Thread by @redcoast

Liveblogging the Neil Gaiman accusation podcast thing.

These allegations broad to you by Instacart and Mint Mobile!

The first accuser worked as a nanny and was 22yo at the time. She accused him of nonconsensual acts during a consensual relationship, I guess.

The way they're setting this up seems very slanted already. The first accuser contacted a journalist with her accusations, but they found messages from her to Gaiman, even after their relationship was over, that explicitly said she consented.

The podcast host is talking about how most assaults happen in established relationships, which is true, but how many women send "I love you" texts to their rapists after the fact?

The podcaster is lecturing that being in a relationship doesn't mean someone automatically has consent for all sexual acts. That's not the issue here. The question is if the accuser is lying.

"Juries expect victims to scream, physically resist, make an immediate police report and avoid their attacker, but actually in most cases, there's no screaming." What's this based on?

Okay, I'm pausing the podcast 5 minutes in to write down what I think my biases and assumptions are going in to this, and let's see if they change. I think I default to the position of "innocent until proven guilty," no matter what the circumstances of the accusation.

This is the legal standard, but it's also my personal standard because it can be impossible to prove a negative - though sometimes it is possible you prove you didn't do something. I don't think relationship status changes that.

So if I am to believe accusations of sexual assault, I'm going to need to hear some kind of proof, and in the absence of proof I won't believe them. I also won't assume the accuser is lying unless I see proof of that.

This lady says "In most cases, there's no screaming or physical resistance. Police reports are delayed or never happen, and victims stay in touch with their assailant, and often continue to have sex with them." Okay, at some point you've got to take responsibility.

Also, of course police and prosecutors don't bring cases if there's no evidence and no chance of a conviction.

The first accuser, Scarlett, apparently did make a police report at some point.

The journalists spoke to a lot of Gaiman's female friends and/or girlfriends, and all of them were very positive about him, aside from Scarlett and the second accuser. Scarlett says that Gaiman groomed her and made her think their interactions were consensual ...

... but they actually weren't consensual. So far, I'm on the not-believing side pretty strongly.

The second accuser, who was a young fan when she met Gaiman, also sent him "loving" emails after the alleged assault. Guys, this sounds like bullshit. Now the podcasters are asking if consent is really consent if there's a "power imbalance" between the people.

The "power imbalance" in this case is being young (but adult and of age) and Neil Gaiman being a famous writer. That's not a power imbalance. A power imbalance is being someone's employee or a prisoner when they're a guard or a student to a teacher.

If Scarlett worked for Gaiman, that would be a good example of a power imbalance, but not a fan and an author. Anyway, it's kinky BDSM stuff apparently

The podcast says, "In the UK, sex that causes actual bodily harm, that is, minor injuries, pain or discomfort, is unlawful, even if consent is given." I'm pausing because I have a lot of questions about that, like ... if that's what the law actually says that's absurd

And that sounds about right for UK law, so I'd believe it. What I mean is, one time I had consensual sex with the man who is now my husband, and later I developed a UTI that was very painful. I was peeing blood, had to go to the ER.

Antibiotics cleared it up and my female friends advised me to just make sure to pee after sex, which has prevented any problems from ever recurring. So that's a minor injury resulting from sex. If this podcast is correct, my then boyfriend raped me according to UK law?!

Stuff like this happens literally all the time! And it's not from people doing anything wrong! Someone straining a muscle during consensual sex doesn't make it rape. My thought is that the podcasters don't understand was "bodily harm" is.

I understand that consent is usually not codified as a defense against charges like assault, battery or causing bodily harm, that's true in the U.S. as well, but one important factor is mens rea - criminal intent.

In my example, my husband lacked any mens rea, he had no intention of hurting me, and he also committed no criminal act. We just inadvertently moved some bacteria around where it shouldn't have been.

I'm not even talking about BDSM stuff yet, just how the podcast is representing the law. Honestly, this is more of a "common sense" thing than a letter-of-the-law thing. People generally aren't prosecuted for consensual sex acts unless it results in *serious* injury

or a prosecutor is being a real dick, but juries generally won't convict people for it. You can definitely make an argument (and I would agree) that consent only goes so far; see the infamous German cannibal case, where a man apparently consented to being eaten

I do think people who deliberately cause serious injury to sex partners should face legal consequences, even if their partners consented. I don't think that this extends to unintentional minor injuries or consensual, relatively safe BDSM acts.

Had a little chat with my husband during a break there. Anyway ... I'm 14:45 into the first episode.

"The idea, of course, isn't to police what people do in their bedrooms." That is *literally* what you are describing.

We get to actually hear the voice of Scarlett, the nanny. She says she knew Amanda Palmer "as a friend" and after babysitting for Palmer in Feb 2022, Palmer asked her to work for her full time to help with the kids/other household stuff.

Scarlett meets Neil Gaiman as she gets off the ferry terminal of the island where they live, then they later meet at his house. The kid was actually at a playdate so they were alone, which Scarlett says was "fucking awkward." Sounds like it would be.

Gaiman is working from home, on work calls, and Scarlett is getting paid to do nothing, which she says was a little awkward but cool. At like 9 they eat pizza together. Then he says "do you want to have a bath"

"He runs me a bath. I truly thought nothing of it. The bath was outside down at the bottom of the garden." Uh, that's a hot tub.

Okay, he fills up the "outside bath," gives her a towel and she gets in. I'm confused about whether she's naked or not. Then he gets naked and gets in the "outside bath" too? ... She literally says she was "shooketh."

So far, I have to say she doesn't sound upset at all. She says that Amanda Palmer was frequently naked around Scarlett because that's how she "lives her life." And that Gaiman was really casual about hopping in the hot tub naked. She says she didn't say anything to him.

Scarlett sends a text to a friend that says "I'm naked in the bath with Neil. I don't know how this happened. Don't reply. WTF."

The narrator says, "Remember, he's 61. She's his son's nanny. She says she's not sexually attracted to him." Scarlett laughs as she says that she wanted people to think she was a lesbian. (Which would explain why she was hanging around with naked Amanda Palmer.)

The music implies that this is supposed to be creepy. "They're sitting at the opposite ends of the bath facing each other." How big is this bath tub? How was it hooked up to hot water outside? This sounds very weird.

If a man offered me a bath in his "outside bathtub," I would assume he was making a sexual overture at me. And if I got into a hot tub naked, I wouldn't be surprised if the person I was with also got into the hot tub naked.

They're describing a claw-footed "roll-top old fashioned" bathtub, which I would not say is big enough for two adults. I don't know, maybe this is some common New Zealand thing I don't get, more likely a rich person thing. Filled with "a hose from the house." With cold water?

If it's outside and filled with hot water, it's a hot tub. If it's outside and filled with cold water, it's a very small pool. You wouldn't get naked in someone else's backyard with an expectation of privacy.

Anyway, Gaiman's account is that he asked her to take a bath "with him," then they consensually made out and cuddled.

Scarlet says she had her legs up to her chest and he asked her to put them down. She said no, I'm shy. He asked again and she put them down. He "caressed" her legs. He asked her to come over to his side of the bath to see the trees better.

A pretty classic come-on. The narrator says "Silent and scared, she says, she does this." So far she hasn't sounded upset, she's mostly sounded casual and she's been laughing a lot. Let's see this how this develops. She also says she put her phone down.

She stutters a little bit as she says this next bit: she says he put his fingers in her ass, then "made me give him a hand job." She says she said no at first because "I'm not interested in that anatomy," and he said "You don't know what you're missing out on."

He "kept pushing it" until she "was like fine." Then he "just jerked off over me." So wait ... did he jerk off or did he get a handjob? It wasn't to completion? The journalist asks if she jumped out of the bath. "Utterly in a state of complete bewilderment."

"I wasn't really sure what was happening, and um ... you know ... feeling really confused." About what? Why would she be confused?

Also, when she says his fingers were "in my ass," does she mean in her ass crack or penetrating her anus?

Let me tell you right now, if somebody sticks a finger in your ass unprepared, it will hurt. The anus is a very strong muscle that is closed by default. It either takes a while to work it open painlessly or a lot of force to push inside.

I speak from experience. I've had things up my ass! If she means penetration, then I'm surprised she hasn't narrated pain. It could be a result of the way the interview is edited, of course.

She says Gaiman started saying "filthy things" and told her to call him "master."

Narration says Gaiman accepts that "digital penetration" did take place, but "without specifying when or how." Or which hole? He says they didn't go beyond cuddling for this particular episode.

She says she and Gaiman went to pick up his kid "which was fucking awkward, because Neil and I both had wet hair. At 11 o'clock at night. You know, alarm bells."

Wouldn't it be fucking awkward because he had just sexually assaulted you?

The kid is at a house of a friend of Amanda Palmer's. Scarlett is Amanda's friend first. The friend is going to see both Scarlett and Neil with wet hair and draw the conclusion that they were showering/bathing together, which they were. This is what she's worried about.

"At 11:23 [p.m.], Scarlett makes a note on her phone. She records some of the things she's just described." I really need to know *exactly* what this note says. Most importantly, does it describe it as consensual or nonconsensual?

She says Neil said "I'm your master. Call me master and I'll come." That does sound like something he would say.

Scarlett asks Neil Gaiman to take her (with the child?) to Amanda Palmer's house because she feels "unsafe" at his. Where was the child supposed to sleep?

Scarlett texts her friend the next morning, says she's in a state of shock and hasn't slept. Her friends asks if she needs to talk. Scarlett "I'm pretty calm but confused tbh." "TBH it all sounds very dramatic and strange but I'm calm and everything is ok."

Not being able to see screenshots of the entire messages is killing me. I don't know what they're leaving out. She texts "I'm sorry for texting you, a cry for help maybe?" "I know it crossed the boundaries. Everything happened so quick."

Scarlett says she Googled "Neil Gaiman me too" and "Neil Gaiman sexual assault" that night. She used "private browsing" (incognito mode, I guess) so there's no record of the searches.

She texts the next morning, "Neil and I had sex in the bath last night," and then "But I know it crossed boundaries."

Of course it did. Neil is the husband of her self-described friend Amanda. She doesn't say it crossed *her* boundaries.

The narrators say that some of her stuff is "hard to read." It isn't. The narrator: "So Scarlett knows something's not right at this stage."

This doesn't make sense to me to say. Scarlett was there and conscious during anything. She's also an adult.

Again, why would she be confused? What was she confused about? She is not naive to the concept of sex.

"She also sends messages to Neil Gaiman that appear to contradict the feelings that she's disclosing to her friends." Okay, this is the really meaty stuff.

She sends Neil some what's-app messages about childcare and then adds, "Thank you for a lovely, lovely night. Wow. Kiss." Okay, she is lying.

(lol instant judgment)

"It was so confusing I feel like at the end of it he made me feel like it was consensual, but it wasn't consensual, and the anal was the basically the last thing on the fucking planet I think is like I want to do"

Narrator: "That same Saturday evening, after the child is put to bed, Neil Gaiman anally penetrates her, she says, without asking and without using a condom and she says he uses butter as a lubricant." Okay, I have questions.

This would be the day after the tub incident, I think? So ... I mean, what happened. That's my question. Where did it happen? Where did the butter come in? Seriously.

Are they having consensual vaginal sex and he suddenly whips out a stick of butter, lubes up his dick and anally penetrates her, and she, what, just lies there and doesn't say anything?

It's really hard for me to believe that Neil Gaiman doesn't have a bottle of KY Jelly.

Scarlett sends another text on Monday: "Hello darling. I've had a crazy weekend. To getting bitten by a spider, to ridiculously crazy and rough and kind of amazing sex."

So far, nothing offered in these contemporaneous accounts records these sexual encounters as being non-consensual at all.

Okay, so apparently both Scarlett and Neil Gaiman say that her only sexual encounters before this was a "negative" encounter with a man. Neil says he only penetrated her with his fingers because he didn't want to "take her virginity" basically.

Gaiman says that he found out "within two days" that she was interested in "mild BDSM" so they did some BDSM stuff during their 3-week affair. Scarlett says "A month basically of being choked and utterly humiliated." Okay.

Feb 19, they're in an Aukland hotel. Gaiman says she only went to his room to drop something off. Her account is different.

"Neil pulled my pants down and started, oh my god, it's so weird saying it so ... it never gets, it never gets organic saying this stuff *laughs* because it's so outlandish and um yeah so pulled my pants down and started penetrating me"

"And he put his hand around my mouth ... I was not given any consent or space for agency" This quote sounds like it was edited together from a longer conversation.

"It's worth pointing out that at this stage, Scarlett has nowhere else to go. She's estranged from her parents, she's no money apart from what Neil Gaiman gives her." Okay, more questions: wasn't she working for Amanda Palmer?

She has multiple friends in NZ that she's texting throughout this. Couldn't they help her? Wasn't she being paid? Why would she have no money? Did the journalists look at her bank account statements from the time?

Narration: "She's dependent on him for bed, board and income, and in return, he uses her as, in her words, his 'fuck pig' and makes her call him master."

I just don't think this is factual. She's an adult, not a child.

I mean she can literally just quit her job at any time and leave. Or she could call the police. Or tell Amanda Palmer. Domestic violence shelters exist as well. She knows this.

Scarlett has a selfie of herself with a bruise on her breast. "There were times were, particularly one time, it was so painful and so violent that I fainted, I passed out, lost consciousness, ringing in the ears, black vision, was -- the pain was like -- celestial" ???

"You know, which is a strange word to use, but I couldn't even describe it in a language. And when I regained consciousness and I was on the ground, I looked up and he was watching the rehearsals from Scotland of whatever they were filming, I don't fucking know"

Oh, there's real anger in her voice when she talks about the Scotland rehearsals. "And he didn't even notice that I was passed out, and you know, that there was blood. It was so, so, so traumatic, and I asked him to stop" [watching the rehearsals?]

"I said it was too much and he laughed at me, um, said I needed to be punished, you know, used his belt on me ..." This is all together in one quote.

I would describe her tone of voice, aside from the bit of anger when talking about him watching rehearsal videos and ignoring her, as bored and trailing off.

So far, the account of the first bath encounter was very detailed, a play-by-play of exactly what happened. Then we have very vague accounts of abuse and violence.

For example, in the quote above, her account of passing out is very detailed and true to life of what passing out is like. I can say that as someone who's passed out. But the supposed pain that makes her pass out is not described well.

She doesn't say what he was doing that caused her pain, if it lead to subsequent injury ... and in her account, she woke up on the floor and he was watching videos, and he hadn't noticed that she was passed out. It doesn't make sense.

I full-on think she's making this up. That's what I think right now.

The journalist asks why she stayed. Scarlett: "They made feel part of the family, and they made me feel really deeply connected to them."

Scarlett sends a What's App message three days after the bath tub incident to Amanda Palmer: "Love hanging out with you lot. My heart is so full, and it's nice to have friends again. Honestly. I can't even tell you."

"I cried on the ferry because I realized how lonely I've been for the last six months." Scarlett now: "He'd say things to me that made me feel reliant on him. He'd say I'm gonna help you and I'm gonna take you to London and if you ever need anything"

"All that stuff, and when you're a young person, you know, it's nice to hear that stuff, it's like Ah, cool! Like, if I go to London I'll have somewhere to stay! Like I was thinking quite practically. *laughs*"

The journalist asks if she found him attractive. "Oh, of course not, no! I never found anything erotic ever about it at all! About any of it!" Oof.

She says she "finds it abstractly funny, but it wasn't funny," as she laughs. She said it wasn't funny when he left, and it wasn't fucking funny when she was suicidal in the hospital three weeks later. She stops laughing then.

Let me get the exact quote: "It wasn't funny when he left, because he up'd and left, it wasn't fucking funny when three weeks later I ended up in hospital suicidal."

She sounds upset that he left her abruptly.

She says that the morning that Neil left, he told her that he wouldn't have laid a finger on her if he knew she was "that inexperienced." "He knew, he fucking knew, Rachel." She sounds genuinely angry about this, unlike her account of the supposed violence.

A break for ads! This is very awkward for this supposed serious journalism.

The day Neil leaves NZ, Scarlett catches COVID. Okay, according to Scarlett, when he leaves he says to her, "You'll be the death of me," maybe that's what he was talking about.

"With Neil Gaiman gone, Scarlett feels mentally and physically broken." You know, when I got away from my abusers, I felt a lot better, actually.

On March 7th, Scarlett tells Amanda. "I said Neil made a pass at me." Amanda: "I bet he did."

Scarlett says she told Amanda "everything" that night.

Scarlett: "This is what now upset me to my core" [not the sexual assaults?] "is like when I told her, you know, and she was so like almost should have known, she said I was the 14th fucking woman that had gone to her"

I'm not clear on if "14th woman" means the 14th woman that he's had sex with while they're married or women that he has supposedly assaulted.

After leaving NZ and after Amanda finds out about their affair, Neil texts Scarlett, "Amanda tells me you're having a rough time and you are really upset with me about what we did. I feel awful about this. Would you like to talk about it?"

"Scarlet goes that night to stay with her friend Mizma and her partner Chris." I thought that Scarlett had "nowhere to go" and was "dependent" on Neil for bed and board.

Mizma says that Scarlett told her about the bath and things that were "disturbing" at the time and she made it all a joke, but there's no more details than that. I need to know more details.

Like, did Scarlett tell Mizma and Chris at the time that Neil Gaiman anally raped her using butter as lubricant? Or that he made her pass out one time? Did she tell them it was nonconsensual? What does "disturbing" mean?

Chris is wrote his PhD on "coercion, consent and sexual assault" and is a professor at Aukland who lectures on this stuff. Hang on, I'm going to figure out who Chris is.

I found a guy but I'm not sure so I'm not going to post his name.

Apparently, Chris and Mizma referred Scarlett to Paulette Benton-Grieg, this person:

academics.aut.ac.nz/paulette.bento…

Neil Gaiman has apparently said that he thinks Chris, Mizma and Paulette Benton-Grieg tried to pressure Scarlett into seeing her relationship as abusive.

The narrator: "No one in this group told Scarlett what to think." The journalists have no way to know this. They don't have recordings of all their conversations or whatever.

Paulette: "I do remember very clearly forming the view that he had groomed her into sexual compliance."

But they didn't tell her what to think.

Neil Gaiman says "the idea that an individual can groom an adult immediately upon meeting them or over a three-week sexual relationship is far fetched." The narrator: "But law enforcement agencies do police grooming between adults." This is false.

Law enforcement investigate allegations of law-breaking. They would investigate allegations of rape or sexual assault. That's what they do.

"Experts have established that grooming can take place over a matter of weeks." Big ol' citation needed.

"The New Zealand Supreme Court has found grooming can happen after an initial serious sexual assault." Why is the NZ Supreme Court issuing opinions on grooming?

They say Scarlett hadn't been paid properly a month and half later. I don't know what "properly" means or if they verified that with bank account statements yet.

Amanda Palmer sends Mizma a message thanking her for helping look after Scarlett. I would assume this referred to her having COVID. Mizma is not happy with this and sends her an 800 word text.

Mizma's second-hand account (from what Scarlett apparently told her) is that the first time Neil and Scarlett had anal sex, she passed out. Which isn't what she said earlier.

Mizma writes that she thinks Scarlett is "one of the most vulnerable people I've ever met" and that "she would do anything in order to not be rejected"

The journalist gets Scarlet's complete What's App history of her messages with Neil Gaiman. She sends him an audio message that says "I miss you so much."

"Sending all my love." The journalist says that she has a lot of audio, video, text and messages that back up Neil Gaiman's account of what happened. That's the end of the episode. I hate these journalists. I hate them so much.

I feel like I got click-baited. Like, okay, the messages proved his side of the story, WHY IS THIS PODCAST A THING?! Because at this point that's just slander.

Okay, with episode 1 done, these are my impressions right now (and please keep in mind that this may change as I listen more): I believe these allegations are false. That's the first woman's allegations, the nanny. Haven't got to the second woman's allegations next.

The most important pieces of evidence I found are the accusers own words in her text messages, like this one that describes "amazing sex":

https://x.com/redcoast/status/1808558163240833521

The message she sends to Neil after their first sexual encounter in that outdoor bath tub:

https://x.com/redcoast/status/1808555743903145985

Her message to Amanda Palmer: "love hanging out with you lot"

https://x.com/redcoast/status/1808568590662074771

Her message to a friend says that the sex "crossed boundaries" - sex with your friend's husband would - also says "everything's okay"

https://x.com/redcoast/status/1808553062102921697

She gets excited talking about hypothetically staying in his house in London.

https://x.com/redcoast/status/1808569498733019299

She also just doesn't sound convincing. It's not just that she's laughing - I know people laugh at their trauma, I've seen it plenty of times - but the only times she had genuine emotion in her voice was when she talked about Neil ignoring her and him leaving New Zealand.

I wrote this quote out word-for-word, where she starts laughing, and to me it sounded like the laughter was a stalling technique. Like she was trying to think of what to say next.

https://x.com/redcoast/status/1808561050146500631

I've never been anally raped, but I have had consensual anal sex, and her account of it does not ring true to me. Not that she gave many details about it, although she did give a good description of what blacking out is like.

To be fair, she may have given more details that were not provided by the podcast. But those that are given are not believable. She says Neil uses butter as lube. So, does he just take a stick of butter into the bedroom? Gets it all over the sheets?

They only do it in the kitchen? Does he use an entire stick every time or does he put the butter back in the fridge when he's done? Does he separately label the anal butter or do they eat it?

She seems to be making accusations of multiple sessions of violent anal rape. Even careful, consensual, properly lubed up anal sex can result in things like tearing, bleeding after, some pain, discomfort when you poop, things like that.

I know people have different pain tolerances and stuff, but if you have extreme pain (to the point of passing out) and anal bleeding during sex, you probably have an anal fissure, at the very least. It's not fun.

Like I said, the way she talked about it was very vague in a way that didn't ring true to me, at least for the bits in the episode. That's my personal opinion on it.

Anyway, I'm going to have a quick snack and live-blog the second episode in a new thread. Please, if you have any questions, ask - this is a live blog so it may be unclear in places or I may have made an error.

Episode 2 liveblog!

https://x.com/redcoast/status/1808604076650660238