Ed Kramer Back In Jail

2 views
Skip to first unread message

flamingauto

unread,
Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00
to

Joel Rosenberg

unread,
Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00
to
How unfortunate. Unless, of course, he's guilty, in which case, quite
the contrary.

Regardless of his guilt or innocence -- about which I don't need to
have an opinion, and don't -- it's pretty clear that he's behaved
unwisely under the circumstances, in ways that are consistent with
either guilt or innocence.

Do you have a particular reason on keeping the ng up to date on the
various details of the case?

flamingauto

unread,
Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00
to
Joel Rosenberg wrote:

> Do you have a particular reason on keeping the ng up to date on the
> various details of the case?

Yes. This fellow ran what had been the largest sf convention in the US. In
fact, the subject has more to do with this newsgroup than what's going on
in Israel (oh, my people!) or even the presidential elections.


Joel Rosenberg

unread,
Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00
to
flamingauto <flami...@yahoo.com> writes:

> Joel Rosenberg wrote:
>
> > Do you have a particular reason on keeping the ng up to date on the
> > various details of the case?
>
> Yes. This fellow ran what had been the largest sf convention in the
US.

That may well be so, but so what?


In
> fact, the subject has more to do with this newsgroup than what's going on
> in Israel (oh, my people!) or even the presidential elections.

Well, no. What "has to do" with this newsgroup are matters that are
of interest to fans -- and the folks who actually participate in the
newsgroup get to decide that, rather than you drive-by types. (Much
of the discussion sparked by your postings has been a meta-discussion
about the postings, rather than about the details of Mr. Kramer's
legal difficulties, however justified or unjustified his predicament
is.)

And now, do you have any particular reason to dish out this, err,
blow-by-blow information from behind a mask?

David Owen-Cruise

unread,
Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00
to
In article <wkvgtmi...@winternet.com>,
Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
[snip]

> And now, do you have any particular reason to dish out this, err,
> blow-by-blow information from behind a mask?
>
The theory that he shopped Kramer to the DA in order to keep his own
self out of jail still seems like a good fit to me.

Whatever the case, vendettas certainly are ugly little things to
witness, aren't they?

--
David Owen-Cruise
dowen...@juno.com


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

flamingauto

unread,
Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00
to
Joel Rosenberg wrote:

> And now, do you have any particular reason to dish out this, err,
> blow-by-blow information from behind a mask?

Blow-by-blow! That's great! I wish I'd thought of that,
but no doubt, I'll be using it from now on. Thanks!
As to your question, I'm a former D*Con staff member.


Joel Rosenberg

unread,
Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00
to
flamingauto <flami...@yahoo.com> writes:

Thank you, Former D*Con Staff Member. Should I call you Mr. Member,
Mrs. Member, Ms. Member or Dr. Member? Or do you actually have
another name, like, say, Saunders or Underhill or Christ or Collins?

Joel Rosenberg

unread,
Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00
to
David Owen-Cruise <dowen...@juno.com> writes:

> In article <wkvgtmi...@winternet.com>,
> Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
> [snip]

> > And now, do you have any particular reason to dish out this, err,
> > blow-by-blow information from behind a mask?
> >

> The theory that he shopped Kramer to the DA in order to keep his own
> self out of jail still seems like a good fit to me.
>
> Whatever the case, vendettas certainly are ugly little things to
> witness, aren't they?

I dunno. I think there's at least one possible explanation under
which Collins & Christ are behaving as well as possible despite
carrying a large cargo of guilt.

Dave Locke

unread,
Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00
to
Joel Rosenberg set words in phosphor:

> How unfortunate. Unless, of course, he's guilty, in which case, quite
> the contrary.

True.



> Regardless of his guilt or innocence -- about which I don't need to
> have an opinion, and don't -- it's pretty clear that he's behaved
> unwisely under the circumstances, in ways that are consistent with
> either guilt or innocence.

The article makes it questionable, not "clear", that he was visited
by a minor (and the minor's father), which is the presumption the
police made when putting him back in jail. The minor's father said
he was with his wife, not his teenage son. From a distance, to
nosey neighbors peeking through a window, that's possible.



> Do you have a particular reason on keeping the ng up to date on the
> various details of the case?

It was discussed in here at great length some time before, so I
consider this question invalid. No reason not to consider this
post, in isolation, a legitimate followup. There was no
editorializing; merely a URL.

--
Dave | dave...@fan.net | Caveat Lector

Joel Rosenberg

unread,
Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00
to
Dave Locke <dave...@fan.net> writes:

> Joel Rosenberg set words in phosphor:
>
> > How unfortunate. Unless, of course, he's guilty, in which case, quite
> > the contrary.
>
> True.
>
> > Regardless of his guilt or innocence -- about which I don't need to
> > have an opinion, and don't -- it's pretty clear that he's behaved
> > unwisely under the circumstances, in ways that are consistent with
> > either guilt or innocence.
>
> The article makes it questionable, not "clear", that he was visited
> by a minor (and the minor's father), which is the presumption the
> police made when putting him back in jail. The minor's father said
> he was with his wife, not his teenage son. From a distance, to
> nosey neighbors peeking through a window, that's possible.

True. But there's also his apparent decision -- explainable either by
his guilt or innocence -- to show up at the door of the mother of the
alleged victim and demand entry.

In any case, under the circumstances, he'd clearly be well-advised to
avoid any contact with minors, or with somebody who might appear, even
through a murky window, as a minor.

Again: I'm not judging his criminality; thankfully, I don't have to.

Dave Weingart

unread,
Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00
to
One day in Teletubbyland, Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com> said:
>Thank you, Former D*Con Staff Member. Should I call you Mr. Member,
>Mrs. Member, Ms. Member or Dr. Member? Or do you actually have
>another name, like, say, Saunders or Underhill or Christ or Collins?


My goodness, Joel, surely you aren't suggesting that the anonymous
Flaming Trolls of Dragon*Con would consider posting from another
anonymous Yahoo account, are you?

As IF!

--
73 de Dave Weingart KA2ESK Consonance 2001! Urban Tapestry!
mailto:phyd...@liii.com Mike Stein! Oh, yeah, and some guy
http://www.liii.com/~phydeaux named Dave Wein-something-or-other.
ICQ 57055207 http://www.consonance.org

Joel Rosenberg

unread,
Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00
to
phyd...@liii.com (Dave Weingart) writes:

> One day in Teletubbyland, Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com> said:
> >Thank you, Former D*Con Staff Member. Should I call you Mr. Member,
> >Mrs. Member, Ms. Member or Dr. Member? Or do you actually have
> >another name, like, say, Saunders or Underhill or Christ or Collins?
>
>
> My goodness, Joel, surely you aren't suggesting that the anonymous
> Flaming Trolls of Dragon*Con would consider posting from another
> anonymous Yahoo account, are you?
>

I admit that I've believed that that is at least a distant theoretical
possibility.

David G. Bell

unread,
Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00
to
On 17 Nov, in article <3A155C98...@yahoo.com>
flami...@yahoo.com "flamingauto" wrote:

> Joel Rosenberg wrote:
>
> > And now, do you have any particular reason to dish out this, err,
> > blow-by-blow information from behind a mask?
>

> Blow-by-blow! That's great! I wish I'd thought of that,
> but no doubt, I'll be using it from now on. Thanks!
> As to your question, I'm a former D*Con staff member.

This is not reassuring. Unless we know which former staff member you
are, we have no way of knowing whether your actions are driven by a
malicious desire to wreak revenge for your leaving of the staff.


--
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, and Punslinger.

We suffer as a society and a culture when we don't pay the true value of
goods and services delivered. We create a lack of production. Less good
music is recorded if we remove the incentive to create it. -- Courtney Love


Joel Rosenberg

unread,
Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00
to
db...@zhochaka.demon.co.uk ("David G. Bell") writes:

> On 17 Nov, in article <3A155C98...@yahoo.com>
> flami...@yahoo.com "flamingauto" wrote:
>
> > Joel Rosenberg wrote:
> >
> > > And now, do you have any particular reason to dish out this, err,
> > > blow-by-blow information from behind a mask?
> >
> > Blow-by-blow! That's great! I wish I'd thought of that,
> > but no doubt, I'll be using it from now on. Thanks!
> > As to your question, I'm a former D*Con staff member.
>
> This is not reassuring. Unless we know which former staff member you
> are, we have no way of knowing whether your actions are driven by a
> malicious desire to wreak revenge for your leaving of the staff.
>

Oh, I think we can tell there's some malice -- in the common meaning
-- involved. What I don't know is whether or not it's deserved.

Dave Locke

unread,
Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00
to
Joel Rosenberg set words in phosphor:

> Dave Locke writes:
>> Joel Rosenberg set words in phosphor:
>>
>>> How unfortunate. Unless, of course, he's guilty, in which case, quite
>>> the contrary.
>>
>> True.
>>
>>> Regardless of his guilt or innocence -- about which I don't need to
>>> have an opinion, and don't -- it's pretty clear that he's behaved
>>> unwisely under the circumstances, in ways that are consistent with
>>> either guilt or innocence.
>>
>> The article makes it questionable, not "clear", that he was visited
>> by a minor (and the minor's father), which is the presumption the
>> police made when putting him back in jail. The minor's father said
>> he was with his wife, not his teenage son. From a distance, to
>> nosey neighbors peeking through a window, that's possible.
>
> True. But there's also his apparent decision -- explainable either by
> his guilt or innocence -- to show up at the door of the mother of the
> alleged victim and demand entry.

That was part of what got him under house arrest, I imagine, and yes
it was bad judgement, but it's quite irrelevant here. The news item
we're responding to deals with what got him from house arrest back
into the pokey, and even the article itself indicates that's
questionable stuff.



> In any case, under the circumstances, he'd clearly be well-advised to
> avoid any contact with minors, or with somebody who might appear, even
> through a murky window, as a minor.

I assume you're being facetious here...



> Again: I'm not judging his criminality; thankfully, I don't have to.

Neither of us are, and we're both thankful...

mike weber

unread,
Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00
to
On 17 Nov 2000 10:38:07 -0600, Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com>
typed


>Thank you, Former D*Con Staff Member. Should I call you Mr. Member,
>Mrs. Member, Ms. Member or Dr. Member? Or do you actually have
>another name, like, say, Saunders or Underhill or Christ or Collins?

"I'll take a 'C', Joel..."
--
"Life's a game where they're bound to beat you, and time's a
trick they can turn to cheat you -- and we only waste it
anyway, that's the hell of it..." -- Paul Williams

<mike weber> kras...@mindspring.com>
Ambitious Incomplete web site: http://weberworld.virtualave.net


Joel Rosenberg

unread,
Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00
to
Dave Locke <dave...@fan.net> writes:

No, I'm not. Guilty or innocent, powerful forces (like, say, the
local prosecutor) *are* Out To Get him, people *are* watching him, and
I think it's only basic self-preservation for him to conduct himself
accordingly. At this point, a weak accusation could (and an
accusation that may be weak did) land him back in jail, and if he had
the means to (which he apparently doesn't), it would have made sense
to hire the local equivalent of a Fair Witness (say, an off-duty cop)
to stay with him 24/7 and be able to swear that he hadn't done
anything in violation of the court order.

If he's innocent -- and I mean that in the ordinary, didn't-do-it,
sense -- his life is in tatters as it is, and it makes sense to
preserve what tatters are available. (If he's guilty, come to think
of it, it probably makes sense from his POV, too; but, if so, I don't
give damn.)

Dave Locke

unread,
Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00
to
Joel Rosenberg set words in phosphor:

> Dave Locke writes:
>> Joel Rosenberg set words in phosphor:
>>

>>> In any case, under the circumstances, he'd clearly be well-advised to
>>> avoid any contact with minors, or with somebody who might appear, even
>>> through a murky window, as a minor.
>>
>> I assume you're being facetious here...
>
> No, I'm not. Guilty or innocent, powerful forces (like, say, the
> local prosecutor) *are* Out To Get him, people *are* watching him, and
> I think it's only basic self-preservation for him to conduct himself
> accordingly. At this point, a weak accusation could (and an
> accusation that may be weak did) land him back in jail, and if he had
> the means to (which he apparently doesn't), it would have made sense
> to hire the local equivalent of a Fair Witness (say, an off-duty cop)
> to stay with him 24/7 and be able to swear that he hadn't done
> anything in violation of the court order.

"Ma'am, you say you saw a minor inside his house?"

"Looked like a minor to me. I've seen enough of them in my 86
years."

"Where were you when you saw the minor?"

"Sitting here and I happened to glance through that window over
there."

"The closed window with the screen and the lace curtains, 15 feet
from here next to the TV?"

"That's right."

"Describe the minor, please."

"He was seated at that living room window across from mine so I
don't know how tall he was. But he had a mustache, was smoking a
cigar, and had an Atlanta PD teeshirt on."

"Why do you think he was a minor?"

"He didn't look old enough to vote."

"Okay, we'll go haul Ed off to the pokey again."

Kip Williams

unread,
Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00
to
Rimbaud36 wrote:
>
> On 17 Nov 2000 10:38:07 -0600, Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com>
> wrote:

>
> >flamingauto <flami...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> >> Joel Rosenberg wrote:
> >>
> >> > And now, do you have any particular reason to dish out this, err,
> >> > blow-by-blow information from behind a mask?
> >>
> >> Blow-by-blow! That's great! I wish I'd thought of that,
> >> but no doubt, I'll be using it from now on. Thanks!
> >> As to your question, I'm a former D*Con staff member.
> >
> >Thank you, Former D*Con Staff Member. Should I call you Mr. Member,
> >Mrs. Member, Ms. Member or Dr. Member? Or do you actually have
> >another name, like, say, Saunders or Underhill or Christ or Collins?
>
> Flmaingauto is Joe Christ, I do believe. I am not sure if syllabub is
> Christ touting Collins or Collins.

Former member, eh?

--
--Kip (Williams)
amusing the world at http://members.home.net/kipw/

Joel Rosenberg

unread,
Nov 17, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/17/00
to
Dave Locke <dave...@fan.net> writes:


And, in that sort of situation, Ed would be quickly out of the pokey,
if he ever got there in the first place.

Paul W. Cashman

unread,
Nov 17, 2000, 9:34:10 PM11/17/00
to
On 17 Nov 2000 17:33:03 -0600, Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com>
wrote:

>Dave Locke <dave...@fan.net> writes:

Alas, no. At the hearing which resulted in Ed's bond being revoked,
several adults testified that the person mistaken as the minor was in
fact a woman who looked a lot like the kid in question. One of the
adults was, in fact, the woman, and both she and the kid were in the
courtroom for comparison. Despite her sworn testimony, the sworn
testimony of the kid's parents that he was nowhere near Ed's house,
and despite the obvious resemblance between the kid and the woman.....

....the judge put Ed back in anyway.

Same judge as before, BTW. No word yet on whether Ed's lawyer will
appeal. Needless to say, the adults whose sworn testimony was
disregarded are furious.

So really, it doesn't matter if the "child with Ed" was a moustached
police officer; they just Don't Want Him Out There.

Keith F. Lynch

unread,
Nov 18, 2000, 12:21:47 AM11/18/00
to
In article <3a15e910.27581678@news>,

Paul W. Cashman <pel...@atl.mediaone.net> wrote:
> One of the adults was, in fact, the woman, and both she and the kid
> were in the courtroom for comparison. Despite her sworn testimony,
> the sworn testimony of the kid's parents that he was nowhere near
> Ed's house, and despite the obvious resemblance between the kid and
> the woman..... ....the judge put Ed back in anyway.

Yes. The courts do not operate in good faith. If you're ever accused
of a serious crime, immediately zip the lip and go heavily into debt
to retain the best possible lawyer. Prosecutors play dirty. Truth is
irrelevant to them.

Anyhow, the judge could argue that Kramer and the kid were both present
in his courtroom, and that that in itself was forbidden "contact".

I see nothing wrong with someone posting brief accurate non-judgmental
messages about what's going on in this case. Even if the poster
chooses to remain anonymous. I for one am eager to learn what finally
happens in this case. More eager than I am to learn whether Bush or
Gore will be the next president.
--
Keith F. Lynch - k...@keithlynch.net - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail sent to thousands of randomly collected
addresses is not acceptable, and I do complain to the spammer's ISP.

RMacThomas

unread,
Nov 18, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/18/00
to
>> Do you have a particular reason on keeping the ng up to date on the
>> various details of the case?
>
>Yes. This fellow ran what had been the largest sf convention in the US. In

>fact, the subject has more to do with this newsgroup than what's going on
>in Israel (oh, my people!) or even the presidential elections.
>
>

which cons were those?

Dave Weingart

unread,
Nov 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/20/00
to
One day in Teletubbyland, blues...@yahoo.com said:
>Oh lets not be small about this. Things could get snippy.
>Besides, everybody knows his shortcomings.

Perhaps we should just cut off the discussion now.

mike weber

unread,
Nov 20, 2000, 3:00:00 AM11/20/00
to
On 20 Nov 2000 14:58:16 GMT, phyd...@liii.com (Dave Weingart) typed

>One day in Teletubbyland, blues...@yahoo.com said:
>>Oh lets not be small about this. Things could get snippy.
>>Besides, everybody knows his shortcomings.
>
>Perhaps we should just cut off the discussion now.
>

As far as i'm concerned, it was cut off long ago.
--
"My Lords, as one who has been treated in a most unseemly
fashion by the pigeons in Trafalgar Square, may I stand up
for their right to do the same to anyone who follows in my
footsteps." Lord Jenkins of Putney, addressing the House
of Lords.
==========================================================
mike weber kras...@mindspring.com
http://weberworld.virtualave.net

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages