

Begs the question since Kowal has legal counsel, is the SOURCE from Gloria Allred's office or Allred herself?

What I find interesting is SCU became involved NOT because of a HOTLINE call about a specific incident did they? They became involved via a referral. And if I am not wrong that referral came from a JUDGE. In a case that is under COURT SEAL. And the SCU independently operates under SEAL AS REQUIRED By CA LAW. IF this SOURCE is in any way tied to Gloria Allred's law practice is this ETHICALLY ACCEPTABLE CONDUCT IN CA?

AND if Violet shared this email with someone, WHEN? Wouldn't her attorney have advisedher what UNDER SEAL means? And wouldn't Mrs. Allred who is on the TEAM of Domestic Violence Victims understand and advise her client to NOT interfere with the work in the COURT and at DCFS?

If she did something contrary to counsel's advice, which happens, it makes things a bit awkward for Gloria Allred the timing of this article makes it a bit awkward for Ms. Allred doesn't it?

There isn't any actual comment from Violet's attorney's is there? I find that odd. Most reporters will always at the very least get a "no comment". The article leaves the door open to TMZ NOT attempting to contact Ms. Allred's office. So was TMZ sloppy? Or again, was their source FROM Allred's office? This article is unclear, isn't it?

If the source isn't Violet's attorney, why would anyone associated with Koval ignore she has legal counsel and speak/leak to TMZ? why would TMZ not contact Koval's legal counsel? HUMMMMMMM. Confusing to me.

TMZ did you verify there even is an email before you published this? Shouldn't you? To do so, you would have had to reach WHOEVER at SCU supposedly sent this woman an email, correct?

The reason I ask is because all data involving SCU are locked and authoriziation is complex. You may have been able to verify a person works at DCFS and even handles SCU cases. But I seriously doubt you would be able to CONFIRM ANY EMAIL SENT TO ANYONE involved a particular case! And there are the looming questions WHO provided Violet's name and contact information to SCU, WHEN, and WHY? I can more reasonably believe someone from such an agency REPLIED to an email. Guess the details will clear things up at some point won't they?

"shereceived recently from the L.A. County Department of Children and Family Services, the Sensitive Case Unit, informing her they wanted to speak with her."


This is the MOST interesting. Because of CA code.

Here is the best link I have found. It is a snapshot from the actual HANDBOOK used by LA DCFS. WARNING it is long!

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IE1t3cVUnwAJ:dcfs.co.la.ca.us/Policy/Hndbook%2520CWS/0070/007054810v0610v2.rtf+Procedural+Guide+0070-548.10&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


The article says "RECENTLY" - very interested as to WHEN Violet claims to have received this email and the fact she hasn't met with anyone yet. When it comes to SCU or any DCFS case: First question is IN or OUT of HOME case? Then there are specific datelines for when to conduct FACE-TO-FACE with the child, FACE-TO-FACE with the caregivers (by the way there is a separate guideline for OUT OF THE HOME CAREGIVER cases, THAT is

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:EVSxiEZJacYJ:dcfs.co.la.ca.us/policy/hndbook%2520cws/0050/005050125v0509.doc+LA+DCFS+0050-501.25&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

There are FINITE datelines for witness interviews AND MOST IMPORTANTLY WHEN A CASE MUST BE DETERMINED TO BE CLOSED OR NOT.

UNLESS the DCFS has decided something very different from what has widely been reported recently that both Oksana and Mel Gibson are NOT a threat to the child, then why would DCFS contact Violet at all? HOW RECENT IS RECENT?

Here is another link with a different SPIN.

http://www.hollywoodlife.com/2010/07/21/dcfs-mel-gibson-oksana-grigorieva-baby-custody/

TMZ - this one was shameful imo.

1495 days ago
Previous 15 Comments | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | Most Recent | Next 15 Comments

Around The Web