top of page
  • Writer's pictureLupine (Alex Taylor)

The Case for Nicole Eggert

Updated: Aug 3, 2020

Actress Nicole Eggert is alleging actor Scott Baio sexually assaulted her when she was a teenager.

Nicole Eggert is a high profile individual who fits the general definition of a Silence Breaker but who has for all intents and purposes, faced her opposition independently of the Breaker movement with the support of various followers.

The man at the center of her allegations, Scott Baio, has waged a campaign of bullying and intimidation without shame and very openly against her. Baio obtained the services of an individual named Brian Glicklich to wage an open campaign to try and discredit Nicole on social media.

Since then Nicole Eggert has been subjected to a constant trolling at the hands of various Baio Stans and she has had to weather constant attacks from Baio's fixer Brian Glicklich. Despite this Nicole has stood firm which is a testimony to her courage.

Of all the high profiles I have dealt with, Nicole Eggert is definitely in the top 3 for suffering targeted and relentless ongoing abuse and harassment. Once again the question we face is how to decide who is telling the truth when both parties stand in stark opposition when claiming fact and truth?

The basic allegation is that is that Scott Baio committed crimes relating to unlawful sexual conduct over the period when Nicole Eggert was 14 to 17 according to her stated claim.

Scott Baio's response is that he did have sex with Nicole Eggert on one occasion after she reached the legal age of consent, that being 18 in the relevant jurisdiction. The linked article details the allegations well.

I find the allegations pass the credibility test to a very high standard. The abuse started at the age of 14 when most people have little in the way of sexual experience. This statement stands out in particular. Nicole is describing her reaction to the first time Baio sexually assaulted her.

“I was very young. It was shocking,” Eggert recalled. “He was playing not only on my emotions, but my hormones and all of those things.”

This statement says a great deal to me and I have the advantage of having experienced similar abuse in that age range. The experience of suddenly being touched in that way can only be described as shocking.

An entire subsystem of highly sensitized nerves suddenly flare into life, previously inexperienced and wholly independently of the context in which the contact is occuring. The result is highly intensive physical, emotional and psychological responses all coming together in an instant.

When that context is one where an experienced adult is dealing with a wholly inexperienced young person the result is something that is generally never forgotten in the mind of the afflicted. Nicole confirms the situation where she describes how he used her emotions and hormones against her.

Nicole also described an ongoing sexual contact that occured on the set of Charles in Charge that culminated in sex occuring when, according to Nicole, she was 17. Scott Baio claims she was 18. A great deal of conflict has occurred as the result of these opposing claims.

Unfortunately for Scott Baio, the question of whether Nicole Eggert was 17 or 18 at the time that sexual event occurred is actually not the relevant deciding factor in this. Here is what Baio actually did.

Baio's offending fits into the classic "molester" class of offending. When he first touched Nicole Eggert he triggered an intense "shocking" physical response that was in fact the initial wound he inflicted on her psychologically.

For that is the moment when Nicole would have begun to experience a sudden influx of cognitive dissonance that would go on to be reinforced over the next few years as Baio continued his unlawful sexual behavior towards her.

I note that the behavior that Nicole Eggert described as occurring on set was witnessed by two individuals who both came forward and went on record. Alexander Polinsky and Adam Carl have both clearly stated that they personally witnessed the alleged behavior.

This behavior amounts to gas lighting the victim physically and emotionally to achieve the desired psychological response. As Nicole stated, he manipulated her hormonal and emotional vulnerabilities.

The abuse finally concluded when Baio had sex with Nicole Eggert and once again Nicole's depiction of events passes the consistency test.

“It wasn’t a hold-me-down rape me situation, but I was 17. … I just wasn’t ready to tell my story. … It was upsetting. It wasn’t a good experience at all. … It was at my house in my spare bedroom, he laid down a towel and it happened there.”

There are no red flags in this disclosure that I can see. I see Nicole describing the initial event as the start of a grooming gas lighting process that was implemented to groom Nicole to not resist Baio's advances.

The result is clear in that Baio finally did have sex with Nicole and her "consent" was consent obtained in the context of significant and ongoing sexual abuse. The manner in which it occurred fits the narrative neatly.

If Nicole had of suddenly presented Baio as being a physically aggressive rapist I would have had concerns at the sudden change in modus operandus. I am not saying that does not happen and that would not have been the decider on its own. But it would count as a red flag for certain.

I was in contact with Nicole Eggert for several weeks back in the early days of Rose Army and Nicole and I were having a general chat about various things. During one of those conversations Nicole told me about how the abuse had impacted on her life.

I will not share that private information of course but what I can say is that what Nicole described to me, most unknowingly on her part, was the expected emotional and psychological outcomes for an individual exposed to chronic cognitive dissonance.

It is here we see the consistency.

  • Nicole's public disclosure flagged the point of the commencement of chronic cognitive dissonance.

  • Baio's actions on set are wholly consistent with behavior that ensures an ongoing state of cognitive dissonance in the victim to assist the offender in achieving his goals.

  • This behavior was witnessed by two witnesses who have both come forward on public record.

  • The final encounter has been described by Nicole in a manner that is wholly consistent with Biao's modus operandi that she disclosed from the outset.

  • Nicole told me about issues that she faced / is facing in a manner that clearly marked the truth of the fact of ongoing chronic cognitive dissonance which links straight back to the cognitive dissonance dynamic Nicole details in her disclosure of the original assault.

Having determined the notable presence of chronic cognitive dissonance it is evident where PTSD comes into the equation. Nicole is experiencing ongoing abuse being deliberately inflicted cognitive dissonance in the form of manipulation and gaslighting at every level.

Not only is Nicole experiencing this abuse she is also trapped in it and unable to escape it. Subjected to chronic and damaging psychological distress, Nicole is trapped in Biao's abusive agenda because he held power over Nicole's identity as well.

Nicole Eggert as Jamie in the sitcom Charles in Charge. 1980's.

To achieve what is required for this part of the consideration we must be Nicole Eggert as she was in the 1980's to the best of our ability. Television was nothing like it is now and acting on a popular sitcom was a really big deal with a lot fewer people making it on much fewer shows.

Scott Baio was enormously popular as he fitted the perfect type when it came to being cast as a male in the 1980's. Biao made a great heartthrob for that period in that he was very handsome yet not overtly masculine.

His character was slightly goofy with great lines and his whole overall image was that of a male who could never be aggressive or offensive towards anyone.

Nicole Eggert with her girl next door looks and a hairstylist who had not sacrificed all sense of decorum and proportionality like so many did in the 1980's, was also a heartthrob character who was well cast in her role.

All of this combined to make a highly attractive yet wholesome package that resulted in a very popular show that ran for much of the 1980's. So at a time when being on television was considered one of the worlds greatest achievements, Nicole Eggert found herself at the age of 14 presenting Jamie to adoring fans worldwide.

All the people who knew Nicole would have been caught up in the fact of that to one degree or another. As Nicole became more aware of how her presentation impacted on the wider public's perceptions of her the weight of the demands that came with being Jamie would have started to be felt.

Obviously everything we do comes with a price and that is not the issue here. The issue is found in the fact that Baio created a situation where Nicole's ability to be Jamie, deal with the issues that came with that and extract any real benefit for her own wellbeing, were all now wholly dependent on Nicole meeting Baios sexually motivated requirements.

That is not what is considered fair price and for that reason among others is considered a gross breach of trust and duty. It is in fact an ongoing violation. So the impact is evident.

Nicole had to endure the pressures that came with being Jamie while being pushed up against those expectations by the sexual demands of a person who was much older than her and who had a great deal of power over her.

Thus we are presented with the perfect conditions for the development of PTSD symptomology. It is fair to say, that even having regard for the expected social norms of the 1980's, Scott Baio's alleged behavior would not have been considered acceptable.

I spoke with Nicole over a period of several weeks but fell out of contact with her when my attention was diverted to other events in 2018. At no stage did I detect the slightest indication that Nicole was lying and grifting.

Nicole Eggert presented as a straightforward woman completely absent of guile. I got a compelling sense that what you see is what you get when it comes to Nicole Eggert.

What we see here is a consistent and compelling disclosure supported by two witnesses in material part. I was directly told by Nicole about issues that she had to deal with that I personally found to be extremely compelling and beyond any but the most practiced and cunning to fake.

The reason for Nicole's disclosure seems evident to me. Biao's actions inflicted a reality on Nicole Eggert that sat in sharp and painful contrast with the world view that millions were projecting onto Nicole who they saw as Jamie.

This combined with the physical and emotional cognitive dissonance that was inflicted on Nicole as a young teenager results in what I can only imagine must be a chronic and debilitating cocktail of cognitive dissonance and PTSD.

The only option that has been available to Nicole is to take that reality and impose it as the only truth that matters thus bringing an end to decades of psychological torment, at least at that basic level.

Simply put Nicole was given the burden of carrying the weight of the lie that was imposed on her by Scott Baio to be carried alone while all the while carrying the expectations of the public, family, fans, cast and crew.

I hold the view that is a lot to carry at the age of 14 and it's perfectly understandable and I believe inevitable that Nicole lost all desire and or ability to carry that weight any longer in more recent years. Having full regard for Nicole's circumstances I can only marvel at how well she has done to hold herself together in the face of all this.

In response to the campaign that Baio is waging against Nicole Eggert, primarily through the use of the dubious services of Brian Glicklich, it is clear to me that the usual bag of cheap tricks is in play.

Biao and Glicklich's entire campaign is based on a completely flawed premise from the outset. Upon hearing the allegations the response from Team Biao was to come marching out and claim that the truth of Nicole's allegations would be decided on a test of their own making and implementation.

One of the strongest elements of this test would be that if Nicole said or says or did or does anything that Team Biao could even remotely claim in anyway amounted to an inconsistency then that would amount to proof that Biao was innocent and Nicole Eggert a false complainant.

There is to be no regard for details such as the actual definitions of the words in question, a simple claim of wholly unsubstantiated hearsay shall be considered compelling and decisive proof.

Claims of Nicole's motivations are to be taken as true, there are a range to choose from to match pretty much any mealy mouthed prejudice. Thus we see what amounts to total drivel being advanced as fair, relevant and not misleading but I fear I must beg to differ. Strongly.

Nicole Eggert has the right to have her allegations judged having regard for 50 years of developing policy and process for dealing with allegations of sexual assault that have presented the commonly accepted scientific understanding of how these things actually work.

Instead, Nicole has been subjected to waves of unsubstantiated abuse based on nothing but straw man reasoning steeped in malice. Scott Baio and Brian Glicklich do not get to decide the basis on which Nicole's veracity is to be decided.

The fact that Baio is conducting himself thus is simply an ongoing extension of the abuse inflicted on Nicole Eggert in the 1980's. His supporters are also supporters of the rapist currently holding the office of the US president, Donald Trump.

It is fact that those who support a man who has 25 women accusing of him of sexual assault are not fit to judge the veracity of any survivors claim. These people have already clearly demonstrated that they are not fair and or reasonable. Need I say more?

Based on the actual facts presented it is my view that Nicole Eggert's allegations are credible in the extreme and I see no evidence that points to the contrary.

It is my view that Nicole Eggert is suffering ongoing abuse at the hands of the individual who offended against her, that her allegations are backed by strong evidence and that in short Nicole is telling the truth.


Nicole Eggert had no input into the making of this article.

bottom of page