Aussie actress Ruby Rose makes explosive claims about attempts on her life: ‘Been followed'
Ruby Rose has explosively claimed she is 'trying desperately to stay alive' and has 'been followed', forcing her to 'move house every few weeks' in a troubling series of posts on social media.
The Melbourne-born actress, 39, made the allegations on Threads on Monday, responding to a post which asked: 'Who is a celebrity that gave it all up at the height of fame to live a 'normal' life?'
Rose wrote underneath it: 'Hi. We just leave when people try to kill us. When we are illegally debanked. Hope that helps.'
'Debanking' refers to when customers have their accounts closed – or faced a refusal to open them in the first place – often due to perceived risks. Rose didn't specify whether it was related to her own experience or if she was referring to someone else.
Rose, who launched her career as a model, DJ and TV host for MTV Australia, moved to Hollywood in 2013 and found fame with their breakout role in Orange Is The New Black.
She went on to star in blockbusters including Resident Evil: The Final Chapter, Pitch Perfect 3, xXx: Return of Xander Cage, John Wick: Chapter 2 and The Meg.
However, her blossoming stardom came to an abrupt halt in 2020 when she controversially quit CW superhero series Batwoman with details remaining mysterious for months afterwards.
But in late 2021, Rose publicly alleged that she had been subjected to bad working conditions on the set, and was 'forced' back to work after suffering a neck injury.
Following a work hiatus in Australia, where she spent time with her family, Rose returned to LA to appear in two action movies, Vanquish and SAS: Red Notice – both of which were panned, with the former even earning her a Razzie nomination for Worst Actress.
In their recent troubling posts, Rose added that she didn't 'want to be labelled 'crazy'' as she continued with her allegations.
'I don't want to pretend to know how Virginia Giuffre died – but DOZENS of people including a school bus, have tried to run me off the road in the last few years,' she wrote.
Giuffre, a high-profile victim of billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, died by suicide at a farm outside Perth in April.
Just weeks earlier, she had claimed on social media that she had just days to live after being involved in a car accident, although police later confirmed it was only a minor collision with no serious injuries reported.
Rose went on to allege that she had been 'followed almost every time' she left their home in recent years.
'But I might as well update you,' she alleged.
Rose also responded to one worried follower questioning her mental health, responding that she had no suicidal thoughts, adding: 'thank you for asking'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
23 minutes ago
- ABC News
Magistrate in Hillcrest jumping castle case to hand down decision
A chapter of the Hillcrest Primary School tragedy may end today, with Magistrate Robert Webster set to hand down his decision in the criminal case, but the story is far from over. It is more than six months since the Devonport Magistrates Court heard evidence in the case against Rosemary Anne Gamble, who is charged with failing in her work health and safety duty over the tragedy on December 16, 2021. Students Zane Mellor, Peter Dodt, Jalailah Jayne-Maree Jones, Addison Stewart, Jye Sheehan, and Chace Harrison died, and three of their classmates were seriously injured when a freak wind tossed a jumping castle across their primary school oval in Devonport in north-west Tasmania. Ms Gamble pleaded not guilty to the charge ahead of a two-week hearing in November. In February, the court heard closing statements from the prosecution and defence lawyers. Some of the victims' family members sat through each day of the hearing, clutching pillows bearing their children's faces and wearing T-shirts printed with their photos. The courtroom was often a scene of tension and heightened emotions as parents' grief, anger and frustration came to the fore. The distressing details and timeline of the tragedy were examined in detail throughout the two-week hearing. The court heard Ms Gamble owned Taz-Zorb, a business that dealt in inflatable amusement devices, and was contracted by the Hillcrest Primary School for its end-of-school-year celebrations on the day of the tragedy. That morning, she and her partner Robert Monte set up their operation on the school's oval, and students began queuing for their turn on the couple's crayon-themed jumping castle. At about 10am, a fierce wind, described by some witnesses as a "mini tornado" and by a weather expert as a "dust devil", swept through the school grounds with devastating effect. It was an otherwise calm and sunny day, and the court heard the couple had used 30cm pegs at four of the castle's eight anchor points to tether it to the ground. The pegs almost immediately failed when the dust devil struck, lifting the castle high into the air. Seven children were inside the castle when it was thrown across the oval, and five of them did not survive their resulting injuries. Another child was waiting in line and died after being struck in the head by the airborne jumping castle blower. The charge alleged Ms Gamble failed to comply with her duty "in a way that exposed the children to a risk of death or serious injury". Crown prosecutor Madeleine Wilson said Ms Gamble failed in several ways to comply with her duty, including by properly failing to anchor the castle to the ground. The Crown also said Ms Gamble had failed to properly train herself or her staff in the proper, safe inflation and operation of the jumping castle. Mr Monte told the court they watched YouTube and taught themselves how to operate the jumping castle after buying it in 2015. "You're f***ing joking," a father said as he stormed out of court during Mr Monte's evidence. Mechanical engineer Roderick McDonald told the court that if star pickets, which were available on the day, had been used at all eight anchor points, the castle would have stayed on the ground. But defence lawyer Chris Dockray SC said it was the defence case that nothing Ms Gamble could have done would have prevented the tragedy on that day, as the dust devil was a freakish and unpredictable weather event. That position was backed in by defence expert witness Professor David Eager from the University of Technology Sydney. "If you hadn't held the event, it wouldn't have happened," he said. During submissions in February, Mr Dockray also targeted Chinese company East Inflatables, the manufacturer of the jumping castle. He said it was East Inflatables' business model to "prey upon people like Ms Gamble" to sell jumping castles. Even if Magistrate Robert Webster does find Ms Gamble guilty, he cannot sentence her to a prison term. The maximum penalty for a category two offence under the Work Health and Safety Act is a $1.5 million fine for a corporation, and a $300,000 fine for an individual conducting a business. If Ms Gamble is found not guilty, she will simply be free to go. But whatever the result, the victims' families will likely soon return to back in court as a coronial inquest is slated to begin once the criminal proceedings conclude. The families also launched a civil class action against the state of Tasmania and Ms Gamble in December last year on the third anniversary of the tragedy. The class action was filed in the Supreme Court of Tasmania by the law firm Maurice Blackburn and alleges the state, as the school's operator, and Taz-Zorb had a duty of care and failed to take reasonable precautions to ensure the children's safety. At the time, principal lawyer Dimi Loannou said the families' grief was a daily experience. "Nothing will erase the suffering or bring back their lost children," she said.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Erin Patterson's responses to five prosecution accusations in mushroom murder trial
On Thursday, crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers SC launched her cross-examination of Erin Patterson, who is accused of murdering three of her relatives after they ate a beef Wellington she prepared and served. During her questioning, Dr Rogers put several propositions to Ms Patterson, who has pleaded not guilty to charges of murder and attempted murder and maintains the deaths were a tragic accident. Here are some of those accusations and how Ms Patterson responded. During her cross-examination, Dr Rogers targeted Ms Patterson's health, particularly a cancer diagnosis the court has previously heard was fake. Ms Patterson agreed she had wanted the lunch guests to believe she was having treatment for cancer, but disagreed she had told them she had been diagnosed with cancer. "Did you tell people at the lunch that you had cancer?" Dr Rogers asked. "No," Ms Patterson responded. Dr Rogers continued to question Ms Patterson about whether she had told her guests she had cancer, which Ms Patterson continued to deny. The prosecution said the sole surviving guest of the lunch, Ian Wilkinson, had earlier testified that Ms Patterson told the group she had cancer. Dr Rogers then brought Ms Patterson back to her evidence on Wednesday, where she had been questioned by her own defence lawyer, Colin Mandy SC, about a conversation she had with her guests about cancer. This is part of the transcript: Colin Mandy: And what happened with that conversation about cancer, did it move on to other topics? Erin Patterson: Um, it stayed at that topic at that point. Um, I … Colin Mandy: What did you say about your health? Erin Patterson: So, it was right at the end of the meal and I mentioned that I'd had a - maybe not 'scare' is the right word, but I had an issue a year or two earlier where I thought I had ovarian cancer and had various scans about and related to that. And then, um, I'm not proud of this, but I led them to believe that I might be needing some treatment in regards to that in the next few weeks or months. When asked by Dr Rogers if she told her guests she had upcoming treatment for cancer, Ms Patterson said she could not remember the precise words. "But I do know what I was trying to communicate was that … that I was undergoing investigations around ovarian cancer and might need treatment in that regard in the future," she said. Dr Rogers also put to the accused that she had researched different types of cancer on the internet to "tell a more convincing lie about having cancer". "I mean, theoretically, that's true, but that's not what I did," Ms Patterson said. During the questioning, Dr Rogers put the following statement to Ms Patterson: "I suggest that you never thought you would have to account for this lie of having cancer, because you thought that the lunch guests would die and your lie would never be found out." Ms Patterson denied this accusation, saying "that's not true". Ms Patterson admitted she did not have a lump on her elbow or an appointment at St Vincent's hospital in the weeks before the July lunch in 2023, despite telling her mother-in-law Gail Patterson both of those things. "You didn't have any medical issues to discuss with Gail Patterson at the lunch, did you?" Dr Rogers asked. "I didn't have a legitimate medical reason, no, that's true," Ms Patterson said. When she was asked why she told Gail about these things, Ms Patterson said she didn't want the care Don and Gail had been showing her to stop. "I had initially thought I had an issue with my elbow, I'd had a lot of pain for a number of weeks," she said. "I probably whinged a bit too much to Don and Gail about it, and felt a bit embarrassed by that. "I suggest that you told Gail Patterson that you had a lump in your elbow and had to go to St Vincent's Hospital to plant the seed of you having a serious health issue," Dr Rogers said to Ms Patterson during the hearing. "I'd say no, I don't think that's right, no," Ms Patterson responded. On Thursday, the court was again shown a series of Facebook messages between Ms Patterson and her online friends. In the messages, Ms Patterson vented to her friends about her parents-in-law being reluctant to take sides in a financial disagreement she was having with their son, Simon. In her messages, she recounted her in-laws suggesting prayer and conversation between Ms Patterson and her husband to resolve the matters. Dr Rogers referred to "eye-roll emojis" used in one of the messages and another emoji that Ms Patterson said showed a straight-line smile underneath. Dr Rogers noted that emojis were a deliberate choice made by a user, and asked Ms Patterson what she would call the emojis. "All I can say about it, it's a face with a straight line for a mouth," she replied. "I don't know what I'd call it." "Even though you used it?" Dr Rogers asked. "Yeah," Ms Patterson replied. Dr Rogers takes her to another emoji after a reference to prayer again in the message. They disagreed about whether it was an eye-roll emoji. "There's a better eye-roll emoji than these … I can't see anything about eyes rolling in there," Ms Patterson said. Dr Rogers suggested Ms Patterson was "mocking" the advice from her in-laws in some of these messages, including the religious aspects of that advice. "I wasn't mocking, I was frustrated," Ms Patterson said. Dr Rogers took Ms Patterson to evidence given by one of her Facebook friends, who told the court the accused had told them she was an atheist and found her husband's religious background difficult. Ms Patterson denied this. "So, your evidence is that you did not say or post that you were an atheist?" Dr Rogers asked. "No, I didn't do that," Ms Patterson replied. During the prosecution's cross-examination on Thursday, Ms Patterson was shown several photos of mushrooms sitting on a dehydrator rack, including some balanced on scales. When asked about the images, Ms Patterson said she "probably" took them but had no memory of doing so. Dr Rogers told the court fungi expert Tom May's evidence was that the mushrooms depicted on a tray in one of the photos were "consistent with Amanita phalloides [death cap mushrooms]". "I suggest that you were weighing these death cap mushrooms so that you could calculate the weight required for the administration of a fatal dose for one person. Agree or disagree?" Dr Rogers asked Ms Patterson. "Disagree," Ms Patterson replied. Dr Rogers suggested to Ms Patterson that the mushrooms depicted in the photo were death cap mushrooms that the accused had foraged in Loch after seeing a post on iNaturalist. Ms Patterson replied, "that's not correct". Nanette Rogers: You deny that these are death cap mushrooms? Erin Patterson: That's correct, I don't think they are. Dr Rogers also put to Ms Patterson that the reason she had lied to police about never owning a dehydrator was because she knew she had used it to prepare death cap mushrooms for the lunch. Ms Patterson denied this. Dr Rogers then suggested that Ms Patterson was "very keen to dispose of any evidence that might connect you with the possession of death cap mushrooms". "No, I didn't know they'd been in it," Ms Patterson said. Dr Rogers put to Ms Patterson that she had deliberately used foraged mushrooms in the beef Wellington and that those foraged mushrooms were death cap mushrooms. "I did not deliberately put death cap mushrooms in the meal," Ms Patterson said. During the questioning, the prosecution put to Ms Patterson a suggested reason for her lying to police about owning a dehydrator. "You lied, because you knew if you'd told the police the truth, it would implicate you in the deliberate poisoning of your four lunch guests," Dr Rogers said. "No, no, it's not true," Ms Patterson responded. Dr Rogers also put to the accused that she had lied about owning a food dehydrator because "you knew you had used the dehydrator to prepare death cap mushrooms to include in the lunch". Ms Patterson also denied that, saying "I didn't know that". She was then asked if she agreed or disagreed that she lied about dehydrating mushrooms because she knew if she "told police the truth then that would implicate you in the poisoned lunch". "I agree that I lied because I was afraid I would be held responsible," Ms Patterson replied. Ms Patterson later agreed if she had told the truth to police she would have been a suspect. "You knew that if you told police the truth then you would be immediately suspected by police of being involved in a poisoning event?" Dr Rogers asked. "That's probably true, yes," Ms Patterson said. The trial continues.
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
Hugh Jackman-linked health retreat listed as first guests arrive
The founder of a famed eco resort, co-owned by Hollywood actor Hugh Jackman, has listed his newest venture for sale before the first guests even arrive. Three years in the making, EcoView Retreat was developed over a 28.06ha rainforest parcel next to Gwinganna Lifestyle Retreat in Tallebudgera Valley. Sydney-based entrepreneur Tony de Leede is behind both properties, and shared ownership of the celebrity-favourite Gwinganna with Deadpool & Wolverine star Jackman, his ex-wife Deborra-Lee Furness, and entertainment guru Paul Dainty. Jackman, whose bitter recent split from Furness made headlines, shared highlights from his 2024 stay at Gwinganna on social media. He EcoView Retreat is wholly owned by Mr De Leede, who also founded the Fitness First gym franchise. He described the newest venture as a 'mind-blowing' addition to his Hinterland offerings. The $9m project at 660 Trees Rd is for sale through an expressions of interest campaign with Kollosche Commercial agents Adam and Tony Grbcic. Adam Grbcic said the facility accommodated 30 guests over 15 luxury villas, offering an estimated annual revenue of $2m. It would be sold with forward bookings and an option to retain the current on-site manager. The first group of guests were scheduled to arrive within days for a corporate event. Rates started at $6,7000 per day to hire the entire retreat. Developers warned to boost project starts Motocross mansion named Australia's hottest home Mr De Leede said EcoView was modelled on a 'host your own' or self-hire concept for corporate events and private groups, unlike the award-winning Gwinganna, which catered to cashed-up individual guests. He said he was selling in order to 'practice what I preach' — spend more time relaxing — given he owns multiple other assets including Komune in Bali. 'I am thrilled after three years of planning and construction, to finally unveil this amazing venture,' said Mr De Leede. 'I am equally excited to be simultaneously bringing it to market, opening up the opportunity for a savvy investor to own and expand on this incredibly unique and highly profitable business concept and commercial offering. 'With Nature-Based Tourism zoning approved for wellness and retreat activities and operations, the versatility and flexibility of EcoView means its potential is bound only by the imagination.' Potential uses included boutique weddings, corporate retreats, medical health or rehabilitation recovery clinics, private family gatherings, or even silent discos. Mr Grbcic said EcoView would suit an Australian investor seeking a 'hands-off' asset, given the low-maintenance business model requiring only one full-time staffer. 'Everything required to operate this as a successful and profitable business has already been carefully considered and tested. Every detail, down to the crockery in the kitchen, is ready and in place,' he said. 'Having said that, extensive potential remains, not only within the existing space, but on the wider property to expand on what are already promising income returns.' Offering complete privacy and magical views of the valley and coastline, the retreat tapped into an evolving global trend for more sustainable nature-based and wellness experiences. Alongside the twin-share villas, the property includes a main building with a reception area, commercial-grade kitchen, shared living and dining spaces and five multipurpose rooms, as well as a manager's residence. Additional facilities include a yoga room or conference space, gym with three infra-red saunas, hydrotherapy pools and outdoor leisure spaces. Property records show Mr De Leede acquired the parcel for $1.975m in 2005. Gwinganna was also listed for sale in 2022, but failed to secure a buyer. Mr De Leede said he remained open to selling the larger asset. Expressions of interest close on July 3.
