sfcityduck

On 4/3/2024 at 12:47 AM, Prince Namor said:

What? You don't think Piskor's comic book work was used in accessing who he is as a person? 

And I'm not even referring to this as guilt or innocence in what Molly SAID, I'm referring to you saying she seemed like an innocent 17 year old who didn't know better. 

Nice pivot. Your post was about her work not his. 

And, no, that's not what I said. If you were confused, let me be clear: Age of consent laws are to protect the vulnerable. There is no "she's not an innocent virgin!" defense to a violation of an age of consent law. Such a defense would pretty much defeat the intent.

On 4/3/2024 at 6:12 AM, october said:

Have you bothered to look at either of their work? Because if you had, you'd know instantly what Namor was talking about. 

I think I know what he was implying. I think it shows a total misunderstanding of the context and purpose of age of consent laws. Whatever she drew is irrelevant to this debate. I'm very surprised that the argument is being made that its ok for an older person to have sex with an underage person if the underage person was interested in, drew pictures of, or had previously engaged in sex is even being made.

On 4/3/2024 at 12:47 AM, Prince Namor said:

What? You don't think Piskor's comic book work was used in accessing who he is as a person? 

And I'm not even referring to this as guilt or innocence in what Molly SAID, I'm referring to you saying she seemed like an innocent 17 year old who didn't know better. 

On 4/3/2024 at 12:04 AM, sfcityduck said:

Not sure what you are implying here, but it does not look good to me.

On 4/3/2024 at 4:45 AM, jimjum12 said:

Is that fouling your narrative up? A 17 year old girl, who chooses to interact with adults on the internet without parental supervision, cannot still, simultaneously , claim some sort of innocent waif status, and then play the victim, without a little more than the verification from some social worker of questionable skill sets. Grooming? WTF is that? Did he comb her hair? I get all the rage against pedophilia, but I'm sorry, a grown man "hitting" on a near adult who sought him out in the first place, should not be facing a prison offence, nor should he be labeled a pedophile, when many, many societies allow marriage at that age.

 

What you, Prince Namor and Jimjum12, are doing here, hopefully inadvertently or ignorantly, is engaging in a practice known as "sl_t shaming" a potential victim. And you are doing it here based on her art not her conduct. No one on this thread has any illusions as to what information or influences there are in the world. But that's irrelevant to the debate being conducted here, and for the potential wrongdoing at issue here it is not a defense. Jimjum12's statement that "a grown man 'hitting' on a near adult who sought him out in the first place, should not be facing a prison offence" is more than a bit deaf to the concerns that motivate age of consent laws. Age of consent laws reflect that young hormone filled kids coming of age are programed to want sex. That's why they are vulnerable to overtures from the proverbial "creepy old men."

I think Ed knew what those concerns were and attempted to address them in his final FB message, so I'm more than a bit surprised that you are blind to them:

* "I’m so sorry for being so stupid. I definitely should never have talked with Molly D. ... I wasn’t trolling Instagram randomly but I definitely shouldn’t have chatted with her when I found out how young she was."

* "The whole pile of my dms she collected to show is just awful to look at. I’m sorry."

* "The very next morning after Molly D posted the screencaps I put my last will in testament together. Freewill.com."

That last comment by Ed immediately above is particularly telling, especially as to the allegation he makes elsewhere in the letter that he was murdered by internet bullies.

On 4/2/2024 at 11:15 PM, Prince Namor said:

Have you seen Molly's comic book art? There's a reason she connected with Ed. 
It was by no means My Little Pony. 

 

Not sure what you are implying here, but it does not look good to me.

On 4/2/2024 at 10:32 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

The Law is there to protect them legally. The responsibility of parents, should be there to do the real work of TEACHING them critical reasoning skills.

He did defend himself in the letter. 

There was no court of law, because there were no charges filed.

He was convicted in the court of public opinion by, as you said, 'not having all the facts'.

He wasn't convicted because the jury of public opinion was still out. One missive is not a defense. It's a skirmish. And what he said wasn't an artful or coherent defense. Maybe he had a better more coherent story to tell but we'll never know. I've read some other suicide letters, and I've never seen one like this. This one was calm, calculated, and contradictory - alternatingly apologetic and unapologetic. The cynic in me can't help but think it was crafted, in part, in an attempt to get around the Hearsay Rule and be admissible for the truth of what he stated. The statement "There needs to be recourse for my loved ones. I’m dead. I don’t have a reason to lie" appears crafted for a court. His pleas for his family to sue Molly Wright are remarkable. I don't know what the guy was thinking. 

On 4/2/2024 at 10:32 PM, Prince Namor said:

 

I've worked with hundreds, HUNDREDS of 18 year old strippers over the last 25 years. And either they had a Matrix-like download of information to their brain at 18 that suddenly turned them into... 'experienced adults', or... they knew a lot more before that 18th birthday than I guess most people would give them credit for. 

And I don't mean that just in terms of BAD stuff. I mean in terms of understanding sexual harassment, understanding the laws around it, understanding politics, understanding the world we live in, understanding history... the LAW says 18. But let's not act like it's a magical age where they suddenly become a real adult in any means other than the eyes of the law. 

The Law is there to protect them legally. The responsibility of parents, should be there to do the real work of TEACHING them critical reasoning skills.

 

I don't believe the 17 year-old at issue here had the same upbringing or experiences of the hundreds of 18 year old strippers you've worked with over the past 25 years (I hope as a social worker?). And I'm not sure I'm going to celebrate the parents that taught their daughters the critical reasoning skills that made them turn to stripping, and for some the likely associated sex trades. 

You miss the point of age of consent laws. They are not intended to supplant parenting. They are intended to set a societal value - the notion that young women of age 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 should not be exploited for sex by older men. Call me what you want, but I'm ok with that notion. It may not work in a perfect way, but I'm not convinced its a bad aspiration.

On 4/2/2024 at 8:49 AM, sfcityduck said: "The trend in state laws has been to increase the age of consent. ... A 17 year old is still a 17 year old. 20-30-40 years ago fewer, if any, states would have extended age of consent to 17 year olds. Our society is getting smarter not dumber on this issue (well not everyone obviously)."

My supplemental comment: What that statement meant, and you misinterpreted, is that society is getting smarter about the age of consent by moving it upward not downwards. 

Prince Namor responded: "If 17 year old teens are still falling for it... how is that getting smarter? A 17 year old has access to more information than ever before, a MILLION times more information than they did even 20 years ago. The goal should be to teach our kids, THIS IS WRONG (if that's what the parents believe), so that they can, THEMSELVES, make an informed decision."

My response: The philosophy of our criminal justice system is to protect people from wrongdoers. We have laws that seek to punish perpetrators and protect individuals who are vulnerable -- like young teenage girls. While teaching children to protect themselves is one solution, another is to seek to protect them from harmful conduct by criminalizing those who seek to lure them into it.  That's why we have age of consent laws (and anti-drug laws and age limits on alcohol, etc.). This is a supplement to, not a substitute for, parenting. And parenting is a supplement to, not a substitute for, criminal laws. They involve different complementary efforts to guard against the same risk, as well achieving other goals which are unique to both strategies (for consent laws - deterrence and punishment of wrongdoers).

On 4/2/2024 at 10:38 PM, Prince Namor said:

No, I don't blame her for that.

But do we hold her accountable for the way she did it? If you're going to come forward, come forward with an attorney. Press charges. 

 

That choice is hers. I don't think it is any of our roles to tell a woman who feels the way she did to keep it quiet or hire an attorney for a civil suit or file charges. She has a range of other choices. And what choice she did chose, to tell her story, was well within the range of choices that were her right to exercise. As an attorney, I don't feel its fair or equal to impose an obligation on some people to incur the cost of seeking legal advice before they take a step which doesn't require legal advice in the first place.

Ed also had choices. One remedy, if the story was false, was for Ed to sue her. Another was to comprehensively tell his side of the story and rebut whatever she said that was in error. He chose differently.

On 4/2/2024 at 10:33 PM, Prince Namor said:

I thought they both said it wasn't. That they had no physical contact when she was underage.

I didn't say physical contact. I understand that he said he chatted with her.

On 4/2/2024 at 10:15 PM, Prince Namor said:

The problem with society's understanding of these things is that everyone has some of these in small doses that they're easily able to 'get over'. As you know, for someone who has full-blown PTSD or Aspergers or Depression, there's no 'getting over it' EVER.

You learn to function. And then deal as best you can when any of those decides rear back and smack you upside the head. 

Most of society has absolutely no idea what that's like to go through each day dealing with that. 

I'd bet you're right on that last sentence. Which is why if Ed had any of those conditions, its likely most did not know it. So I don't think that is grounds for blaming the young woman for telling her story.

On 4/2/2024 at 10:10 PM, Prince Namor said:

Then there'd be no point in discussing it.

As it is, we discuss it based on what we DO know. Would she show the bare minimum of information to get her point across? Or did she show the worst of it to make sure she got her point across?

Who knows? Not you or me. And no doubt its more than just emails.

On 4/2/2024 at 10:00 PM, Prince Namor said:

What is the minimum for what would be considered 'grooming'. If those are the only texts relating to the allegation over a one year time frame, I would think that wouldn't qualify.

Neither you nor I know the full facts and I feel no need to speculate. It's a tough issue.

On 4/2/2024 at 4:30 PM, Jcomer82 said:

Picked this book up recently and was wondering if these markings or stamp are indicative of any pedigree? It’s not the best condition but I was curious either way. Thanks in advance for anyone’s insight.

Lots of comics have date stamps on the cover. Lots of comics have letters on the cover. Lots of comics have writing inside. None of the examples in your pics appear sufficient to confirm the book as a pedigree. To prove a pedigree, it should take either a chain of ownership (or provenance) or a mark which is completely distinct to the pedigree - e.g., "Okajima" on the cover, the Cosmic Aeroplane check marks throughout a book corresponding to certain images, names, unique stamps, etc. 

A lot of non-pedigree books have similar distributor marks (e.g. the "c" distributor mark and date penciled on to covers in Ohio (Promise and Ohio peds) and Colorado (Aurora and Mile High) can't be used as a ped identifier because they were widely used and cannot be traced to any ped without provenance).

On 4/2/2024 at 7:37 AM, Hekla said:

Good luck in your quest, sounds interesting. Post your findings if you are able. 

On 4/2/2024 at 11:45 AM, alxjhnsn said:

I'll read your book when it's done!

 

In the meantime, you can read this:

On 4/2/2024 at 12:55 PM, BrashL said:

Fault is a tricky word, I assume you mean liable or responsible for his death and I agree, she is not.

I don't think she did the right thing by blasting out her grievances the way she did and I won't speculate on why she did

She has the right to tell her story. She gets to decide if that was the right thing. Ed had the right to ignore or respond, whichever he felt was right. People will judge if they care or ignore if they don't. If Ed thought he'd been defamed, he could have sued her. Then a court would judge.  That's basically what our laws encourage to happen. So I can't say she did the "wrong thing."

The internet is no different than standing on a box on a street corner. Except that you might reach more people (I'm pretty sure we don't). That's viewed as democratizing. You no longer have to be rich to get your story out. Now we can all reach whatever audience we can reach ... if we can cut through all the noise enough to get someone to listen which, ironically, seems to work best for the rich and famous. We can all debate whether the internet is good or not. I personally think our country has lost its cohesiveness due to the democratization of speech, much of it gibberish wacko which tricks the gullible, and proliferation of media which had eroded national consensus. But none of us can argue that its improper for her to tell a true story. We may not like it. It may make us uncomfortable. But everyone has the right to do so (with very limited exceptions).

On 4/2/2024 at 1:05 PM, BrashL said:

I was speaking specifically to your paragraph about not believing rape victims. Why you spun that into a racial thing I have no idea.

Eyewitnesses in general tend to be unreliable for a lot of reasons and racism is generally pretty low on the list. I practiced in Cook County and the number of white witnesses testifying against minority defendants was less than 10%. The victims of most crimes committed by minorities are minorities, as are most eyewitnesses involved in those cases. It's just the neighborhoods the majority of crime occurs in. Most prosecutors and cops I dealt with just wanted to find justice for victims. I practiced in Cook County but after the Burge years; I'm not naive enough to think there aren't some evil people in positions they shouldn't be but they are far outweighed by good people doing hard jobs for low pay because they believe in what they are doing. 

Eyewitness testimony is beloved by juries but, according to the studies, one of the least reliable forms of identification. And for cross-racial identification is far worse. Glad we agree on that.

As for prosecutors not taking rape accusations seriously, there's a lot of academic work on that but its not the sort of thing that ends up in the papers for specific victims for obvious reasons. What you are taking issue with is this statement:

"Historically, they took the position that it wasn't worth prosecuting a rape case on behalf of a sexually active woman. The notion was something along the lines of is the victim had sex with guy A, B, and C, then she couldn't win a rape case against guy D. Those attitudes have been hard to quash. There have been legal reforms."

As a prosecutor, I'm sure you are up on the history of rape shield laws and the need for them. So I'm not sure we need to debate this. States started enacting them in the 1970s and 1980s and we didn't get a federal rape shield law until the 1990s.

On 4/2/2024 at 11:08 AM, BrashL said:

I was a criminal prosecutor for many years and i never once encountered anything like this. Where in your legal experience did you see this happen or are you just smearing two professions based on something you saw on Law and Order SVU?

There are so many examples, I have trouble believing you never encountered one. I just gave you one of the most famous examples: The Central Park Five in NYC - a national story for years. I can cite you many many examples. Any attorney, especially prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys, can cite such examples - even just a civil litigator like me. I cannot believe that you are truly trying to deny the problems of wrongful convictions based on cross-racial eyewitness identifications or are ignorant of the many examples innocent people sent to jail based on bad identifications that ultimately are exonerated by DNA and other evidence, including confessions by the true perpetrators. What state are you in?

On 4/2/2024 at 11:03 AM, BrashL said:

No you can't, but you also shouldn't excuse them from the consequences of doing so. 

So if the young woman commits suicide because she is being blamed by people like you for Ed's suicide, you take on that responsibility?

On 4/2/2024 at 10:31 AM, thehumantorch said:

Sure, he killed himself and ultimately that was his choice.  But I don't think we should ignore how our behaviour online, or for that matter in person, can affect someone.  This guy's reputation is destroyed, his chosen career is over, and thousands or millions of online haters have attacked him.  He may very well have felt the whole world hated him and his life was over.  

And I think we should also try to imagine the state of mind he was in just before he killed himself.  At the point of despair that he decides to kill himself it might have seemed like the easiest way out to him but is that how we really want situations like this to resolve?  

 

To answer your question: "No." I am confident that no one wants to see a person commit suicide.

But do we want to blame the alleged victim for speaking out about her experience or deter others from doing so or drive her to suicide by casting her as a murderer as Ed's final message sought to do? "No."

On 4/2/2024 at 9:10 AM, jimjum12 said:

Probably one of the best systems in the World, albeit a work in progress. The victims I knew who refused to file charges, did so because of the hassle and the "thoroughness" of the process. That's not necessarily a bad thing, especially for those innocent men in Prison for what amounted to not much more than hearsay. It's an ugly situation, with no real "return to normal". 

Agree our legal system is probably the best in the world. But that doesn't mean its close to perfect. We are constantly striving to improve it.

The problem with rape victims is less the courts than it is the police and prosecutors. Historically, they took the position that it wasn't worth prosecuting a rape case on behalf of a sexually active woman. The notion was something along the lines of is the victim had sex with guy A, B, and C, then she couldn't win a rape case against guy D. Those attitudes have been hard to quash. There have been legal reforms. It does not help that society, including as we even see on posts by some here, want to blame the victim for the sexual misconduct (she shouldn't have dressed so sexy or flirted etc. or here it is "she should have filtered him out" which truly misses the point). 

I agree innocent men get sent to jail. That's most prevalently the case where the issue is identification of the rapist. And that problem usually centers on interracial identification by eye witnesses. Usually when white witnesses identify a black man when they have trouble telling black men apart. The classic example is the race to convict the Central Park Five who were exonerated after the real perp confessed (and DNA evidence confirmed) a decade after the crime. Our system carries that risk. But that risk is not a justification for not prosecuting a crime at all.

On 4/2/2024 at 6:15 AM, Prince Namor said:

 

At any point, she could've just blocked him on social media. Instead, she continued that friendship.

She was never sexually assaulted. If those couple of texts are the WORST that happened... 

You completely misunderstand the factual allegations here. This is not a case of a rape accusation. It is a case of a grooming accusation. Two entirely different things. One is predicated upon force and the other on persuasion. 

Sometimes, something a victim may view as acceptable when they are young - because they trusted the priest, coach, mentor, acquaintance, etc. - becomes revealed in a different light when the victim is older.

On 4/2/2024 at 8:46 AM, jimjum12 said:

That still leaves, to me, an unfair burden on a sex biased event. That kind of simplifies it. In a society purported to exist on tenants of equality, that's just not OK. GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

Correction to my original post "Which does not make every accusation true." Sorry if you were misled. The legal system has a poor record of handling rape victims. I don't anyone who thinks it is balanced or equal.

On 4/2/2024 at 8:35 AM, BrashL said:

This is an extraordinarily bad take. Substitute Ed  for a 32 year old Trans person who was being relentlessly mocked and abused by his community. Substitute a 25 year old rape victim who is drug through the mud for accusing someone of power. To say that their suicides exist in a bubble and they just decided to be suicidal one day is gross. 

 

That's the problem with social media lynch mobs and whisper campaigns. He can't defend himself because he's already been convicted and sentenced. He already lost all his work, he already had people start to pull away from him for fear of guilt by association. This is exactly why we have a criminal justice system to being with. 

Suicide is never the right solution. It's a bad choice. Do you really disagree?

There is a difference between the situation that Ed faced, an accusation based on his conduct that he may well have thought was not founded and was defensible (at least according to his note) and the situation of a trans person who is facing discrimination and shaming for who they are - something that is not wrongful conduct as the only wrongdoing in that situation is by the shamers. 

I'd agree about the rape victim. That too would be a bad choice. 

You miss the point, we all have personal responsibility for choices. Whether it is to engage in sexual misconduct or to report it. Whether it is to resist the heat that may result from engaging in or reporting that sexual misconduct, or to commit suicide. Here, Ed committed suicide. The alleged victim of his misconduct is being lambasted here and elsewhere, including by you, and yet she has not. Who is making the better choice?