ONTD Political

Second Man Accuses Elmo Voice Actor of Underage Sex, Says He Has a Thing for Teenage Boys

10:36 pm - 11/22/2012
original (2)

Just when you thought it was safe to tickle Elmo again, the erstwhile settled sex scandal roars back with a vengeance.


One day after Kevin Clash's initial accuser, "struggling model" Sheldon Stephens, retracted his recantation and asked to have his $125,000 settlement undone, a second accuser has stepped into the limelight to claim that he too had a sexual relationship with the voice actor while still a minor.

The unnamed man is suing Clash in federal court, claiming the two met in 1993 on a gay phone chat line. Now in his 30s, the accuser says he was 15 at the time, and Clash was 17 years his senior.

Per court documents, obtained by TMZ, the accuser alleges Clash "groomed [him] to gain his trust by, among other things, taking him to nice dinners and giving him money."

He goes on to claim that this was something of a hobby for Clash who regularly "trolled gay telephone chat line rooms to meet and have sex with underage boys."

As to why he hadn't previously come forward, the accuser says he just recently became aware of "adverse psychological and emotional effects from Kevin Clash's sexual acts and conduct."

The lawsuit seeks over $5 million in damages.

Update being Clash has resigned.

No one posted this so I thought I'd share the new update
Source 1
Source 2 Trigger Warning for semi detailed underage sex talk.
chaya 23rd-Nov-2012 09:51 pm (UTC)
It would be noteworthy enough that Clash has resigned to put it in the subject line. Also, trigger tags are needed.
bowtomecha 23rd-Nov-2012 10:52 pm (UTC)
I'm torn. Prominent black gay entertainer possibly being unfairly targeted versus possible sex offender grooming vulnerable teenagers for relationships while being a role model for children.

The conspiracy theorist in me wonders if its a plan to undermine public broadcasting by conservative wingnuts to claim that its commie gay anti christian indoctrination by the left. The pessimist says that offenders are drawn to positions of power and influence over their victims and this is just another case. The realist says that this country still wants to equate homosexuality with pedophilia and will use this terrible situation to meet those ends. The optimist left and went for a good cry.
bettalaylow 24th-Nov-2012 12:25 am (UTC)
This is why Clash no one to blame but himself getting involved with "barely legal" boys compromised everything he ever worked for.
bowtomecha 23rd-Nov-2012 11:00 pm (UTC)
Also, shame on source 2 for whats basically slut shaming. Its the first I've actually witnessed dealing with a man, but his posting of photos of himself shouldn't have any bearing on things in the media.

Although lets face it, if accused of these charges, most people would be willing to let their lawyer assassinate the character of the plaintiff with these pictures hands down.
girly123 23rd-Nov-2012 11:49 pm (UTC)
It actually happens a lot with gay male victims of rape and sexual assault, unfortunately.
zinnia_rose 23rd-Nov-2012 11:03 pm (UTC)
I wish I could say I'm surprised, but there's never just one victim. :/
lainiest 23rd-Nov-2012 11:23 pm (UTC)
I realize this is kind of nitpicky but Kevin Clash wasn't Elmo's voice actor, he was Elmo's performer. Every time I see it written the former way it drives me a little further up the wall.
blueburndown 23rd-Nov-2012 11:52 pm (UTC)
Wait, srsly? I thought he did both...? Or at least the voice?
girly123 23rd-Nov-2012 11:57 pm (UTC)
a second accuser has stepped into the limelight to claim that he too had a sexual relationship with the voice actor while still a minor.

Wow, fuck you too, Gawker. Because as everyone knows, absolutely nothing is more exciting than throwing yourself to the cruelty of the nation's criticism by coming forward with your sexual assault.
underfiend 24th-Nov-2012 08:59 am (UTC)
Eh, this whole situation bugs me. Clash got himself into this mess, that's for sure, and the framing of Gawker is certainly cringe-worthy... yet I remember when the first story of the first accuser came out and pretty much ever reply jumped on Clash and assumed the accuser was telling the truth/in the right even though there was no evidence. Now there is a second with - what in my opinion are - odd justifications for the timing of stepping forward.

Just saying, it's strange that the law suit dollar amount is so high and the first accuser recants his recant, which I didn't even know was possible. It does come off as the first wants to drop his settlement award for a larger amount. It all sounds a tad fishy to me. I'm just going to wait and see but it seems like it's pretty impossible for most people, including the media, to be bias about the whole thing. There are just too many issues involved. The least of which is the sensationalization of a gay man's sexual habits.
bowtomecha 24th-Nov-2012 10:22 pm (UTC)
Yeah they could have been more sensitive here.

gailmom 24th-Nov-2012 02:54 am (UTC)
Normally I side with the alleged victim before the alleged accuser, but this seems...suspicious to me. The first accuser backs off and takes back the accusation and gives back the settlement, and the second accuser shows up...when...now? You mean right after another accuser was given a settlement that we all heard about? hmm...I think he resigned because he wants what is best for Sesame Street and that both accusations are bullshit. But I haven't researched it much, that's just my first knee-jerk reaction.
moonshaz 24th-Nov-2012 04:26 am (UTC)
Ngl, I've had some of the same kinds of thoughts.
thecityofdis 24th-Nov-2012 02:58 am (UTC)
wow, these comments.
yeats 24th-Nov-2012 06:26 am (UTC)
SRSLY
idemandjustice 24th-Nov-2012 06:06 am (UTC)
Just when you thought it was safe to tickle Elmo again,

That was absolutely in poor taste.

This is so upsetting. I'm beginning to think Fred Rogers really was the last really good human being out there.
bowtomecha 25th-Nov-2012 12:17 am (UTC)
I think Mr. Rogers' popularity and near sacredness in American culture would prevent any victims from coming out. I certainly wouldn't rule out the situation being possible.

I always thought it was neat that for a children's show, that his didn't really have any kids on it as far as I remember. In that respect, it was nice to see that there were boundaries. Focused on me, but giving me safe space.
terra_tenshi 24th-Nov-2012 02:20 pm (UTC)
As to why he hadn't previously come forward, the accuser says he just recently became aware of "adverse psychological and emotional effects from Kevin Clash's sexual acts and conduct."

Really? It has nothing to do with the settlement the other accuser received or the money you're asking for? Not saying this man wasn't abused or that it isn't tragic but this line seems so disingenuous.
angelofdeath275 24th-Nov-2012 04:06 pm (UTC)
why is it blowing your fucking mind that when you see another victim come forward, you suddenly realize you are not the only one and can come to articulate what the fuck happened to you

and why is it a problem if he wants money from this. I keep seeing asshole pull out this line like its a bad thing and to concern troll.
poetic_pixie_13 24th-Nov-2012 07:36 pm (UTC)
The fuck is wrong with the comments in this post?

Is is never fucking to blame a a victim of sexual assault, question the validity of their statements, and generally give an abuser the 'benefit of the doubt.

Jesus fucking Christ I actually cannot with this bullshit. Fucking fuck.

Fuck y'all. Seriously.

Edited at 2012-11-24 07:37 pm (UTC)
angelofdeath275 24th-Nov-2012 10:17 pm (UTC)
Time to take lj notes
terra_tenshi 24th-Nov-2012 11:12 pm (UTC)
Sorry, do we not still live in a society where the standard is innocent until proven guilty? Victim blaming is one thing but the accused deserves the same benefit of the doubt as you would if you were falsely accused of murder/rape/theft/etc.
ebay313 25th-Nov-2012 12:07 am (UTC)
THIS. I seriously cannot with some of these comments. -_-
bowtomecha 25th-Nov-2012 09:13 am (UTC)
I've been wondering about this for a while.

I understand never blaming the victim. But isn't questioning the validity of statements something that a court is meant for? Isn't that how we come to decide if the person charged is innocent or guilty? Is the audience for this the general public to tell them that its not for them to do so, or also for the legal system as well? I'm guessing you meant this for the general population since you mention the comments here. But is this view applied to the authorities as well?

For example, if you have a teenage son, and one day he is charged with sexual assault, without even looking at the case would you determine that he's guilty because he was charged? I'm not trying to mansplain or bs about this. They seem like expectations of conduct more than expectations of law but it hasn't been explained and I probably won't find any professionally scrutinized work on the topic. Is there a person or organization that has literature on this?
palebold 26th-Nov-2012 09:53 pm (UTC)
You missed my point completely. His career is ruined already, guilty or not and if you don't see the problem with that then I feel sorry for you.

I hate to break it to you but, no, jail would not be his punishment in this case because they are suing him not bringing charges against him (which is why many people are suspicious I'm sure). I'm not fostering any negative reactions by stating that people are forgetting to remain neutral in their judgement, there is a big difference.

You're comparing negative reactions against proven guilt, which again is not the same. The only people I actually defended were the people with concerns to the legitimacy of the accusations.
This page was loaded Apr 21st 2014, 7:09 am GMT.