And The Kevin Clash Victims Just Keep On Coming With 4th Accuser

We now almost have a full hand of men who claimed Kevin Clash, formerly the voice of Elmo, carried on a sexual relationship with them while they were underage. And I don’t know about you, but it looks like we’re just going to keep counting. Every new lull in these allegations, no matter how they’re finagled to appear subdued with resignations, just seem to make for new alleged victims.

NBC news report that the lawsuit, filed today in Miami, identifies the victim only as John Doe. He claims that when he was 16 or 17 (circa 1995 or 1996), Clash paid for him to fly from Miami to New York City for sex:

In a statement, the victim’s attorney Jeff Herman said, “According to our lawsuit, Kevin Clash knowingly paid to transport a minor across state lines for the purpose of satisfying his sexual interests.”

This is now the third Clash accuser that Herman is representing, as he has also been retained by another John Doe and Cecil Singleton.

Clash or his PR reps have reportedly not yet responded to these new allegations by John Doe II. But with multiple John Does claiming abuse, it sure doesn’t look too promising for Mr. Clash. Are we banning Elmo in our homes yet?

(photo: Joseph Marzullo/Wenn.com)

Share This Post:
    • alice

      It’s been interesting to watch this whole thing unfold. There’s this really strange atmosphere of anger surrounding the discussion. And now, there’s this vehement opposition to the idea that *some* parents may indeed be forming negative associations with Elmo after the rash of allegations against Kevin Clash. Maybe I’m really underestimating the value of Elmo, but my main question (to those who are befuddled and even incensed that someone would boycott Elmo now): why does it matter to you?

      I can understand why it matters to the boycotters. I can see how a person may choose to *not* buy an Elmo toy this Christmas, because A) there are a lot of unresolved
      allegations against the Elmo Puppeteer and B) those allegations involve statutory
      rape and C) statutory rape is not cool. I can understand how this statement resonates with some people: Elmo is *not* Kevin Clash, but Kevin Clash *is* Elmo.

      What I don’t fully appreciate though, and I’d love for someone to explain to me, is why the ANTI-boycotters care so much. Just from reading some of the comments on
      mommyish, I know there are some pretty fierce pro-Elmo people. I understand that the crux of your statement is “Elmo is not Kevin Clash” but why does it bother you if someone else associates Kevin Clash with Elmo and therefore is (consciously or not) avoiding Elmo related stuff for a while?

      Does it have a negative impact on something I’m missing?

      And more overall, I wonder (in general, for everyone) at what point would negative associations be acceptable? And what makes them so? Walt Disney -> Disney World in Orlando? Jim Henson -> Muppets? Kelsey Grammer -> Krusty the Clown -> the Simpsons? Daniel Craig -> James Bond? That bigot who owns Chick Filet -> Chikc Filet? :)

    • Jenna M

      For one thing, Elmo and Sesame street have nothing to do with this case. For another, it’s really interesting in this country how a person is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but the media treats a person guilty until proven innocent; and sometimes even after that. I have no idea if Kevin Clash is innocent or guilty, I’m not going to judge him prematurely.

      • alice

        “innocent until proven guilty” is a misplaced response to this situation. i agree that there is a media circus, and i agree that for some reason this kevin clash stuff is really polarizing. but you have to keep in mind two things:

        1. this is not a criminal case right now. there is not an “innocent until proven guilty” aspect. and while it’s tempting, you also shouldn’t rush to conclude that because it’s not a criminal case, it means it’s a “money grab” – - there are other reasons that could be at play, like statute of limitations, lawyer recommendations, etc. In absence of criminal charges, how would you form your view of kevin clash? (assuming that you would want to form an opinion.) based on what a civil court decides to award (or not award) the alleged victims? based on how much money Clash decides to settle out-of-court? you say you’re not going to judge him prematurely, but what then are you going to judge him on?

        2. criminal charges or not, this may all boil down to a “he said she said” scenario. date rape, for instance, is historically difficult to prosecute, because it often comes down to just that. i bring this up as a reminder that you may never see any comeuppance. false accusers may benefit from lies or justly accused may go unpunished.

        does any of that matter? probably not. but just as you say we’re a society that’s quick to convict in the media, the opposite force is often we’re so artificially unopinionated that we border on obtuse. having opinions is good! healthy discussions about current events are good!

    • Money Grab

      Don’t you mean alleged accusers?

      • alice

        oh jesus christ. they are not called *alleged* accusers.

        but i guess whatever it takes to attempt to discredit a person who who claims they were sexually abused, right? ;)

    • Pingback: Voice of Charlie Brown Arrested, Stalking, Peter Robbins, Peanuts()

    • Pingback: 'C' is For Criminal: Cookie Monster Charged With Child Shoving()