People don’t rape because they enjoy sex, they rape because they enjoy rape.
Just catching up with this thread; here’s a thought about being fooled. I knew Michael Green - not particularly well, met him through cricket. I need to explain here that this was low level Sunday friendlies, and teams were typically a mixture of youngish teens and older men. I kinda took against Green because on one occasion we somehow ended up with (I assumed) one player too many, because he turned up with a boy of 14 or 15 in tow, and rather than sitting out and letting the kid play, he played himself and left the kid to twiddle his thumbs.
It never for a moment occurred to me that he was a pedophile and that, in all likelihood, that kid twiddling his thumbs was one of his victims. It gets worse, but I won’t go into that now.
My point is this: if the stories about Gaiman turn out to be true, it won’t surprise me that people were fooled - I’ve been there, and you feel stupid and bad about it afterwards (like, what the fuck were we exposing our young players to?) - but I don’t think it’s normal to look for evil in the (apparent) everyday. And if you don’t look you don’t see.
They say that abusers are very good at hiding in plain view. That’s certainly my experience.
j
Gosh, I don’t remember that at all: shows how long it is since I read the book! 
The only impression I retain is that the series rapidly deteriorated into an unoriginal repetive formula. I don’t think I will bother to revisit it.
Is there any possibility at all that his accusers are all lying, as he claims? I strongly, strongly doubt it, but two things make me wonder:
- One article mentioned that they had all bonded in something of a support group. If they’ve spoken extensively, that’s a little different from a bunch of people accusing him completely independently.
- He’s an ex-member of a cult that’s famous for destroying the reputations of its apostates. I don’t think it’s a Scientology attack, but would like to have confirmation that his accusers have no ties to Scientology.
That said, I’d like to see serious criminal investigation of these charges similar to what Weinstein and Cosby faced. The fact that he had these women sign NDAs (I’m assuming the reporter saw those NDAs) is pretty fucking damning.
Very much after the accusations. Basically facilitated by the first publicizing. Their accounts predate their bonding.
Given the bits both he and Palmer have already confirmed? No.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, links any of his accusers back to Scientology AFAICT.
If the law has already gone “nope, not going to look into this” , as happened with Pavlovich , what do you think is going to happen now?
Thanks for the details. The chances the accusations are false seem practically non-existent.
Isn’t that kind of how it worked with Cosby–and in fact is why Cosby got out of prison, because his lawyers argued that the second round of attention was invalid?
Cosby was basicall given immunity by the DA and confessed. Then, a replacement DA used that confession as evidence at trial. Cosby was definitely guilty. But that evidence was inadmissibale.
Do the police have to wait until there is a criminal complaint against him?
Could you quote what things Gaiman himself has confirmed? (not a gotcha, just don’t want to register at Vulture or go snipe hunting)
Mostly confirming he had, in fact, engaged in sexual acts with the women at the times/places they claim. He denies any of it was non-consensual and denies anything happened while his son was in the same room. He also confirmed that various DMs and recorded phone conversations the women have provided are genuine.
Between that, the NDAs, and other bits coming out, it’s highly unlikely (though admittedly not impossible) that it’s all a setup. But in the same way that it’s highly unlikely a plane will fall out of the sky and hit my house.
Also, he’s retained the services of the PR firm that represented Danny Masterson and Prince Andrew, which is unsurprising under the circumstances, and is in full spin and damage control mode.
To be fair, hiring a lawyer and going into full spin control mode is a reasonable response for a person subject to such accusations, regardless of whether they’re true or not.
Yes, but hiring a firm known for having clients who are, in one case, a convicted rapist, and in the other, an unconvicted rapist protected by his social status, is not a great look.
This.
It isn’t sex being expressed in the form of power. It’s power-over being expressed in the form of sex.
(I distinguish power-over from power-to. They’re not the same thing; and when somebody’s saying they want or deserve power, check which one they’re talking about.)
From almost the end of that article:
Well, Neil may have had a tough time at school, but he certainly turned out all right.
It turns out that he didn’t turn out all right, at all.
Having read the rest of the Vulture article: It seems likely that he was seriously abused as a child, if not sexually. And that he might have wound up with a lot of reason to be weird about power-over. But an explanation, even if it is one, is not an excuse.
Yeah this one is much harder to prove. Possibly impossible - basically a string of he said/she saids of varying severity, with texts/DMs after some of the incidents which by the accuser’s own admissions could be potentially read as friendly and indicative of a consensual relationship. Never mind that they were written by confused and frequently financially compromised young women.
The sheer number of accusations, the repeated matching patterns by unrelated victims, the repeated cash payouts and the NDAs, the descriptions of technically consenting but pattern-reinforcing encounters (IMO) are all rather damning in the court of public opinion (i.e. mine). But much tougher in a court of law as long as no corroborating witnesses exist for the lack of consent.
I think Palmer or some other participating partner would have to flip and to be fair, she might not have enough direct evidence to prove anything either. She comes off as unlikable in context, but I’m not quite willing to throw her under the bus about what she actually knew. Far as I know she’s never been accused of anything like this herself.
I mean, rape accusations usually come down to he-said-she-said. It’s easy to prove that two people had sex (if you actually take the revolutionary move of actually investigating, which is all too rare), but it’s hard to prove that it wasn’t consensual. Lots of women all saying the same thing is about the best evidence one is ever likely to get.
LOL, that firm did a really stellar job with those guys 
That’s just defense lawyers in a nutshell, though, isn’t it? If you’re accused of a crime, you want lawyers who are experienced in fighting the specific charges you’re facing. Which means that they’ve likely defended a whole lot of people who have actually done the thing you’re accused of.
I think it’s possible for him to remember events differently than his victims (which is not the same as saying that his recollections are correct).
Lawyers? What lawyers? I mentioned an image management/PR firm.
He’s recently engaged a top notch one known for working on public perception of clients with…troubling personal issues.
Staffed by lawyers