Neil Stammer Arrested
Cybereye7
Friday on charges he sexually molested a 12-year old boy. Stammer, 32, owner
of Rob's Magic and Juggling shop at 3023 Central SE, appeared before state
District Judge James F. Blackmer, who set a $250,000 cash or surety bond at his
arrest. One reason Judge Blackmer set such a high bond was due questions to
Mr. Stammers true identity, and his significant ties to other states and other
countries. Police and prosecutors have said Stammer has no identification
except for a passport and that he had changed his name.
Police said that FBI and Interpol background checks were currently underway.
Stammer was born Andrew J. Allen in Yuma, Arizona, traveled extensively as a
juggling champion and changed his name bout seven years ago. He is charged
with rape, criminal sexual contact, kidnapping and bribing or intimidating a
witness.
TRIPPnTx
Anonymous
>Friday
this was a week ago friday...
>on charges he sexually molested a 12-year old boy. Stammer, 32, owner
>of Rob's Magic and Juggling shop at 3023 Central SE, appeared before state
>District Judge James F. Blackmer, who set a $250,000 cash or surety bond
at his
this was later reduced to $100,000... he's now out on bail...
>arrest. One reason Judge Blackmer set such a high bond was due questions to
>Mr. Stammers true identity, and his significant ties to other states and
other
>countries. Police and prosecutors have said Stammer has no identification
>except for a passport and that he had changed his name.
police in albuquerque were unable to comprehend that someone might not have
a drivers license because they don't drive...
>Police said that FBI and Interpol background checks were currently underway.
>Stammer was born Andrew J. Allen in Yuma, Arizona, traveled extensively as a
>juggling champion and changed his name bout seven years ago. He is charged
>with rape, criminal sexual contact, kidnapping and bribing or intimidating a
>witness.
most of these charges are just there for plea bargaining purposes... the
only evidence against neil seems to be the accusations of one anonymous
teenager... based on this he has been the victim of a vicious local police
and media witch hunt, which now seems to be spreading to the internet...
keep your cool everyone, the facts will come out at the trial, and my guess
is they won't be nearly as bad as this article makes them look... you would
have to be really stoooopid to do something like this, and if there's one
thing neil ain't, it's dumb...
sorry for posting this anonymously, neil has had death threats from the
local crazies, and i don't wanna give 'em another target...
sig glad they didn't have anonymous aol accounts back in salem
Cybereye7
>>most of these charges are just there for plea bargaining purposes..<<<
On what do you base this conclusion??
>>>.... the only evidence against neil seems to be the accusations of one
anonymous
teenager...<<<
Your point is what? By virtue of the fact that only one person has come forward
that alone determines the truth value of their accusation? That one "anonymous
teenager" can only be lying?...nonsense.
12 years old is NOT a teenager. Anonymity is always granted to CHILDREN who
have been victims of crimes. For Police to actually make an arrest in a case
like this, this person's story has to check out...and check out thoroughly.
Don't trivilize this matter by referring to it as a 'which hunt'...this is not
a game. What if this victim were your son?
In the meantime, discussion is always healthy. There might be pieces to this
puzzle lying dormant out there. Perhaps others will surface...perhaps not.
What are you so afraid of?...that the charges are true and you have been wrong
about someone you knew? Welcome to the club.
junk...@email.com
cybe...@aol.com (Cybereye7) wrote:
>>>most of these charges are just there for plea bargaining
>>>purposes..<<<
>
> On what do you base this conclusion??
Standard legal practice?
>
> >>>.... the only evidence against neil seems to be the accusations of
>>> one anonymous teenager...<<<
>
> Your point is what? By virtue of the fact that only one person has
> come forward that alone determines the truth value of their
> accusation? That one "anonymous teenager" can only be
> lying?...nonsense.
I think the point is they could be lying.
> 12 years old is NOT a teenager. Anonymity is always granted to
> CHILDREN who have been victims of crimes.
> For Police to actually make an arrest in a case
> like this, this person's story has to check out...and check out
> thoroughly.
Your point is what? By virtue of the fact that the Police have
proceeded that he must be almost certainly guilty?
> Don't trivilize this matter by referring to it as a 'which
> hunt'...this is not
> a game. What if this victim were your son?
A witch hunt is trivial? What if you were the accussed?
>
> In the meantime, discussion is always healthy.
There is discussion and then there's rumour mongering and gossip.
They are rarely healthy. And I think most legal proccesses work
with facts, not discussion. Your (or anyone's) emotive opinions
don't count for anything. Facts count, and neither you nor I,
nor anyone else here, know them. If you do, then you
should be discussing this with the police, not r.j.
--
- - - - A Sinclair Production - - - -
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Ron A. Zajac
Anonymous wrote:
> >Albuquerque - The owner of a Nob Hill magic and juggling shop was arrested
> >Friday
>
> this was a week ago friday...
>
> [snip]
>
> sorry for posting this anonymously, neil has had death threats from the
> local crazies, and i don't wanna give 'em another target...
Now _THIS_ is intriguing! "Death threats from the local crazies"? What are
these locals particularly crazy about, and how might this obsession possibly
intersect negatively with a local jugging/juggling equip dealer?
(NOTE: If replying via email, remove anti-SPAM cap 'S' from reply address)
Ron A. Zajac
Alan Morgan
Since the vast majority of people reading this aren't in New Mexico
and weren't present when the alledged activities are supposed to
have occurred, I fail to see what benefit could possibly come from
discussing it.
>There might be pieces to this
>puzzle lying dormant out there. Perhaps others will surface...perhaps not.
>What are you so afraid of?...that the charges are true and you have been wrong
>about someone you knew? Welcome to the club.
BTW, Cybereye. I really, really appreciate the fact that you dug up every
single post I've made to this newsgroup that mentioned both Neil Stammer
and the word "sex" and emailed them to me. This was extremely productive.
Well done. Thanks also for your implication that I find child abuse amusing.
That really made my day.
Alan
Cybereye7
>Since the vast majority of people reading this aren't in New Mexico
>and weren't present when the alledged activities are supposed to
>have occurred,
Neil has not always lived in New Mexico. The "allegdged activities" could also
have occurred in Berlin, San Francisco, Washington, Amsterdam, to name a few.
YOU, or the "vast majority" need not be present.
> I really, really appreciate the fact that you dug up every
>single post I've made to this newsgroup that mentioned both Neil Stammer
>and the word "sex" and emailed them to me.
You're welcome.
>Thanks also for your implication that I find child abuse amusing.
I made no inference of the kind. I was simply trying to see if there was
something that you might remember as a result of reading your old posts
concerning or mentioning Neil. If I offended you, I apologize.
David Goering
sure all those in this news group who know Neil are interested. Keep
posting news, but fact and only verifiable fact.
Alan Morgan
Cybereye7 <cybe...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I really, really appreciate the fact that you dug up every
>>single post I've made to this newsgroup that mentioned both Neil Stammer
>>and the word "sex" and emailed them to me.
>
>You're welcome.
"Sarcasm" is just another 7 letter word to you, isn't it?
Alan
Pat Nealy
for five years or so, and consider him to be a friend. I hope he
considers me to be one as well. Neil stayed with us for a week or so
several years ago and we enjoyed his company and he ours. He read to my
five-year old who still misses "Mr Neil".
None of us on this NG were present during whatever may have casued these
charges. Since I was not present there, all I can judge is what I know
of Neil, and firmly believe him innocent until otherwise convinced.
Anyone who knows Neil has probably been the beneficiary of his
knowledge, humor or company.
I wish him well.
Pat Nealy and Family
Cybereye7
Arrests, in cases like these, are only made as a result of an investigation.
An investigation that
collects evidence, studies that evidence and then makes a determination based
on the
credibility/reliability of that evidence that there is a danger to the public
and an arrest should be
made. Careful thought is given to the "success" of presenting this evidence to
a jury and winning
a conviction. "Which hunts", on the other hand, tend to be a little more
spontaneous and hateful
and usually have little regard for evidence. According to Websters:
witch-hunt (noun)
First appeared 1885
1 : a searching out for persecution of persons accused of witchcraft
2 : the searching out and deliberate harassment of those (as political
opponents) with unpopular
views
Nobody's "out to get Neil"...someone came forward to put an end to this type of
behavior, that's
all. No vendetta, no blackmail, no grudge and no persecution. In fact, this
person deserves your
respect...his actions probably just spared your child. Do you know anything
about pedophiles??
Look up a child abuse web site. I think you would be surprised at how good
they are at
befriending the child. They slowly work their way into the child's life and
only when they feel that
the child trusts them enough "not to tell" do they make their move. The child
is left confused and
rarely comes forward for fear that their parents will be mad AT THEM!!(?) and
that they are the
bad ones. Most keep their secret and never talk about it. It usually surfaces
again, later in life,
and the behavior is sometimes copied by the "now adult" on other children.
(Parent readers: If your child
was 12 - 14 or younger and they spent a lot of time with Neil, I would have a
sit down talk with
them now...but don't expect instant confessions...make it known that they can
call (anonymously)
Albuquerque Crimes Against Children at 505-761-4060 if they know or remember
something in
the past.
>I think the point is they could be lying.<
How could anyone "think someone is lying" without knowing the person doing the
purported
lying???? Do you know this "anonymous" person(s)?? Have you read the
compliant?? If not, your
opinion is just a guess. You just don't want to believe the charges..that view
is shared by many on
this board, I'm sure. Sometimes we ignore the truth if conflicts with our own
sense of order. I
do it too...but not in this case.
>Your point is what? By virtue of the fact that the Police have
proceeded that he must be almost certainly guilty?<
In this particular case, Yes. But, I would have omitted the word "almost".
>What if you were the accussed [sic]?<
If I were the accused I would take responsibility for my actions. I would take
my one shot at
dignity and come clean with the community that I have enjoyed. I would
apologize to them and
to the "anonymous" person(s) to whom I have caused so much pain and suffering.
I would seek
professional help and rebuild my life.
>I think most legal proccesses [sic] work
with facts...<
Alas...my point exactly.
-cybI7
Cybereye7
>>>single post I've made to this newsgroup that mentioned both Neil Stammer
>>>and the word "sex" and emailed them to me.
>>
>>You're welcome.
>
>"Sarcasm" is just another 7 letter word to you, isn't it?
>
I apologized for offending you with an e-mail. I had hoped that this gesture
would have enabled you to focus on the issue at hand. I'm not here to play
word games, but "you're welcome" has 12 letters.
Immaturity and alanmorgan, on the other hand, both have 10.
-cybI7
Cybereye7
>knowledge, humor or company.
That would include myself and my family.
I am extremely disappointed .....
-cybI7
junk...@email.com
cybe...@aol.com (Cybereye7) wrote:
> >I think the point is they could be lying.<
>
> How could anyone "think someone is lying" without knowing the person
> doing the purported lying????
Did I say I thought they were lying? No, I said they _could_. People
do. I have no idea either way. Fortunately it is not my nor your job
to determine if they are.
> >Your point is what? By virtue of the fact that the Police have
> proceeded that he must be almost certainly guilty?<
>
> In this particular case, Yes. But, I would have omitted the word
> "almost".
Well so much for the judicial system. I wonder if the judge and
jury know they're wasting their time? Hell, if the police think
they're guilty then they *must* be! Welcome to the Police
State.
> >I think most legal proccesses [sic] work
> with facts...<
>
> Alas...my point exactly.
And you have been short on facts and long on emotive
hyperbole. I don't know about American law, but in the UK
your posts would be judged periously close to contempt of
court and prejudicial to a fair trail.
This discussion ends here.
Cybereye7
>jury know they're wasting their time? Hell, if the police think
>they're guilty then they *must* be!
If you are as good at juggling as you are at reading comprehension, you might
want to seriously consider that remedial juggling home study course you've been
pondering.
>I don't know about American law, but in the UK
>your posts would be judged periously close to contempt of
>court and prejudicial to a fair trail.
>
What??? Sounds like you already live in a "Police State", there pal.
JANSIX7
> I don't know about American law, but in the UK....
What does the UK have to do with this? Is that where you live? I thought you
were posting anonymously so the "local crazies" in Albuquerque wouldn't
"target" you. Talk about hyper-bull.
Jan
JAG
article <19990525022749...@ng154.aol.com> dated 25 May
1999 06:27:49 GMT
>Junkspike/nobody/whatever,
And I suppose "cybereye" is your christian name?
<snip>
>"Which hunts",
Tee-hee. A rather serendipitous mis-spelling, don't you think?
>on the other hand, tend to be a little more spontaneous and hateful
>and usually have little regard for evidence.
Spontaneous and hateful? <sarcasm>No you don't sound like that at
all.</sarcasm> And what about some regard for the judicial system? I
don't think witch hunts had much of that, either.
>According to Websters:
>witch-hunt (noun)
>First appeared 1885
> 1 : a searching out for persecution of persons accused of witchcraft
Let's see... Neil was accused of a crime, and arrested based on said
accusation. You (cybereye7) are now searching for evidence on usenet
to help persecute him, based upon your assumption that he is guilty,
and your outrage at this type of crime. In the process, you are
lashing out at the rec.juggling community just because they dare to
disagree with you.
> 2 : the searching out and deliberate harassment of those (as political
>opponents) with unpopular views
Hmm... you deliberately searched out old postings of Alan Morgan, and
then harassed him by mailing them to him. Then you insulted him and
others here who expressed views which are "unpopular" to you.
<snipped pedophile lecture>
>You just don't want to believe the charges..that view is shared by many on
>this board, I'm sure. Sometimes we ignore the truth if conflicts with our own
>sense of order. I do it too...but not in this case.
So not only do you have the omnipotence to know the truth in this
case, but you also know what everyone reading this newsgroup is
thinking? I would have no problem believing the charges, if he is
convicted in a court of law, I see no reason to pass judgement based
on accusations. I respect his juggling ability, but that says nothing
about the type of person he is.
>>Your point is what? By virtue of the fact that the Police have
>proceeded that he must be almost certainly guilty?<
>
>In this particular case, Yes. But, I would have omitted the word "almost".
I can't believe that you are so blinded by hate as to not see the
fault in what you have written here.
>>What if you were the accussed [sic]?<
>
>If I were the accused I would take responsibility for my actions. I would take my one shot at
>dignity and come clean with the community that I have enjoyed. I would apologize to them and
>to the "anonymous" person(s) to whom I have caused so much pain and suffering. I would seek
>professional help and rebuild my life.
I think you missed the point. What he meant was, what if you were
accused of such a crime, but _innocent_???
Nevertheless, professional help might be a good thing for you.
...JAG
JAG
<19990525114355...@ng-cs1.aol.com> dated 25 May 1999
15:43:55 GMT
Jan, you need to pay a little more attention before you go off making
judgements. Granted, it's partially "Cybereye7"'s fault for not
giving proper attribution for his/her quotes. The above quote about
the UK was from junk...@email.com, whereas the quote about the
"local crazies" is from "Anonymous" <nob...@replay.com>.
These are clearly two different people. But then when you're paranoid
I guess you tend to think that everyone who disagrees with you is part
of the conspiracy.
Why do people seem to think that a "witch hunt" is ok just because the
"witches" exist?
...JAG
JANSIX7
-
>The above quote about
>the UK was from junk...@email.com, whereas the quote about the
>"local crazies" is from "Anonymous" <nob...@replay.com>.
If that is the case why would junkspike directly answer questions raised in
Cybereye's post to Nobody. (I feel an Abbot & Costello moment coming). Better
yet, why is it Cybereyes fault that Spike answered these question directly
giving the impression that they are the same person (if they really aren't).
eg
Nobody:
>>>most of these charges are just there for plea bargaining
>>>purposes..<<<
>
Cybereye:
> On what do you base this conclusion??
Spike:
Standard legal practice?
Nobody:
> >>>.... the only evidence against neil seems to be the accusations of
>>> one anonymous teenager...<<<
Cybereye:
> Your point is what? By virtue of the fact that only one person has
> come forward that alone determines the truth value of their
> accusation? That one "anonymous teenager" can only be
> lying?...nonsense.
Spike:
I think the point is they could be lying.
See, I was paying attention, were you? If you are new to this venue it might
come in handy to know that not everyone is who they seem.
Which, BTW, is Cybereye's point, I think.
Good day.
Paranoid Jan
whoa, dude! killer band name!
JAG
18:42:37 GMT
>JAG wrote:
>
>>The above quote about
>>the UK was from junk...@email.com, whereas the quote about the
>>"local crazies" is from "Anonymous" <nob...@replay.com>.
>
>If that is the case why would junkspike directly answer questions raised in
>Cybereye's post to Nobody.
Because this is a public forum, not a private discussion.
> why is it Cybereyes fault that Spike answered these question directly
>giving the impression that they are the same person (if they really aren't).
It is Cybereyes fault because he/she did not give attribution for the
lines he/she was quoting.
>Nobody:
>>>>most of these charges are just there for plea bargaining
>>>>purposes..<<<
>>
>Cybereye:
>> On what do you base this conclusion??
>
>Spike:
>Standard legal practice?
Spike is simply suggesting an explantion for what Nobody could have
meant. Note the question mark?
>Nobody:
>> >>>.... the only evidence against neil seems to be the accusations of
>>>> one anonymous teenager...<<<
>
>Cybereye:
>> Your point is what? By virtue of the fact that only one person has
>> come forward that alone determines the truth value of their
>> accusation? That one "anonymous teenager" can only be
>> lying?...nonsense.
>
>Spike:
>I think the point is they could be lying.
Note the "I think"? Again, just a suggestion.
>See, I was paying attention, were you?
Apparently more than you.
>If you are new to this venue it might
>come in handy to know that not everyone is who they seem.
I've been hangin' round this "venue" for over two years. I don't
recall seeing either you or "cybereye7" previous to this whole Neil
Stammer business. As a matter of fact, neither does DejaNews.
>Which, BTW, is Cybereye's point, I think.
Ooh, look, you are speaking for Cybereye, maybe you're the same
person!!! I think it's more likely than what you are suggesting.
...JAG
Alan Mackenzie
Cybereye7,
Why have you posted this disturbing news about Neil Stammer? It would
seem to have nothing to do with juggling, and is thus off-topic.
You wish to damage the man's reputation as much as possible, yet
maintain your anonymity. This seems dishonourable to me. You're surely
aware that in the event of him not being convicted, the mud you are
slinging will, to a large extent, stick.
Earlier in the thread, you raved on about child abuse; you expressed
certainty of Mr. Stammer being found guilty; you indicated you were a
personal acquaintance of his. This sort of material is not what
rec.juggling is for.
WHO ARE YOU? Are you a parent (or other close acquaintance) of the
alleged victim?
This kind of attack makes me seethe with anger. Please do the decent
thing; either identify yourself or justify your continued anonymity.
-- Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: ayes...@emmyousee.deeeee; to decode, replace "aye" by 'a', "see"
by 'c' etc.
Kit Summers
The Best To You>>>>>>>Kit
K...@zdial.com
http://www.primechoice.com/kit
Pat Nealy wrote in message <374A0D...@Erols.com>...
>The news of Neal's arrest took me by great surprise. I have known Neal
>for five years or so, and consider him to be a friend. I hope he
>considers me to be one as well. Neil stayed with us for a week or so
>several years ago and we enjoyed his company and he ours. He read to my
>five-year old who still misses "Mr Neil".
>None of us on this NG were present during whatever may have casued these
>charges. Since I was not present there, all I can judge is what I know
>of Neil, and firmly believe him innocent until otherwise convinced.
>Anyone who knows Neil has probably been the beneficiary of his
>knowledge, humor or company.
>I wish him well.
>
>Pat Nealy and Family
>
>Alan Morgan wrote:
>>
>> In article <19990524151731...@ng64.aol.com>,
>> Cybereye7 <cybe...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> I really, really appreciate the fact that you dug up every
>> >>single post I've made to this newsgroup that mentioned both Neil
Stammer
>> >>and the word "sex" and emailed them to me.
>> >
>> >You're welcome.
>>
>> "Sarcasm" is just another 7 letter word to you, isn't it?
>>
>> Alan
Daniel Craig
FACTS we know? None of us in here are looking to prove Neil guilty,
thats the last thing I'd like, even though I've never met him... We're not
here to judge, that is what they hire the people in the courts for. Until
then,
let us post what we know, based on fact..
Just a few personal beliefs.
Daniel
David Goering wrote in message <3749...@news1.us.ibm.net>...
ejb...@user2.teleport.com
>Cybereye7 <cybe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> That would include myself and my family.
>> I am extremely disappointed .....
>
>seem to have nothing to do with juggling, and is thus off-topic.
>
> You wish to damage the man's reputation as much as possible, yet
And to me too.
There is a similar thread in alt.magic, concerning a prominent children's
magician, Bob Markwood. Many of the most hateful posts there are also
annonymous.
One of the results of such trolling is that several young magicians have
come forward, admiting to being victims of the accused, in hopes that
their confessions will somehow "help." In the meantime, anyone who asks
for hard evidence of a warrant or arrest (court reports, newspaper
accounts, etc.) is accused of being soft on pedaphilia.
Fostering this kind of hysteria is shameful.
It results in wholesale lynchings, character assassinations, tar brushing,
coerced confessions, and guilt by association. It is therefor a more
virulent crime, with more victims, than anything Mr. Stammer (or Mr.
Markwood, in alt.magic) has been accused of or could possibly have done.
This is no different than the activities of HUAC or the late Senator
Joseph McCarthy. Please stop it.
=Eric Bagai
----------------------------------------------------------------------
P.O.Box 82289, Portland OR 97282 -- 503/653-2614 -- Er...@foreworks.com
Staff columnist/reviewer for -- J U G G L E --- www.jugglemagazine.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron A. Zajac
David Goering wrote:
> What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty. News is good and I'm
> sure all those in this news group who know Neil are interested. Keep
> posting news, but fact and only verifiable fact.
Perhaps it wasn't obvious, but read my post again: I was attempting to draw
attention to the conspiratorial, sensationalist and subsequently unbelievable
and irrelevant tenor of the post I was responding to. Perhaps I should have
been more direct.
Ron A. Zajac
Beth Peyton
several times over the past twenty years, I must say he always struck me
as a perfect gentleman, and a warm, sensitive person. To add brilliant
artist and thinker would, I suppose, be beside the point. I support him
in this time of crisis. I'm worried about his reputation, since public
opinion seems to try cases much more rapidly than our court system
(remember Fatty Arbuckle). I believe, and will continue to do so unless
presented with powerful evidence to the contrary, that he has been
set-up and/or is a victim of over-zealous prosecutors.
signed, Kevin Holman
Anonymous
>
>>>most of these charges are just there for plea bargaining purposes..<<<
>
because that's what every prosecutor does in almost every criminal case...
over 90% of the criminal cases in america never go to trial because they
are settled by plea bargains...
>>>>.... the only evidence against neil seems to be the accusations of one
>anonymous teenager...<<<
>
>Your point is what? By virtue of the fact that only one person has come
forward
>that alone determines the truth value of their accusation? That one
>"anonymous teenager" can only be lying?...nonsense.
face it, teenagers lead a very rich fantasy life...
>12 years old is NOT a teenager.
i also saw the age quoted as 13... sfunny, but one report i saw said the
kid was 12 and 13 in the same article! hint: whey you see an obvious
contradiction like this in a news story that means the facts aren't being
reported correctly... big surprise, huh?
>Anonymity is always granted to CHILDREN
>who have been victims of crimes.
yeah, it's a real pity the sixth ammendment has been interpreted away...
>For Police to actually make an arrest in a
>case like this, this person's story has to check out...and check out
thoroughly.
the police told the press they were real suspicious that neil had changed
his name and spent a lot of time in other countries... that was the best
they could do? its a good job bobby may, wc fields and paul cinquevalli
never lived in albuquerque
>Don't trivilize this matter by referring to it as a 'which hunt'...this is
not a game.
>What if this victim were your son?
i don't think witch hunts are trivial at all... poor paul cinquevalli was a
victim of one... he was accused of being a german when he was living in
london during ww1... he never performed again, and died heartbroken...
>In the meantime, discussion is always healthy. [yawn... snip]
i think there've been some really healthy opinions expressed here... by all
the folks who believe that neil is innocent until proven guilty... makes me
proud to be a juggler...
K Chu
>>Which, BTW, is Cybereye's point, I think.
>
>Ooh, look, you are speaking for Cybereye, maybe you're the same
>person!!! I think it's more likely than what you are suggesting.
>...JAG
I'm Cybereye in disguise too, that's why I refer to him as third person
because I'm
schizophrenic :-)
K
--
Ken the Juggler
Milton Keynes, UK
"If Juggling be the food of love catch on"
K Chu
>In article <19990524151731...@ng64.aol.com>,
>Cybereye7 <cybe...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>> I really, really appreciate the fact that you dug up every
>>>single post I've made to this newsgroup that mentioned both Neil Stammer
>>>and the word "sex" and emailed them to me.
>>
>>You're welcome.
>
>"Sarcasm" is just another 7 letter word to you, isn't it?
>
>Alan
"Going along with the sarcasm" OTOH is only another phrase to you? :-)))
K Chu
>>>>>.... the only evidence against neil seems to be the accusations of one
>>anonymous teenager...<<<
>>
>>Your point is what? By virtue of the fact that only one person has come
>forward
>>that alone determines the truth value of their accusation? That one
>>"anonymous teenager" can only be lying?...nonsense.
>
>face it, teenagers lead a very rich fantasy life...
>
Let's look at it this way...if you're a 12 year old boy, would you go around
telling your friends that you've been sexually assaulted? Probably not, you
get teased by all the kids for a start! (It's not the type of things I
fantasised about anyway when I was younger)
I can't really see many incentives for him to lie, unless some rival of Neil
Stammer
paid the kid £5,000 or something?
You seem certain that the child was lying, but maybe he wasn't? maybe he
was? It's not for us to judge and to dismiss it by "face it, teenagers lead
a very
rich fantasy life" is unfair because children do get abused in this world,
and to think otherwise
is pure fantasy.
>>i think there've been some really healthy opinions expressed here... by
all
the folks who believe that neil is innocent until proven guilty... makes me
proud to be a juggler...<<
I only wish you'd feel the same way about whether the kid lied.
K Chu
>Cybereye7 <cybe...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>Anyone who knows Neil has probably [has] been the beneficiary of his
>>>knowledge, humor or company.
>
>> That would include myself and my family.
>> I am extremely disappointed .....
>
>
> Why have you posted this disturbing news about Neil Stammer? It would
>seem to have nothing to do with juggling, and is thus off-topic.
>
> You wish to damage the man's reputation as much as possible, yet
>aware that in the event of him not being convicted, the mud you are
>slinging will, to a large extent, stick.
>
>
> This kind of attack makes me seethe with anger. Please do the decent
>thing; either identify yourself or justify your continued anonymity.
>
>
>-- Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
>Email: ayes...@emmyousee.deeeee; to decode, replace "aye" by 'a', "see"
>by 'c' etc.
>
intended) news,
then it took a great turn into a trial for Neil Stammer first by Anonomous
who was
showing a bias towards Neil, then Cybereye7 replied with a bias the other
way... and
it burnt burnt burnt... the burning flame of fire..
K Chu
>cybe...@aol.com (Cybereye7) typed the stuff preceded by a ">" in
>article <19990525022749...@ng154.aol.com> dated 25 May
>1999 06:27:49 GMT
>>
>>
>>If I were the accused I would take responsibility for my actions. I would
take my one shot at
>>dignity and come clean with the community that I have enjoyed. I would
apologize to them and
>>to the "anonymous" person(s) to whom I have caused so much pain and
suffering. I would seek
>>professional help and rebuild my life.
>
>I think you missed the point. What he meant was, what if you were
>accused of such a crime, but _innocent_???
>
it would be at least equally as bad if you were actually a victim of such a
crime, but accused of
lying... we don't know much about what exactly happened so it's probably
best to give it a rest methinks.
Rob Stone
snip
>... we don't know much about what exactly happened so it's probably
>best to give it a rest methinks.
>
which is why you'be posted 5 artciles on this subject in a row !
hmmmmmm
Rob
compulsory juggling bit: we have the first pre-reg in for
BJC 2K, only another 499 to make us happy.
-- Rob.
....................................................................
Rob Stone, Dept Psychology, University of York, York, YO10 5DD
www.bjc2k.york.ac.uk 13th British Juggling Convention 13 April 2000
....................................................................
David Moss
juggles then he is part of what i see as a great group of people, and i
would doubt any charges on him for that. But that is not quite court
material.
My point it, no matter how much speculation we all do, it will change
nothing for Mr. Stammer who is probably in his own personal hell right
now, or for the kid who has allegedly been abused or whatever.
Let the officials decide, as we are merely gossiping bystanders.
and none of us actually know what has happened.
Mr. Stammer could have simply pick up a dropped juggling ball out of the
kid's lap. (Did any of you watch the Simpson's espide when Homer picked
up a gummy bear that got stuck to a young lady's bottom)
Or, on the other hand, Mr. Stammer may actually be a psychopathetic
murdering assult guy.
knowing how often i drop, and the proven fact that a lot of juggling
props bounce, i am currently more inclined to believe the first of my two
imaginary scenarios.
JAG
a ">" in article <37498352...@Snortelnetworks.com> dated Mon, 24
May 1999 09:50:27 -0700
>Anonymous wrote:
>
>> >Albuquerque - The owner of a Nob Hill magic and juggling shop was arrested
>> >Friday
>>
>> this was a week ago friday...
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> sorry for posting this anonymously, neil has had death threats from the
>> local crazies, and i don't wanna give 'em another target...
>
>Now _THIS_ is intriguing! "Death threats from the local crazies"? What are
>these locals particularly crazy about, and how might this obsession possibly
>intersect negatively with a local jugging/juggling equip dealer?
Ok, Ron,
I read your post again, as requested. In answer to your
question, I would say that making death threats qualifies as deserving
the title "crazy". As to why one or more locals might make such
threats, it probably has _something_ to do with this business of being
accused and arrested for child molestation. I don't think it is
conspiratorial or sensationalist to believe that publicly defending
someone so accused and threatened might draw unwanted attention to
oneself.
As I think has been demonstrated by some of the posts in this
thread, people tend to have strong emotions about crimes of this
nature. Unfortunately, this can lead normally upright and decent
citizens into a lynch-mob mentality with little concern for the legal
process.
...JAG
OBJuggle: Recently hit a new personal best with 5 clubs! 101 catches.
:)
Ron A. Zajac
JAG wrote:
> "Ron A. Zajac" <za...@Snortelnetworks.com> typed the stuff preceded by
> a ">" in article <37498352...@Snortelnetworks.com> dated Mon, 24
> May 1999 09:50:27 -0700
>
> [snip]
>
> >Perhaps it wasn't obvious, but read my post again: I was attempting to draw
> >attention to the conspiratorial, sensationalist and subsequently unbelievable
> >and irrelevant tenor of the post I was responding to. Perhaps I should have
> >been more direct.
>
> Ok, Ron,
> I read your post again, as requested. In answer to your
> question, I would say that making death threats qualifies as deserving
> the title "crazy". As to why one or more locals might make such
> threats, it probably has _something_ to do with this business of being
> accused and arrested for child molestation. I don't think it is
> conspiratorial or sensationalist to believe that publicly defending
> someone so accused and threatened might draw unwanted attention to
> oneself.[snip]
> ...JAG
Point well made. But it's natural for a person to see the drawing of undue
attention to the villagers with their pitchforks and torches as sensationalistic.
If "Anonymous" had just posted a terse description of the charges and present
disposition of Mr. Stammer--free from any hint of impending martyrdom--it would
have been more politic, more respectful of due process, and precluding any chance
of the villagers taking "Anonymous" for a collaborator, moral or material. The
post (esp. with the bullshit anonymity) made "Anonymous" look like he thought of
himself as a kind of petit trench warrior. Pretty laughable and, unfortunately,
somewhat casting doubt upon the veracity of the factual part. And that was the
aspect that particularly bothered me since, if it's true, it is certainly news of
interest to many jugglers.
There.
george
neil's bond was reduced to 100,000 dollars and he was released on bond last week.
that's the last i've heard.
Aradia
: Let's look at it this way...if you're a 12 year old boy, would you go around
: telling your friends that you've been sexually assaulted? Probably not, you
: get teased by all the kids for a start! (It's not the type of things I
: fantasised about anyway when I was younger)
: I can't really see many incentives for him to lie, unless some rival of Neil
: Stammer
: paid the kid £5,000 or something?
: You seem certain that the child was lying, but maybe he wasn't? maybe he
: was? It's not for us to judge and to dismiss it by "face it, teenagers lead
: a very
: rich fantasy life" is unfair because children do get abused in this world,
: and to think otherwise
: is pure fantasy.
Personally, I try to stay away from anything remotely reeking of the
judicial system. You may be a decent juggler, but I'd suggest working on
your knowledge of psychology.
First, a person (not just children...) can "lie" without actually
realising they're lying. This can be due to a number of reasons. If a
person *does* make an effort to lie, it probably has some ulterior motive
in which they'll gain something. A sense of importance, perhaps? Some
attention? Money? Who knows?
However, people can easily be "convinced" of things that are not true.
Children are especially easy (actually, children are ridiculously easy to
convince of things that aren't true -- study child psychology for a
while). Subtle suggestions by people, worded in certain ways, can convince
a person (NOT just a child...) that something has happened, when in
reality it hasn't. Also, a person can be downright badgered (ie, by the
police, attorneys, etc) into believing something happened. Yes, this
*does* happen. Yes, this *has* happened.
It may not seem like any of this is terribly believable. I mean, c'mon,
children are innocent, honest people, right? They can't tell lies!
*coughbullshitcough*
My credentials? I witnessed all of these things, and more, in my college
psych class. Not only experiments with children and adults, in which they
*were* successfully convinced of things that weren't really true, but also
research of cases, particularly child molestation cases, where this
happened.
OTOH, the kid might've been molested. *shrug* None of us will never know.
And that's why I generally don't bother discussing these sorts of things.
But, here's more info for you guys. Time to get back to juggling. Keep in
mind the words of the great Benjamin Franklin (I think it was
Benny...might be another important historical dude =) --
"So long as there is a justice system, there shall be no justice."
Oh, just a pet peeve, "pedophile" is not equal to "child molestor". Look
up the etymology and the root words, please. A "francophile" is not a
"french molestor". A "technophile" is not a technology molestor. Please
don't misuse the english language. It just shows how ignorant you are.
-- Sean, off to juggle the new dube bags he got...
--
--------------------------- ara...@teleport.com ---------------------------
"You call this religion? You shoot each other in the head...
Is it worth your holy mission, when you're counting all your dead?"
-- GrimSkunk
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Morgan
Aradia <ara...@user1.teleport.com> wrote:
>Oh, just a pet peeve, "pedophile" is not equal to "child molestor". Look
>up the etymology and the root words, please.
I did. From Mirriam-Webster:
pe-do-phile: one affected with pedophilia
pe-do-phil-ia: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object
Admittedly, "phile" typically means "one who likes" or some such, but English
is a pretty flexible language and words frequently acquire shades of meaning
not directly linked to their etymology.
This seems pretty close to "child molestor" to me. Of course, I suppose you
could be a pedophile and not act upon your pedophilia (just because you are
sexually attracted to someone/thing doesn't actually mean you have sex with
them/it. Take, for example, myself and Thandie Newton. Actually, maybe you
shouldn't).
>A "francophile" is not a
>"french molestor". A "technophile" is not a technology molestor
I wouldn't be too sure about that last one.... I'm pretty attached to
my computer. I've kept it under control so far but....
Alan
Geoff Thorpe
> Albuquerque - The owner of a Nob Hill magic and juggling shop was arrested
> Friday on charges he sexually molested a 12-year old boy. Stammer, 32, owner
> of Rob's Magic and Juggling shop at 3023 Central SE, appeared before state
[snip]
May I just post a quick message to those involved in this thread - it is
a great shame to resume computing after a few days away and to (a)
receive news that a prominant juggler has been arrested on such charges,
(I assume on trust that at least an element of the original story is
true unless somebody really has just crawled out of the primordial
gene-soup) and (b) see a portion of the juggling community devolving
into sickening gossip and small-minded babble on such a awful matter.
I don't know Neil Stammer nor do I know much about him except he's
apparently a crazy-good juggler. As facts come to light it will be
tragic (as it always is in such cases) if the (alleged - anybody got a
reference?) accusation is proven true - tragic for those who admire
Neil, and tragic for the unfortunate victim. If the facts pan-out to
show that Neil stands falsely accused - it will be equally tragic that
somebody has sunk so low as to propogate such a hideous accusation, and
tragic that somebody has had to suffer a false accusation of an act so
base.
Either way, people who see fit to rant because "it can't possibly be
true, shitty spotty little kids are fantisising or being spoon fed this
sort of stuff", or rant because "there's never smoke without fire, kids
have no incentive to lie and he's scum, etc" disappoint me a great deal.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd prefer to see more caution and
respect paid to all people (allegedly) involved with this sordid matter,
and to improve the fact-to-noise ratio in what is posted.
There have been numerous follow-ups in this thread, but few seem to
bring any further information to light and some, unfortunately, seem to
be implicitly initiating a trial-by-gossip-and-usenet.
If you have no tact, or are just conscious of your desire to post muck,
please take it to a newsgroup tailored to that. It has no place here.
Respectfully,
Geoff
Aradia
: In article <SrB33.6386$SN3.2...@news1.teleport.com>,
: Aradia <ara...@user1.teleport.com> wrote:
: >Oh, just a pet peeve, "pedophile" is not equal to "child molestor". Look
: >up the etymology and the root words, please.
: I did. From Mirriam-Webster:
: pe-do-phile: one affected with pedophilia
: pe-do-phil-ia: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred
: sexual object
Look up the definition of "molest", since you have your dictionary around.
If my preferred sexual objects are 32-year old women, does that make me a
molestor?
: Admittedly, "phile" typically means "one who likes" or some such, but English
: is a pretty flexible language and words frequently acquire shades of meaning
: not directly linked to their etymology.
True. English is anything but a technically accurate language.
: This seems pretty close to "child molestor" to me. Of course, I suppose you
: could be a pedophile and not act upon your pedophilia (just because you are
: sexually attracted to someone/thing doesn't actually mean you have sex with
: them/it. Take, for example, myself and Thandie Newton. Actually, maybe you
: shouldn't).
Argh! I'm almost -- ALMOST -- tempted to argue this. But I'm not going to,
because it really is a waste of my time. I've had the argument hundreds of
times before, it's old, and usually I would've had a more intellectual
discussion with a post-it note.
: >A "francophile" is not a
: >"french molestor". A "technophile" is not a technology molestor
: I wouldn't be too sure about that last one.... I'm pretty attached to
: my computer. I've kept it under control so far but....
Careful, there....might get a nasty shock... *grin*
-- Sean, who finds the phrase "sexual perversion" insulting...
Ben Elmore
george wrote in message <374DAC38...@rt66.com>...
> neil's bond was reduced to 100,000 dollars and he was released on
> bond last week. that's the last i've heard.
how come when i looked this story up on the web i couldnt find anything on
it. nothing in any news service, nothing in any newspaper located in new
mexico, etc.
if this did make the papers then please tell us which paper, which day and
what section/page. i live right near a college that has a large section of
newspapers and if they dont have it then id try and find it on the web
again.
but really, id love to figure out if this story is real or not.
James Jay
<ge...@raas.co.nz> wrote a very common-sense post that I wish everyone
would take to heart...
> I assume on trust that at least an element of the original story is
> true....
It has amazed me that although a "press clipping" was posted, I never
saw any kind of attribution and people were so quick to take it on
faith. Based on what I perceived as not-quite-professional writing
style, and how many anonymous users were posting, I thought the report
itself might be a hoax.
I searched the Internet, and found 4 references to Neil Stammer when
searching the Albequerque Journal
<http://www.abqjournal.com/archives/search_newslib.htm>. The articles
cost $1.95 each and are of course copyrighted, but the summaries that
appear on the search results are informative. For instance:
:: SHOP OWNER'S BOND REDUCED
:: Published on 05/20/99, Article 1 of 4 found.
:: Bruce Daniels Journal Staff Writer
::
:: Man Suspected In Molestation of Boy
:: The owner of a Nob Hill magic and juggling shop arrested
:: Friday on charges he sexually molested a 12-year-old boy had his bond
:: reduced Wednesday by the judge who signed his arrest warrant.
The other articles are "Juggler Changed Name in Past," "Man Accused of
Molesting Boy, 12" and "No Illusions: Magic shop appears to be
experiencing spellbinding success".
Incidently, gleaning from the summaries, the boy was 12 at the time of
the alleged abuse, and is now 13 (this in response to a previous post
complaining about the vagueness about his age).
> There have been numerous follow-ups in this thread, but few seem to
> bring any further information to light and some, unfortunately, seem
> to be implicitly initiating a trial-by-gossip-and-usenet.
I agree. Can we let this thread die now, until there are more facts to
report? Meanwhile, let's put all our preconceptions and speculations on
hold.
I apologize for extending the discussion, but I thought a pointer to
actual newspaper reporting on the situation was sorely needed.
--James Jay
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Alan Morgan
Aradia <ara...@user2.teleport.com> wrote:
>Alan Morgan <amo...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU> wrote:
>: In article <SrB33.6386$SN3.2...@news1.teleport.com>,
>: Aradia <ara...@user1.teleport.com> wrote:
>
>: >Oh, just a pet peeve, "pedophile" is not equal to "child molestor". Look
>: >up the etymology and the root words, please.
>
>: I did. From Mirriam-Webster:
>
>: pe-do-phile: one affected with pedophilia
>: pe-do-phil-ia: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred
>: sexual object
>
>Look up the definition of "molest", since you have your dictionary around.
Okay.
Molest - one who is most like a mole. See moler
Hmmm. That doesn't match my recollection.
>If my preferred sexual objects are 32-year old women, does that make me a
>molestor?
Since one definition of molest is "disturb" then I guess if you are annoying
said woman then you are molesting her. Once again, standard usage of English
implies something else.
>: This seems pretty close to "child molestor" to me. Of course, I suppose you
>: could be a pedophile and not act upon your pedophilia (just because you are
>: sexually attracted to someone/thing doesn't actually mean you have sex with
>: them/it. Take, for example, myself and Thandie Newton. Actually, maybe you
>: shouldn't).
>
>Argh! I'm almost -- ALMOST -- tempted to argue this.
Don't go dissing Ms. Newton.
>But I'm not going to,
>because it really is a waste of my time. I've had the argument hundreds of
>times before, it's old, and usually I would've had a more intellectual
>discussion with a post-it note.
Thanks. I'm flattered. You were the one starting a dictionary war. I
offered a definition of "pedophile" from a dictionary that pretty much
means "child molester" (Molester: Someone who molests children, touches
them in a sexual way).
>-- Sean, who finds the phrase "sexual perversion" insulting...
You misspelled "intriguing"
Alan
Aradia
: >: pe-do-phile: one affected with pedophilia
: >: pe-do-phil-ia: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred
: >: sexual object
: Molest - one who is most like a mole. See moler
: Hmmm. That doesn't match my recollection.
Hmmm. Mine neither. How about This, from Merriam-Webster:
1: to annoy, disturb, or persecute especially with hostile intent or
injurious effect.
2: to make annoying sexual advances to; especially: to force physical and
usually sexual contact on.
Can you agree with that definition?
: >If my preferred sexual objects are 32-year old women, does that make me a
: >molestor?
: Since one definition of molest is "disturb" then I guess if you are annoying
: said woman then you are molesting her. Once again, standard usage of English
: implies something else.
Exactly.
: >: This seems pretty close to "child molestor" to me. Of course, I suppose you
: >: could be a pedophile and not act upon your pedophilia (just because you are
: >: sexually attracted to someone/thing doesn't actually mean you have sex with
: >: them/it. Take, for example, myself and Thandie Newton. Actually, maybe you
: >: shouldn't).
: >
: >Argh! I'm almost -- ALMOST -- tempted to argue this.
: Don't go dissing Ms. Newton.
Actually, I was referring to the whole child molestation/pedophilia thing.
No offense to Ms Newton. I'm sure she's a great lady. =)
: >But I'm not going to,
: >because it really is a waste of my time. I've had the argument hundreds of
: >times before, it's old, and usually I would've had a more intellectual
: >discussion with a post-it note.
: Thanks. I'm flattered. You were the one starting a dictionary war. I
Actually, that was in regards to previous conversations with previous
people. Not to you. So you shouldn't take it as a personal insult...
: offered a definition of "pedophile" from a dictionary that pretty much
: means "child molester" (Molester: Someone who molests children, touches
: them in a sexual way).
Wow. We're just reading in tons of personal connotation, aren't we?
Pedophilia: One who is sexually attracted to (or has sex with) children.
Child Molestor: One who sexually molests (forces sex upon) children.
Sorry, they don't sound the same to me. Then we have to get into the
argument of what a "child" is. Exactly what age is a child?
If I have sex with a 17-year old girl in the state of Oregon (where I
currently am .. Age of Consent laws are state-specific), does that mean
I'm molesting her simply by virtue of the fact that she is underage in
this state?
Give me a break. End of discussion. Everyone go back to their white picket
fences.
: >-- Sean, who finds the phrase "sexual perversion" insulting...
: You misspelled "intriguing"
You're so funny. I'm going to take that as a compliment, because I'd hate
to have to suggest you go to the hardware store and buy a big ol' steel
brush to shove up the personal orifice of your choice...
-- Sean, waving the Leather Pride flag proudly...
SIXTRINGER
I have an ice cream headache.
Michael.
Ransom
>I have an ice cream headache.
>
>Michael.
Hey.
I found out that "ice cream headache" is the medical term for that sort of
headache. I always just used to call it brain freeze.
Hehe, cool.
--Chris.
AngeLui :o)
about a man wHo SURE ! don't want ppl talk 'bout him ...
why don't u stop this ?
why don't u respect Him ?
why don't u argue in private & leave rec.juggling to juggling matters ?
pLz do all us a favour !! plZ !!
hapPy JuGgLin' 4 u all
AeLui .. =0)