Skip

Mefite nudist arrested on child sex abuse charges June 6, 2005 5:59 AM   Subscribe

A freaky unfortunate turn of events: As an update on a very old thread on nudism that questioned and debated the gray area between nude adults and nudist children in the setting of a nudist colony, one defender of nudist culture from that discussion was arrested on charges of child sex abuse late last year (still being held awaiting trial afaict). It's freaky to go back and re-read the debate knowing what eventually came to pass.
posted by mathowie to MetaFilter-Related at 5:59 AM (138 comments total) 7 users marked this as a favorite

Even freakier still, it appears he did graduate work on this very topic (he alludes to it in the thread), where he found "The results of the research presented would seem to speak clearly and with force: children's exposure to nudity is not only not harmful, it appears to be beneficial."

Ick. ick. ick.

This was pointed out to me by the person that runs the nudist hall of shame, whom wdpeck said was a rabid crusader against nudists in the original thread. Seems like in the end, it's worthy of scrutiny.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:59 AM on June 6, 2005


The prosecution should know about this man's posting history. They probably already do though...?

Innocent until proven guilty, of course, but if they have a tape of this guy and his adopted son...

It all makes me feel ill.
posted by orange swan at 6:11 AM on June 6, 2005


"My reasoning: I can find at least a dozen active USENET newsgroups *right now* carrying hard-core child pornography, including color-and-sound videos, all for the cost of monthly Internet access. I would wonder why someone wanting sexualized images of children would bypass that low-cost, nearly-anonymous channel in favor of expensive, non-explicit material. And even if some did, what would you [generic "you"] propose we do about it? Ban the videos? Pedos masturbate to children's underwear ads and diaper commercials on TV (sorry to even bring that into your collective consciousness, but it's a fact); do we ban those, too?"

He seems to be very up on the current offerings of those USENET groups. ugh. Diaper commercials? Wow.
posted by null terminated at 6:14 AM on June 6, 2005


In all seriousness, is that true about USENET? It's been a long time since I took a look at the alt. groups, but my sense a few years ago was that even on USENET some things were out of bounds. (Not many things, of course.)
posted by Mid at 6:22 AM on June 6, 2005


Even freakier (?): his user page gives his email as an address at priest.com and he lists, among other occupations, that he's an "Old Catholic bishop". (Presumably the "Old Catholics" are a schismatic sect of Catholicism, rather than that being a reference to the user's age.)

I suppose it's another case of "by their fruits [in this case, MetaFilter comments] ye shall know them." (Matthew 7:20)
posted by orthogonality at 6:25 AM on June 6, 2005


I'm imagining the reaction if he ever tries to post here again.
posted by orange swan at 6:26 AM on June 6, 2005


Also, that old thread is sad in that there are so many good comments from people who are no longer active.
posted by Mid at 6:29 AM on June 6, 2005


null terminated beat me to it:

"My reasoning: I can find at least a dozen active USENET newsgroups *right now* carrying hard-core child pornography, including color-and-sound videos, all for the cost of monthly Internet access."

Uhm, what? Sounds like he knew his way around those newsgroups a little too well.

Ew. Ew. Ew. Matt? Please disinfect the MetaFilter. Lotsa bleach. Maybe a little knifebutt and then some more bleach. Or pure flourine. Sodium bombs? Thermite!

I say we nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
posted by loquacious at 6:36 AM on June 6, 2005


Sick fuck. I'll assume the kiddie raper won't be welcomed back.
posted by jonmc at 6:38 AM on June 6, 2005


wdpeck links to the following users...
posted by tweak at 6:39 AM on June 6, 2005


Presumably the "Old Catholics" are a schismatic sect of Catholicism, rather than that being a reference to the user's age.

He claims to be a Bishop in something called the Old Catholic Church, but I went to their web site, and found no mention of them having a parish in Oregon, let alone a Bishop. Presumably he's a member of some smaller sect with the same name, but all the web pages that pointed to "The Old Catholic Diocese of Oregon" are down. Anyone else manage to find out anything?
posted by unreason at 6:41 AM on June 6, 2005


And his only front page post is...
posted by taz at 6:43 AM on June 6, 2005


Fuck me. If that's true, in a Court of Law kinda way, that's frightening. That bit about the Romainian kid on his user page made me uneasy. His comments, when taken in the context of the linked page, are very unsettling.

/shudders
posted by bdave at 7:02 AM on June 6, 2005


mathowie posted "It's freaky to go back and re-read the debate knowing what eventually came to pass."

But he's not convicted yet.

Sorry, I'll likely cop shit for this but.........it seems to me that the correct procedures have been undertaken by authorities. Isn't this sort of um..... vilification in public, possibly prejudicial to the case?

Please don't be so silly as to read this as in any way condoning anything whatsoever. I just tend to baulk a bit at the mediafests that go on when people are charged. The only people protected (often and for good reason and with which I agree) are rape victims.

It's not that I'm suggesting innocence --- I have no idea --- I just feel a little sorry in a general sense for people accused of emotive crimes. The matter that springs to mind is Arthur C Clarke who was accused but never convicted of pedophilia 4 years ago. It's in his fucking wikipedia entry and the taint can never be erased.

Again, I'm not advocating or attempting to be an apologist, nor should this in any way be taken as an unfeeling attitude for any victims -- I used to work at a Kid's Hospital and so have actually had to deal with child abuse issues.

Now this case might be in the public arena (although nudist hall of shame is not quite a local daily) but I hope that decorum prevails in this thread as it would be a shame if this was ever used as evidence that a fair trial could not perhaps occur. No, IANAL.
posted by peacay at 7:09 AM on June 6, 2005


Jesus, the Nudist Hall of Shame? Some shit I would rather just not know. I clicked but one link and now have such a seething disgust for my fellow man... god almighty. That stuff *really* freaks me out.

On Preview again: Evening, Peacay.
posted by bdave at 7:12 AM on June 6, 2005


what peacay said. 10x.
posted by felix betachat at 7:13 AM on June 6, 2005


i'm confused - which of the charges are related to children? all of them, or just the last? the sodomy thing sounds like he's being prosecuted for being gay.

also, while it looks disturbing, isn't it better to wait til this guy is convicted? there's a lot of hysteria about child abuse (you don't need to look far for evidence this morning...).
posted by andrew cooke at 7:13 AM on June 6, 2005


Considering the combination of advocating child nudism, that one post about a child-murderm, and a work history in the Catholic church, a mere arrest is creepy enough to make me squirm in my seat. You don't have to connect those dots, true, but if you do, they point to a bad place. If he's exonerated, good for him. Crisis of circumstance. Either way, I think he has bigger problems than what MeFites think of him.
posted by scarabic at 7:18 AM on June 6, 2005


.it seems to me that the correct procedures have been undertaken by authorities. Isn't this sort of um..... vilification in public, possibly prejudicial to the case?

I'm not on the jury. I feel completely comfortable speculating away; If it walks like a duck, etc.
posted by jonmc at 7:22 AM on June 6, 2005


Um, I know that technically he's innocent until proven guilty, but guys, they've got a film of him doing it. So I think it's reasonably safe to assume for the moment that the charges are true.
posted by unreason at 7:23 AM on June 6, 2005


andrew cooke : "the sodomy thing sounds like he's being prosecuted for being gay."

One of the articles mentions that the video on the camera was of himself having sexual relations with the kid (age 9). Sodomy in the first degree is apparently (among other things) having intercourse with someone under 12.

I suppose it's possible that the sodomy charge is related to being gay (or having oral sex with a female, for that matter), but why would you charge someone with sodomy for being gay when you could charge them with sodomy for having sex with someone under 12 that you have on tape?

Sorry about the weird web link, but the linked page was PDF, so I used Google's "display as HTML" link instead

scarabic : "that one post about a child-murder"

I'm not sure how everybody is seeing that mixed in, though. I'm interpreting it as "loving kids in a totally inappropriate way, resulting in being more saddened by a kid's death than perhaps an adult's", but is that what everyone else is reading in?
posted by Bugbread at 7:24 AM on June 6, 2005


From his first comment in the nudist thread: "You could say this topic was made for me . . ."

It's a strange strange thing to read in light of this information about his arrest. I'm glad you posted it Matt, as I think it really highlights the liminal space that Metafilter occupies; as well as the tension between abstraction and the material world that is present in the debates here.

I thought it was strange how the Hall of Shame pointed out his Metafilter membership. I wasn't sure what to make of it. Do you think it was value-neutral?
posted by OmieWise at 7:24 AM on June 6, 2005


OmieWise : "Do you think it was value-neutral?"

I suspect at the start, it wasn't, but as Nikki has seen that we're all condemning him, it's probably moved to neutral / positive now.
posted by Bugbread at 7:27 AM on June 6, 2005


bugbread writes "I'm interpreting it as 'loving kids in a totally inappropriate way, resulting in being more saddened by a kid's death than perhaps an adult's', but is that what everyone else is reading in?"

Yes, and I know that pedophiles are not murderers, but I also interpret it a little bit as professional interest in how one might get caught (or avoid getting caught). That "Damn, damn, damn" at the end of the post (and in light of everything else mentioned here) seemed to close to a modifier of "have been found at the [former] home of the FBI's main "subject of interest.""
posted by OmieWise at 7:29 AM on June 6, 2005


Let cooler heads prevail. I'm with peacay, Bdave, felix, andrew and scarabic.

Is that the speech you give to keep from having to go to jury duty, unreason? I hope so.

I think it is strange to have been brought to MetaTalk before a legal conclusion has been found. Perhaps Matt was being premeptive knowing that someone would bring it here or try to make a front page post about it.
posted by geekyguy at 7:34 AM on June 6, 2005


G'day Bdave :)

You don't have to be on the jury jonmc. Very doubtful it's picked yet. But I imagine if I was a guy's lawyer charged with crimes usually known to inflame public resentments, I'd look around to see what negative things were being bandied about. And if I found them, I'd think about how they could be fashioned into a manourvering framework so as to best assist my client. That's all I'm sayin'. I'm sure you'd agree that it would be a shame for totally irrelevant things such as the likes of this thread, to in some way ameliorate the mechinations of justice in a case.

And that piece in the nudisthallofshame - was written by a MeFi member. If I read it correctly.
posted by peacay at 7:34 AM on June 6, 2005


I agree with what peacay says.

I would like to think that the main reason that Matt posted this MeTa thread is because he's being linked to from that nudisthallofshame.info site. A bit of pre-emptive defense, perhaps.

I guess let's try to keep the pitchforks and torches to a minimum.

Still. The whole thing is quite freaky.

But also, we don't know what the charges are. He could simply be being charged for being a nudist with his family.

God forbid my mom gets charged with "molestation" just because she took photos of me and my siblings in the tub. Or in the case of one of my brothers - standing outside in the rain in nothing but yellow rubber rainboots and holding an umbrellla. She's a photographer, and a damn fine one.

And the nudisthallofshame.info person sounds just a little too positively delighted that we're waving the pitchforks and torches already.
posted by loquacious at 7:36 AM on June 6, 2005

"He is currently a member on Meta Filter where he posted there (surprise, surprise! defending nudist photography of children and attacking me)."
Matt, I'd think about deleting this thread if I was you.
posted by peacay at 7:39 AM on June 6, 2005


Hmm...maybe I'm wrong....I can read the "attacking me" as being either in the first person in the thread or the 3rd person being referred to -- I didn't read the whole thread. Anyone?
posted by peacay at 7:42 AM on June 6, 2005


But also, we don't know what the charges are. He could simply be being charged for being a nudist with his family.

No he's not. If you RTFA, you can see he's being charged with sodomizing a child.

Is that the speech you give to keep from having to go to jury duty, unreason? I hope so.

Spare me. In the eyes of the law he hasn't been tried. This isn't court, it's mefi, and it's pretty obvious what he did considering that they have film of him doing it!
posted by unreason at 7:42 AM on June 6, 2005


OmieWise : "I also interpret it a little bit as professional interest in how one might get caught"

Ah, ok. Hadn't thought of that direction. (I'd thought the "people think he's a child killer / child killer fan" side, but then the "damn damn damn" part made no sense. It hadn't occured to me that folks could see the "damn damn damn" as related to the "found" part, not the "dead" part.)
posted by Bugbread at 7:43 AM on June 6, 2005


peacay : "And that piece in the nudisthallofshame - was written by a MeFi member. If I read it correctly."

I read it that way at first, but on a reread, I realized it wasn't. The old Mefi discussion linked above mentioned the owner of the nudisthallofshame (Nikki), and wdpecker attacked her credibility within that thread. On the nudisthallofshame link, she mentions that she was attacked in the thread, but I don't think that means she was actually in the thread.
posted by Bugbread at 7:48 AM on June 6, 2005


Ahh...ok. Thanks bugbread. I'll have you outline the next novel on my reading list when I get lazy again.
posted by peacay at 7:54 AM on June 6, 2005


from the link: "The district attorney's office thinks that the man and boy on the video are Peckenpaugh and his son" (my emphasis)

I say wait.
posted by dhruva at 7:57 AM on June 6, 2005


Unreason: I did RTFA. The charges don't specify any crimes against a child except "ONE COUNT OF USING A CHILD FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEXUAL DISPLAY".

We can't assume that there was sodomy on a child from that. We haven't seen the video. We're not a jury, and we're not in a court. Even still, it's entirely possible that he's being falsely accused. I'm not saying that that is likely.

But that's what "reasonable doubt" and "due process" is all about.

This is in no way meant to defend anyone. See peacay's clause above.

The only thing I'm really worried about here is MeFi being used as someone's grindstone for their already well-sharpened axe. It's all too easy to fall into a false moral outrage when you don't know all the facts.

And even if we did know all the facts, and we knew that the facts were indeed terrible, due process is still required. Otherwise we might as well revert to lynch mobs, or a bunch of monkeys tearing a green monkey apart limb from limb.

Tangentially, I've been at that Fry's in Wilsonville. Small world. The video camera was probably resold "as new" or "refurbished to factory specs", like Fry's is well known to do.
posted by loquacious at 7:59 AM on June 6, 2005


peacay: Spare me. In the eyes of the law he hasn't been tried. This isn't court, it's mefi, and it's pretty obvious what he did considering that they have film of him doing it!

peacay - you seem more convinced than the Marion County District Attorney. Maybe in addition to RTFA you've seen the tape? I missed that link.

"The district attorney's office thinks that the man and boy on the video are Peckenpaugh and his son."

I do agree with you, peacay, about putting this thread under consideration for deletion. It seems you may have been manipulated, Matt.
posted by geekyguy at 7:59 AM on June 6, 2005


Sorry peacay, I was quoting and responding to unreason. Oops.
posted by geekyguy at 8:01 AM on June 6, 2005


bugbread writes " I'm interpreting it as 'loving kids in a totally inappropriate way, resulting in being more saddened by a kid's death than perhaps an adult's', but is that what everyone else is reading in?"

Perhaps reading in a bulldozer and a forensics team in his backyard?
posted by orthogonality at 8:21 AM on June 6, 2005


orthogonality : "Perhaps reading in a bulldozer and a forensics team in his backyard?"

Well, exactly the difficulty I had in grokking it. It would seem like a child molestor would be the least likely to post something about dead kids being found. People were looking at the link and nodding in understanding, and I was thinking "This is the one link that doesn't seem to fit". OmieWise pointed out that it wasn't the "dead kids" angle, but perhaps the "found" angle that was the focus.
posted by Bugbread at 8:27 AM on June 6, 2005


I'm really not surprised in the slightest that this guy is a libertarian.
posted by cmonkey at 8:31 AM on June 6, 2005


The page on Hall of Shame has been updated to address this thread and visitors from Metafilter. (Bugbread, perhaps you had already seen it when you replied to my earlier question?)
posted by OmieWise at 8:32 AM on June 6, 2005


cmonkey writes "I'm really not surprised in the slightest that this guy is a libertarian."

I'm not sure what this means.
posted by OmieWise at 8:39 AM on June 6, 2005


scarabic writes "Either way, I think he has bigger problems than what MeFites think of him"

But why should we add to his troubles?

peacay writes "Matt, I'd think about deleting this thread if I was you."

Please don't delete either this thread or the linked thread. Nothing in either is inappropriate for MetaFilter and if we have been trolled big time this should stand as a warning.
posted by Mitheral at 8:41 AM on June 6, 2005


OmieWise : "Bugbread, perhaps you had already seen it when you replied to my earlier question?"

Nope. Just my stylin' readin' comprehension skillz (and that I noticed the mention of Nikki in the MeFi thread, and that Nikki was in the address of the writer of the nudisthalloffame. Blind luck that I happened to notice on a skim the two items germane to the issue.)
posted by Bugbread at 8:44 AM on June 6, 2005


wdpeck links to the following users...

And I'm not sure what this means. If it's an insinuation of guilt by association, it's very creepy.
posted by y2karl at 8:45 AM on June 6, 2005


Could someone post the hall of fame update info here? I don't wanna click on nudist anything at wk.
posted by Mid at 8:48 AM on June 6, 2005


WILLIAM D. PECKENPAUGH, AKA WILLIAM DELOS PECKENPAUGH, W.D. OR BILL PECKENPAUGH, Rev Bill Pedkenpaugh and WDPECK on many internet message boards. ON DEC 1, 2004 WAS CHARGED WITH SIX COUNTS OF FIRST-DEGREE SODOMY, TWO COUNTS OF SEX ABUSE, AND ONE COUNT OF USING A CHILD FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEXUAL DISPLAY. He is a member of both The Naturist Society and the American Association for Nude Recreation (AANR). Peckenpaugh claims to be a Catholic Bishop. He is the author of "Familial and Societal Attitudes Toward Nudity, and The Effects on Children's Development," a much quoted article by Nudists and Naturists, that makes the claim that naturist children are less sexually active and more emotionally healthy than non-naturist children. Peckenpaugh has been a frequent poster on rec.nude, alt.christnet.nudism and misc.kids. He is currently a member on Meta Filter where he posted there (surprise, surprise! defending nudist photography of children and attacking me). Here's the MetaFilter update posted 06.06.05. If you have relevant information to assist with prosecution please contact Darin Tweedt at 503.588.5222.

[Special temporary note to MetaFilter users who might be checking out this page. Your comments this morning are so great! So different from the nudists indifference when I posted on their forums. Also, there is so much I would like to correct on that page and might try to do so tomorrow. However for starters, Peckenpaugh claimed that I have been thrown off numerous internet providers. That is a lie. Since I first got on the internet in the early/mid 1990s I have never been removed from one provider. Thanks for caring about the truth and for checking out this page. I'll try to find out more up to date information, too. Someone mentioned the prosecutors needs to know his posting patterns. This is true and if you have information don't hesitate to let them know. I don't know if they knew about the wdpeck spelling and I will inform them when I contact them. Also, the person who posted about all the great initial posters on that page who might not be with metafilter any longer. Yes, they were excellent and I had wanted to email them to tell them they were right to have the concerns they expressed and update them. If you know how to contact them please forward this information to them if you have emails addresses. Also you can check the main page at Nudist Naturist Hall of Shame if you want more information on this topic.

Oh yes another thing... On the metafilter site Peckenpaugh cites Paul Okami as the person to believe over me in a "hot New York minute".

fyi, I added the Meta Filter link so people could read the original thread. I'll change it soon. In fact, probably in about a week I'll delete all the text that appears here in red. I was never a member of MetaFilter myself and that's why I'm passing on information this way because I am not a member. I'm relieved that I won't be trashed and misrepresented on a website where I won't have the ability to respond and that there are people on the site who obviously do care about setting the facts straight. It never feels very good to be lied especially when you know the motivations of the person lying and you can't even speak in your own defense. I hope you can understand. I truly appreciate how this is being handled. I'll be glad to reword the link to meta filter even temporarily if anyone has a concern about it.]
posted by loquacious at 8:50 AM on June 6, 2005


(Note: for the record, none of the above is mine, and is posted here for the record.)
posted by loquacious at 8:52 AM on June 6, 2005


when I said wdpeck links to the following users, I just thought it might be interesting. I did not mean it as an insinuation of guilt by association at all! I was just kind of like, 'wow, i'm glad i'm not one of the following users' because it could be kind of awkward

I was insinuating that people might want to un-link or dis-associate if they are uncomfortable with being linked to him. I apologize for not providing any context/explanation in my initial comment.

Also, I think it would be good to NOT delete any of those threads especially if anything wdpeck wrote is admissible as evidence.
posted by tweak at 8:57 AM on June 6, 2005


Mitheral writes "Nothing in either is inappropriate for MetaFilter and if we have been trolled big time this should stand as a warning."

I don't altogether disagree with you, it's just the legal implications of this thread. The other thread is immaterial in so far as it was before there was any public knowledge. But this thread and the fact that this has been linked to the nudisthallofshame website give me an uneasy feeling in terms of what could transpire in the eventual court case.
posted by peacay at 8:57 AM on June 6, 2005


For reference, Mid, the post on hallofshame continues by quoting two news articles. Here are the articles at their original sources (should present no problem in browsing from work):

http://www.katu.com/stories/73091.html

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041202/NEWS/412020364/1001
posted by Bugbread at 9:08 AM on June 6, 2005


it's just the legal implications of this thread.

Huh? I forgot to add in my first comment that yes, I know he's not convicted yet, but I was really, really surprised this morning when someone emailed to say a member had been arrested for sex crimes, and was talking about the subject on the site (!!!). That's all my original post says.

I likely got carried away on the first comment with the whole guilt thing, after reading half a dozen articles about the case on various news sites.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:11 AM on June 6, 2005


loquacious quotes nikki as writing "Someone mentioned the prosecutors needs to know his posting patterns. This is true and if you have information don't hesitate to let them know."

Ugh. If he sodomized a boy on tape, convict him of that. Don't convict him for his thoughts.
posted by orthogonality at 9:14 AM on June 6, 2005


If that original discussion occurred today, I wonder if it would have recieved a sidebar mention due to an "expert's" analysis.
posted by dios at 9:18 AM on June 6, 2005


But also, we don't know what the charges are. He could simply be being charged for being a nudist with his family.

No, the first article specifies that the man is charged with "a number of child sex crimes." There are six counts of sodomy, which by oregon law means anal or oral intercourse, two counts of sex abuse, whatever that specifies, and then the count of improper display. It seems clear from the context that all of these counts are concerned with the same victim, the 9 year old romanian boy.

And the nudisthallofshame.info person sounds just a little too positively delighted that we're waving the pitchforks and torches already.

I kinda agree with this. The actions are obviously despicable, but I'm not sure a public 'hall of shame' is really the answer. wdpeck is sick, assuming this information is accurate, and the poor kid is undoubtedly traumatized, but let's not imagine our posting about it is really making the world a better place or something.
posted by mdn at 9:37 AM on June 6, 2005


Ugh. Romanian orphanage and now this. That poor kid.

FYI, "Sexual abuse" usually involves a relationship of a caregiver / custodian and is frequently a news euphemism for the legal charge of "incest."

And finally, wdpeck's profile claims he is a "fire investigator." Pardon my suspicious mind, but any unsolved arsons in those parts?
posted by warbaby at 9:40 AM on June 6, 2005


Am in the bizarro universe? A thread on police brutality receives 300+ comments which range from (paraphrased/hyperbole) "police should sit nicely and wait for people to agree to be arrested" to "I think tazing is funny." And the same people respond to someone who is being tried for sodomizing a child say "well, we don't have all the evidence?"

Man. If we could just channel some of the outrage from the tazer thread into getting pissed off about a former MeFite who has not only broken the law but slipped into that moral quagmire of child sodomy/pornography (did no one else read the blurb at the bottom of the page about his Romanian son?), this place would make a lot more sense.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 9:45 AM on June 6, 2005


warbaby : "Pardon my suspicious mind, but any unsolved arsons in those parts?"

Er, once again, not getting the connection. Pedophiles are arsonists? Wdpeck is not only abusing his adopted son, but kidnapping kids, abusing them, killing them, and hiding their corpses with fires? Seems like either one is a mighty big (read "huge") jump, but I may be missing something obvious again.
posted by Bugbread at 9:50 AM on June 6, 2005


grapefruitmoon : "A thread on police brutality receives 300+ comments which range from (paraphrased/hyperbole) 'police should sit nicely and wait for people to agree to be arrested' to 'I think tazing is funny.' And the same people respond to someone who is being tried for sodomizing a child say 'well, we don't have all the evidence?'"

I see it more as "a thread on police brutality with accompanying video that runs the gamut from 'guilty' to 'not guilty', and a thread without video about someone being tried for sodomizing a child runs the gamut from 'guilty' to 'don't know yet'"
posted by Bugbread at 9:53 AM on June 6, 2005


just channel some of the outrage from the tazer thread

Or perhaps we could take a few deep breaths, rid ourselves of the anti-rational emotive shortcut known as "outrage" altogether and go about the serious business of analyzing the situation calmly and without emotional prejudice.

You know, the way our judicial system is supposed to work?
posted by gramschmidt at 9:54 AM on June 6, 2005


I also agree it's weird the page I linked to changed and the whole thing about alerting detectives to posting patterns (wtf?).
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:55 AM on June 6, 2005


gramschmidt : I'm not talking about the judicial system, I'm talking about a web forum.

If people are going to get outraged about anything, I think pedophilia should be towards the top of the list. But then again, that's my own personal "uh, you shouldn't rape kids" bias talking. There was all sorts of outrage directed at a similarly enraging topic (police brutality), but for the most part, people over here seem to be treating this guy with kid gloves.

And I just don't get it.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 10:01 AM on June 6, 2005


From the page linked:

lso, there is so much I would like to correct on that page and might try to do so tomorrow. However for starters, Peckenpaugh claimed that I have been thrown off numerous internet providers. That is a lie.

Who the hell even cares? I don't think anyone here is the least bit interested in Nikki's posting habits. We're interested that a mefi member might have committed a sex crime, and might have made some rather creepy comments here. A tragedy and a crime seems to be being used to vindicate a 3 year old internet argument. What the hell?
posted by Doug at 10:09 AM on June 6, 2005


grapefruitmoon : "but for the most part, people over here seem to be treating this guy with kid gloves."

For the most part?

My counting may be off, but from what I can tell:

There are 19 posts by 13 users saying the guy's a creep.
There are 11 posts by 7 users saying it's too early to tell.
There are 33 posts by 9 users that don't really address the point (discussing who Nikki is, providing the definition of sodomy, and other general discursions).
posted by Bugbread at 10:20 AM on June 6, 2005


Fair enough, grape, but this assumes that web forums are incapable of discussing something controversial without involving outrage. As a pennant-carrying, cardigan-wearing member of the MetaFilter Boosters Club, I would like to think that we would be the exception.

I know, I'm a utopianist.

I don't necessarily think all the "eww eww eww"s and "sick fuck" comments comprise kid gloves, but if there is any sort of restraint in this thread, it's probably borne out of a similar recognition of the severity and seriousness of such a charge and the desire to analyze and deliberate rather than react and accuse.
posted by gramschmidt at 10:22 AM on June 6, 2005


gramschmidt : Perhaps I am tuning in too much to the number of people who say "Well, it's too soon to tell." Those comments really stand out to me in a "WHAT?" sort of way.

Analyze and deliberate all you want, but when the guy's caught on tape, the question to me should be "So, how should he be put in prison for?" not "Is it too soon to tell?"
posted by grapefruitmoon at 10:59 AM on June 6, 2005


And I just don't get it.

Yes, you do get it, you're just pissed that we don't have Won't someone please think of the children on our bumpers.

One has a video, complete with narration from the officer's involved.

One is alleged. No evidence has been presented (at least to our little web forum). So there's nothing to go on except a few old postings and a shitload of hysteria.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:01 AM on June 6, 2005


grapefruitmoon writes "but for the most part, people over here seem to be treating this guy with kid gloves. "

Unfortunate pun there.
posted by orthogonality at 11:16 AM on June 6, 2005


Civil_Disobedient : I seem to have forgotten to read the "don't believe anything until you have a video with narration" memo.

I personally didn't see a "shitload" of hysteria in the original post. I saw one website which detailed the charges against this citizen and from what I can see, they're fairly well substantiated. He was caught on tape. And honestly, that's one tape I don't want to see with or without narration, so I'm just going to go ahead and believe that it's real.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 11:21 AM on June 6, 2005


dios writes "If that original discussion occurred today, I wonder if it would have recieved [sic] a sidebar mention due to an 'expert's' analysis."

Is that a cheap shot at wpeck, or a cheap shot at mathowie?

If Chuck Colson had published a "expert's opinion" as the Chief Counsel to the President in 1969, should mathowie have refrained from calling it an expert opinion just in case Colson (as in fact happened) went to prison in 1974 for obstruction of justice?
posted by orthogonality at 11:56 AM on June 6, 2005


Is that a cheap shot at wpeck, or a cheap shot at mathowie?

is that your sense of humor in your pocket, or do you just not have one?
posted by quonsar at 11:59 AM on June 6, 2005


mm...I fuckin' laughed my head off at dios's comment. That was classic.
posted by peacay at 12:02 PM on June 6, 2005


If people are going to get outraged about anything, I think pedophilia should be towards the top of the list.

Ahead of police brutality? Not on my list. A corrupt and dysfunctional law enforcement system is a far quicker route to tyranny than paedophilia.*

*I am anti-paedophilia, it disgusts me, it should be harshly penalized, etc.

posted by Kwantsar at 12:20 PM on June 6, 2005


mathowie writes "lt's weird the page I linked to changed and the whole thing about alerting detectives to posting patterns (wtf?)"

Nikki is obviously on a crusade, it doesn't surprise me at all that she's changing things on her site on a regular basis. One of the reason I felt we should keep these threads around is so we don't fall down to that level.

grapefruitmoon writes "There was all sorts of outrage directed at a similarly enraging topic (police brutality), but for the most part, people over here seem to be treating this guy with kid gloves. "

That's easy to explain. I'm never going to rape a kid and it's unlikely anyone is going to harm my daughter. However I have interactions with police officers fairly frequently, including in the past a few who were known for being "overzealous".
posted by Mitheral at 12:22 PM on June 6, 2005


Bugbread, sorry if that arson speculation was obscure. I'm not saying this is so, I'm saying it's a lead worth checking out, ok?

1) peck appears to have a pattern of adopting authoritarian protective coloring, "expert" on children and nudism, "expert" on fires...

2) there are some arsonists who get a psychosexual buzz off setting fires.

3) There are lots of cases of sociopaths getting involved with fire departments as a cover for idiosyncratic arson. The biggest serial arsonist ever caught was a California fire marshall. Also see the recent massive arson case near Washington, DC.

It's not an uncommon pattern and human misbehavior is so incredibly stereotyped that profiling actually does work sometimes. (If criminals were rational about their behavior and possessed a modicum of self-insight, profiling wouldn't work...)

So what I'm saying is the guy sounds like he might be an arsonist and it might behoove the powers that be to scratch their heads over it while contemplating the sacred donut.

(late but in ernest... sorry ernest *rimshot*)
posted by warbaby at 12:41 PM on June 6, 2005


Maybe I'm wrong, but even if the tape turns out not to be him and his son, isn't it against the law to own child pornography? He won't be put away for quite as long, but he'll still end up on the sex offenders list, and likely never invited to the nudist camp again.
posted by me3dia at 12:44 PM on June 6, 2005


Since there seems to be some guilt-by-association going on here (i.e. "naturists"), I think we should consider the possibility that everyone that wdpeck lists as a "contact" on his mefi user page might be collaboraters. Also, anyone who defended him or his point of view in that thread. Maybe even the entire metafilter community. MetaFilter just may be a front for a child porn ring. Wait for the knock on your doors.

Oh, about the alt.binary USENET newsgroups...if you're looking through the binary.images.sex groups, you'll see some possible child porn groups listed. You might actually look at the contents of one of the groups and some photos to see if it really is what it claims to be, out of a morbid incredulous curiousity. I have. But, anyway, occasionally some pretty clearly illegal photos appear even in the other alt.binaries.images.sex groups.

Even creepier, although I imagine most won't agree and see child photo porn as the ultimate in creepiness, are the alt.sex.stories groups. There you'll find a huge number of incest and pedophilia themed stories. Mostly incest. Obviously, only a small portion of the people who write and read these stories are actually pedophiles; but nevertheless this confirms my suspicions and experience that there are a hell of a lot of men committing incest out there. The example of wdpeck, as is always the case, is a sensationalistic example that emphasizes the unusual and not the ordinary. Most pedophiles who commit incest aren't naturists and adopters of foreign children for the purposes of sex. Most of them are merely fathers.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:45 PM on June 6, 2005


I haven't read the police brutality thread, but I think it would be easy to explain people being more concerned about justice being served in the case of the cops. Simply put, the bias tends to already be in favor of police, and in favor of children. Someone accused of committing a crime against a child is often already in deep shit regardless of the evidence, while someone who enforces the law, who is accused of breaking the law, is often in pretty safe territory, regardless of the evidence.

Cops can accidently shoot someone 41 times and be told just not to do it again, please. Ordinary citizens are held to different standards - their rights are different because their responsibilities are different. This means that police brutality is always a bit too close to potentially happening... whereas child abuse is absolutely condemned and if it is discovered, harshly punished. The more likely miscarriage of justice there is that people will be falsely accused (remember those "repressed memories" / "satanic cult" parents?).

Now, it does not look like this is a false accusation given that they claim to have video evidence, but I think it's generally a sign of Mefi's interest in being as reasonable as possible that some members have suggested we wait for a verdict. History has shown that mass hysteria condemning people for child abuse occurs, whereas a similar hysteria condemning law enforcement officials generally does not (in legal terms, that is - people may bitch about cops, but sentences are usually pretty favorable for them).
posted by mdn at 12:54 PM on June 6, 2005


Wow, EB, that's a wide brush you're painting with.
posted by me3dia at 12:58 PM on June 6, 2005


warbaby : "So what I'm saying is the guy sounds like he might be an arsonist"

Thanks for the explanation. I'm just curious: what makes him sound like an arsonist, any more than any other "fire investigator"? I realize that if there were arson cases, he'd make a good suspect, but if we're looking at it from the other end, where we're unaware of any fires, we have: he's a "fire investigator", some "fire investigators" are arsonists, some arsonists get a sexual buzz of arson, some arsonists work with fire departments. It would appear that would apply to all "fire investigators", and hence that all "fire investigators" should be investigated for possible arson (which may, of course, be true, but leads me again to ask what the connection is with this particular one).
posted by Bugbread at 1:05 PM on June 6, 2005


"Wow, EB, that's a wide brush you're painting with."

That was my point.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:10 PM on June 6, 2005


Fucking hell. It's always Oregon when the sick shit goes down.
posted by docpops at 1:36 PM on June 6, 2005


dios writes "If that original discussion occurred today, I wonder if it would have recieved a sidebar mention due to an 'expert's' analysis."

He is, in fact, an expert. Even more of one than we suspected.
posted by OmieWise at 1:38 PM on June 6, 2005


What, exactly, is this particular site? It seems like it's updated in real time. Is it tracking our posting history?
posted by docpops at 1:47 PM on June 6, 2005


Bugbread: It isn't one thing, it's more a combination of ingredients, not unlike a doctor's prescription. I was just looking at his profile and saw that he was into playing all these authority figure roles and one of them was "fire investigator." My suspicious mind being the way it is, I induced the connection to arson.

I'm trying to explain how my hunch process works. It's not an exact science, but it has stood me well in the past.

I think there's some sort of unspoken rule in MeFi about not dragging one's meatspace (real life?) experience into discussions, yes? Suffice it so say, I have more than a decade of experience with investigation, child abusers, arson and a bunch of other strange stuff. And I've played investigative hunches in the past and had them pay off often enough that I don't ignore them when they happen.

It's kinda like the witches in MacBeth: "By the pricking of my thumbs..."
posted by warbaby at 1:49 PM on June 6, 2005


uh, "...to say..."
posted by warbaby at 1:53 PM on June 6, 2005


docpops writes "What, exactly, is this particular site? It seems like it's updated in real time. Is it tracking our posting history?"

That is a bit creepy. Let's hope Nikki doesn't quote naxosaxur like she quoted me, or else there'll be trrrrouble.
posted by orthogonality at 2:04 PM on June 6, 2005


warbaby writes "Suffice it so say, I have more than a decade of experience with investigation, child abusers, arson and a bunch of other strange stuff. And I've played investigative hunches in the past and had them pay off often enough that I don't ignore them when they happen."

Scully, is that you?
posted by orthogonality at 2:06 PM on June 6, 2005


warbaby : "I was just looking at his profile and saw that he was into playing all these authority figure roles "

Ah, sorry, you did indeed say that, and I just missed the emphasis: a "fire investigator" by itself is not so special, but combined with other authority figure roles, raises flags.
posted by Bugbread at 2:35 PM on June 6, 2005


Especially when the "nudist expert" and the "Old Catholic Bishop" appear to have been used as cover in his alleged abuse.

So why "fire investigator," I says to myself...

Hunches are funny. They're just there. It's like mathematical insight. *Blink* Voila!
posted by warbaby at 2:42 PM on June 6, 2005


Great, now I'm quoted on that site. Simply for posting the text from her site. Meta-meta-meta-metamucil.

Hey, Nikki. I didn't highlight or quote that stuff that orthogonality selected and quoted. I just copied the whole of the body of the text as related to MetaFilter, as seen at that point for those that wanted to see the body of text without viewing a potentially not safe for work URL and site.

I realize you're just quoting othogonality verbatim, but damn. I'm not sure if I want my username up there amidst that. I don't really have anything to do with that portion of the conversation. *bonks ortho for good measure*

But then again, I guess I appropriated what could easily be claimed as copyright protected material, and posted Nikki's email and stuff. D'oh.
posted by loquacious at 2:52 PM on June 6, 2005


Nikki is beginning to creep me out: "I don't know if y'all ever get together, but I did hear that at least one person on this board lives within an hours drive of him. How about if he invited you and your children to go to a nudist camp, or a concert?"

I'm not sure why MeFi has become the focus of her page but I'm thinking it isn't a good thing.

Nikki, since you are obviously reading this thread, I'd like to point out that membership is open. Please feel free to jump in.
posted by cedar at 3:32 PM on June 6, 2005


Fucking hell. It's always Oregon when the sick shit goes down.

Oh come on, Florida obviously has that honour.
posted by cmonkey at 3:40 PM on June 6, 2005


I was just gonna say that:

Florida or Germany...or Oregon.
posted by docpops at 3:50 PM on June 6, 2005


I EAT DUE PROCESS
posted by I EAT TAPES at 4:17 PM on June 6, 2005


If people are going to get outraged about anything, I think pedophilia should be towards the top of the list.
I can't imagine what could be higher on anyone's list than paedophilia.
posted by dg at 4:21 PM on June 6, 2005


Very strange stuff from Nikki. A bit creepy. Nikki-join the discussion here if you're interested.
posted by OmieWise at 4:25 PM on June 6, 2005


Once, when I was interviewing an attorney who'd won a famous "custom and culture / Catron County" case, I edged into on-record / off-record for his comments. It was a political hot potato and I thought this might be a case for more forthright statements if not for attribution. Earlier that day, I had a couple of people refuse to talk unless I kept their names out of it because of the atmosphere of intimidation.

He stopped me dead in my tracks. "I'm an officer of the court," he says. "And everything I have to say is always on the record."

It changed my thinking about public / private statements. Why say it if you aren't going to stand by it? It makes the whole issue of getting quoted back disappear.
posted by warbaby at 4:31 PM on June 6, 2005


dg, I don't know, there's a war going on and children are dying. It's always fun to get worked up and condemn pedophiles and feel better about ourselves... but rationally, the rarity and impact of the crimes rarely justify the measures and outrage. Really, if there are people who sit around all day obsessing about and raging against pedophiles (like, say, this Nikki character) I'd find that more than a bit creepy.
posted by nixerman at 4:35 PM on June 6, 2005


I can't imagine what could be higher on anyone's list than paedophilia.

Ordering 19 martyrs to fly airplanes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon? Then again, maybe not.

This Nikki person reminds me of Perverted Justice, which had good intentions but got really creepy really fast. (Note: You might not want to read that thread at work.) On one hand, I respect that victims of abuse their parents/loved ones view these people as monsters, and rightfully so. On the other hand, there's something deeply unsettling about exempting offenders of a certain crime from the requirements of due process.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 4:41 PM on June 6, 2005


"I can't imagine what could be higher on anyone's list than paedophilia."

Pulling their fingernails out and stuffing ants under their eyelids?

Not that it's very common, but I'd get a lot more outraged than I would about paedophilia.
posted by Bugbread at 4:43 PM on June 6, 2005


dg: Mass murder. Murder in general. Slavery. Genocide. Nuclear war. War in general. Gross crimes against humanity. Torture - political or otherwise.

Off the cuff example of a crime against humanity: knowingly and maliciously promoting/enacting a product, service, or action that threatens the life and limb or fundamental livelihood of many. Think of the Bhopal disaster, Nestle' corporation's third-world policies in regards to water and breastfeeding, negligently managed nuclear/toxic/biological waste in the water/food supply, or gross negligence in managing nuclear/chemical/biological facilities, and much more.

These don't exclude nor deny the toxicity and social and personal damage of child abuse and abuse and sexual/social predation in general.

But if personally given the fictional choice between being unwillingly buggered, even multiple times, and being the victim - or worse, immediate survivor - of something like even a small nuclear war, I'll take the former.

Granted this is something of a strawman "what if?" scenario, but I'm attempting to illustrate that there are vastly less desirable "bad things" that can happen.

And stating these things certainly doesn't mean it's an "either/or" situation in prioritization. I'm just saying.

We can even make the argument much more simple: child abuse isn't nearly as bad as, say, the eradication of most or all human life through a natural cause (like a catastrophic meteor strike) or artificial cause (like a full scale nuclear war).

For fuck's sake. The sun could explode. We could watch an asteroid inexolerably approach and doom us to a fiery cataclysmic end and not be able to do anything about it - which would be even especially horrifying if we could have once done something about it, but we squandered our global resources on something stupid and wasteful like war. We could create a stable mass of quark strangelets, or a singularity. Eaten alive by von Neumann (nanotech) machines. Bird flu pandemic. Aliens could come and wipe us off the face of the Earth - or worse, enslave and torture us all.

These of course vary wildly in credibility and possibility - and none are justifications or rationalizations for any sort of abuse. I'm just saying.

However, I would accept arguments that sexual abuse - child abuse and otherwise, rape-culture and predation and social toxicity and otherwise - could be seen as the root and source of many of our collective social problems - including war, murder, abuse of power, brutality, social predation and more.
posted by loquacious at 5:03 PM on June 6, 2005


"I can't imagine what could be higher on anyone's list than paedophilia."

TO-DO LIST
1. Call city, landlord about rats in vacant building next door
2. Start flossing regularly
3. Pick up drycleaning
4. Fix broken window in car
5. File papers
6. Call Dave about surf trip in October
7. Peak Oil
8. Get outraged over paedophilia
posted by fandango_matt at 5:06 PM on June 6, 2005


I think loquacious has just provided some of the best rhetorical examples I've ever seen in a serious thread. "For fuck's sake. The sun could explode." "Eaten alive by von Neumann (nanotech) machines." "Aliens could come and wipe us off the face of the Earth - or worse, enslave and torture us all." Somehow phrased just right. Leaves a taste of strawberries in my mouth.
posted by Bugbread at 5:09 PM on June 6, 2005


paedophilia--Just because it's the biggest taboo doesn't mean it's the worst thing going.

[A lot of other people on preview.]
posted by OmieWise at 5:19 PM on June 6, 2005 [1 favorite]


OmieWise : "Just because it's the biggest taboo doesn't mean it's the worst thing going."

I always thought incest or cannibalism were the biggest taboos. I'm behind the times, I guess.
posted by Bugbread at 5:25 PM on June 6, 2005


I originally said towards the top of the list. I certainly think war is worse than pedophilia, but that pedophilia (that is - actual people actually abusing children. Not the "vague threat" of pedophilia that the media is so fond of throwing around these days.) is worse than, say, hitting someone with a fish.

To me, violence between adults (domestic violence/assault - not nuclear war) is certainly something that I find problematic, but not to the same extent that I find violence against children. Adults often have control over their situations in ways that kids just don't. Adult rape is awful, but in that case it's a violation of a consent that the adult (in normal cases of sanity/sobriety) could give. A kid can't give informed consent and in my mind, that's what makes pedophilia worse than adult rape.

But if you'll excuse me, I'm going to stop rationalizing myself on a webforum and start worrying about when the sun's gonna 'splode. Y'all done scared me.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 5:35 PM on June 6, 2005


bugbread, I never got the cannibalism thing. I mean, just so long as you don't kill the food, what's the harm in eating the food? Waste not, want not, and all that. He's dead, it's not like he'll be using that leg.

If I was, say, in the Andes after a plane crash, I would SO bar-b-que that guy.
posted by cedar at 5:41 PM on June 6, 2005


It is here that I get to proudly mention that my ancestors came from the survivors of the Donner Party.

*waves fork and BBQ sauce menacingly, licking lips*
posted by loquacious at 6:02 PM on June 6, 2005 [1 favorite]


Thanks for explaining what I meant, grapefuitmoon and for doing it much more clearly than I would have.

But, loquacious, now that I know about all those other things that might happen, I won't be able to sleep for worrying about them as well. Thanks.
posted by dg at 6:42 PM on June 6, 2005


*puts hand on Nikki's thigh*
posted by quonsar at 7:00 PM on June 6, 2005


cedar : "I never got the cannibalism thing."

Me neither. I've just heard the memes "Incest is the ultimate taboo" and "Cannibalism is the ultimate taboo" for years. Perhaps the memes were just that: memes.
posted by Bugbread at 7:36 PM on June 6, 2005


First let me apologize for any confusion that was caused by my not being a member on metatalk and that it has caused some unnecessary misunderstandings regarding this situation, and also for the delay today in getting subscribed to clarify some of the confusion. I have been off my computer and unable to reply.

Also I want to apologize for publishing the names of several metafile posters in my responses on my own website. Unfortunately I did not consider there would be concern on the part of the original posters and I did not want to remove credit for their words in my reply. I will be removing those references completely later on tonight.

A few more specific responses and clarifications will follow this posting. I'm not familiar with this forum and if I do anything unacceptable please let me know and I will do my best to work within the guidelines of your group. Thank you for allowing me to respond directly in this forum and in advance for your patience. Nikki Craft
posted by NikkiCraft at 7:47 PM on June 6, 2005


*slides hand up a little further*
posted by quonsar at 7:52 PM on June 6, 2005


orthogonality wrote:
>Ugh. If he sodomized a boy on tape, convict him of that. Don't convict him for his thoughts.

There are connections that can be made from internet postings that can help a legal case go forward. Email could help establish long term patterns documenting interest in children, or connections to other pedophiles. What might have written in private email to someone? He could have offered photographs of his son. They were once posted to a website before, presumably, the police removed the website. Connecting the dots via email is using data to document patterns, it's not convicting him for his thoughts.
posted by NikkiCraft at 7:53 PM on June 6, 2005


OK that's over lets all go home.
posted by mss at 8:01 PM on June 6, 2005


"I also agree it's weird the page I linked to changed and the whole thing about alerting detectives to posting patterns (wtf?)." --posted by mathowie at 9:55 AM PST on June 6

I still might not be completely clear on mathowie's point here. I think what might need to be explained is that I didn't originally change the discussion to "posting history". My website says: "If you have relevant information to assist with prosecution." My post about documenting "posting patterns" was merely trying to explain to orthogonality why it could be relevant towards a conviction what he posted on the internet and why that would not be convicting him for his thoughts.

This is the original post that first mentioned "posting history":

orange swan at 6:11 AM PST on June 6 wrote:
>The prosecution should know about this man's posting history. They probably already do though...?

Orange Swan was right, I'm sure prosecutors will be researching these connections.
posted by NikkiCraft at 8:09 PM on June 6, 2005


"I kinda agree with this. The actions are obviously despicable, but I'm not sure a public 'hall of shame' is really the answer. wdpeck is sick, assuming this information is accurate, and the poor kid is undoubtedly traumatized, but let's not imagine our posting about it is really making the world a better place or something." --posted by mdn at 9:37 AM PST on June 6

Notifying others of the existence of a sex predators _can_ make the world a better place. How would you like to think he could come back and mingle in your group at any time, posting about issues regarding children with all sorts of subterfuge and lying, now even after his arrest? Ignorance is bliss? I don't think so.

I don't know if members of your group ever get together in "the real world", but I did hear (meaning that one of your members -- who I am not mentioning by name to protect their privacy -- emailed me and told me) that at least one person on this board lives within an hours drive of him.

How about if he invited you and your children to go to a nudist camp, or a concert? I would hope you might consider your immediate environment to be a better safer environment because of the information you now have.

Nikki Craft
http://www.nudisthallofshame.info
posted by NikkiCraft at 8:30 PM on June 6, 2005


"Notifying others of the existence of a sex predators _can_ make the world a better place. How would you like to think he could come back and mingle in your group at any time, posting about issues regarding children with all sorts of subterfuge and lying, now even after his arrest? Ignorance is bliss? I don't think so."

Just to play Devil's Advocate, isn't there a presumption of innocence? It's my understanding that this man has not been convicted of anything.

Granted, the evidence seems compelling but considering he remains incarcerated it seems unlikely that he will be inviting me or my children to any concerts. If he is convicted I expect that he would be required to register as a sex offender with the normal community notification procedures and supervision upon his release.

Why not hold off on the public vilification until the courts do their thing? It doesn't look like he's going anywhere.
posted by cedar at 8:41 PM on June 6, 2005


I meant no insinuation in the original wording, however I have reworded the mention of metafilter to read:

Peckenpaugh has made postings on Meta Filter (with a link to meta filter). No surprise to anyone who has read Peckenpaugh, he was defending nudist photography of children and telling lies and attacking me for what I've done against pedophiles like him. Here's the MetaFilter update (with a link to meta filter) posted 06.06.05.
posted by NikkiCraft at 8:42 PM on June 6, 2005


OH FOR FUCKS SAKE TAKE IT TO EMAIL
posted by I EAT TAPES at 8:48 PM on June 6, 2005


I would hope you might consider your immediate environment to be a better safer environment because of the information you now have.

i do not fear my environment. i do not go to nudist camps. neither do my children. at least one of our members live within an hours drive of pretty much anything. my children could be hit by a bus. or a drunk driver. i do not operate a website detailing the movements of neighborhood bus drivers, nor the local lushes. you are pursuing some sort of grudge. you've sucessfully manipulated this site into creating a lot of attention for yourself.

now go away. before one of us tazes you.
posted by quonsar at 8:49 PM on June 6, 2005


OH FOR FUCKS SAKE TAKE IT TO EMAIL

OH FOR FUCKS SAKE STOP REFRESHING THE PAGE

I don't know what your problem is, someone actually involved (somehow, I'm clear on exactly how) has taken the time to join and respond to comments made about her.

There is finally something real in this wankfest of a thread and your unhappy? Myself, I'm interested in what Ms. Craft has to say. Your not? Gee, sorry. Feel free to ignore it.
posted by cedar at 8:53 PM on June 6, 2005


Should have been: I'm notclear on exactly how
posted by cedar at 8:54 PM on June 6, 2005


Public vilification?

At least what I published about him has been the truth. That's more than what he did on Metatalk in his smear campaign about me. I was lied about and trashed by Peckenpaugh with no recourse and I've not even ever been arrested for anything but civil disobedience. I didn't see too much talk about me being innocent until proven guilty. I've not counted the posts, but it might be safe to say that I've been called "Creepy" in this forum more times than a man who has been arrested for sodomy of a child and production of child pornography related charges.

There's nothing unethical about anything I've done. I've published several news items that are public information about Peckenpaugh and some miscellaneous information compiled from various sources. And I've informed appropriate individuals and this forum and a few others.

This is acceptable custom, legally and ethically, for individuals and the media to not be required to withhold their opinions regarding an individual pending conviction. One can say what one thinks about it. If you have complaints about that concept perhaps you'd want to pass a law restricting the free expression of anyone speaking out about the Michael Jackson case?
posted by NikkiCraft at 9:06 PM on June 6, 2005


NikkiCraft I would hope you might consider your immediate environment to be a better safer environment because of the information you now have.

Tom Ridge, is that you?
posted by fandango_matt at 9:07 PM on June 6, 2005


*points taser*
posted by quonsar at 9:09 PM on June 6, 2005


Cedar wrote
"There is finally something real in this wankfest of a thread and your unhappy? Myself, I'm interested in what Ms. Craft has to say. Your not? Gee, sorry. Feel free to ignore it."

Hi Cedar, Thank you. I had not intended to join and I was going to respond on my own website. However since it became clear that more misunderstandings were coming about due to the indirectness, and since several people urged me to join, I did so.

I only want to clarify these things and then I will unsubscribe. I have just today started to school and I don't really have the time, however I feel I have the responsibility to clear some of it up. I think this thread was unsettling enough to many on this site and I sure don't want anything I do to play a part in making it more so if it can be helped.
posted by NikkiCraft at 9:16 PM on June 6, 2005


*fires taser, watches NikkiCraft flop around on the pavement*
posted by quonsar at 9:18 PM on June 6, 2005


I have just today started to school

it's all so clear now.
posted by dersins at 9:22 PM on June 6, 2005


fandango wrote:
"Tom Ridge, is that you?" after quoting me saying: "I would hope you might consider your immediate environment to be a better safer environment because of the information you now have."

very cute, fandango, but I ain't the government. I would hope you would value highly the right to pass on information among the citizenry. Information protects. There's nothing fascistic about that so why imply there is?
posted by NikkiCraft at 9:25 PM on June 6, 2005


Okay q, can we eat her now?

You zap her while I fire up the barbie.

Oh yeah, one other thing Nikki -- this isn't about you. We, the all inclusive 'we' meaning 'I', made it about you and that I regret. This is about someone who has been charged with a variety of sex offenses that are somewhat related to comments he made on this site. That's all. No big battle to save the children. No big investigation. Just some sad sack of shit who made a few posts on a website we frequent.

Lord knows I wouldn't want to stifle your right to free expression, express away. It seems to be what you do.

On preview: "I think this thread was unsettling enough to many on this site and I sure don't want anything I do to play a part in making it more so if it can be helped." No, no. Silly wabbit. Don't protect us, we thrive on this shit. This is MetaTalk, speak your mind and stick around.
posted by cedar at 9:28 PM on June 6, 2005


You can unsubscribe, but you can never leave.
posted by dg at 9:36 PM on June 6, 2005 [1 favorite]


Yes, Nikki. Information protects. Saying, "Mr. X, who has been convicted by a jury of his peers for offenses against children has moved next door to your family. Pay attention," could possibly protect someone.

That is quite different than saying, "Mr. X has been charged with a crime. Eventually he will be tried and the truth of the allegations will be determined. He is being held without bail pending said trial," protects no one.
posted by cedar at 9:45 PM on June 6, 2005


nikkicraft, if you have, what you consider to be pertinent information about an alleged crime, please contact the relevant authorities and pass it on.
Keyboard vigilantism, that hides behind the veil of free speech, is the thin edged wedge of lynch mob mentality. Please fuck off.

And Matt, just to clarify -- the reason I suggested that this thread is treading into shaky legal territory is that I can envisage a scenario whereby it is used by the accused's defense team in order to demonstate that his case has been prejudiced to at least a minor extent. I'm not sure just how it would be used other than as a disqualifying criterion in jury selection. Free speech, MJackson notwithstanding..

The older thread is no doubt pertinent as nikkicraft has said, to establish a datapoint of typical behaviour (or allegedly so). That is kind of beside the point now because it's pre-arrest.
posted by peacay at 9:54 PM on June 6, 2005


Oh dear, this isn't going well.

quonsar? Tazer me. I wanna pee in my pants and do the funky chicken dance.

If you're not going to do it, hand me the tazer, I'll do it.
posted by loquacious at 9:55 PM on June 6, 2005


posted by NikkiCraft I would hope you would value highly the right to pass on information among the citizenry. Information protects.

Maybe you could design a color-coded Pedophile Alert Warning System (PAWS) so we know when and where pedophiles will strike.
posted by fandango_matt at 10:02 PM on June 6, 2005


I think this discussion has pretty much run its course. Thanks all.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:05 PM on June 6, 2005


« Older Dammit, orthogonality, I'm eve...  |  I posted a new question to Ask... Newer »

This thread is closed to new comments.

Post