Kevin Clash | News

Elmo Puppeteer Kevin Clash Faces Third Underage Sex Allegation

Elmo puppeteer Kevin Clash, who resigned from Sesame Street before the Thanksgiving holiday after being hit with a second underage sex allegation, now faces a third, the NY Daily News reports:

2_clashThis time puppeteer Kevin Clash is facing a lawsuit accusing him of sexual activity with a 16-year-old in 2000. The accuser, now 29, will be filing a lawsuit in Manhattan Federal Court Tuesday, says the man's attorney Jeff Herman.

He said the lawsuit is being filed as a "John Doe" because the accuser does not want to use his name. Herman said his client started writing a book in 2009 describing his experience with Clash.

The lawyer said he will have pages from that book at a press conference Tuesday to announce the lawsuit. Herman said the accuser is from the South and was in high school when he came to New York 13 years ago for modeling work.

Clash's accuser says they met on a gay chat line.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. There's something called a statute of limitations. So this supposedly happened 13 years ago? Sorry, but you missed your window of opportunity.

    Posted by: Paul R | Nov 26, 2012 7:00:21 PM

  2. He should say.... "I picked them all up at a gay hustler bar in New York and they shouldn't have been there if they were so young. They had fake id's. I thought they were all 18 or 19. :)

    Posted by: Nathan Sanders | Nov 26, 2012 7:09:22 PM

  3. Not to say he's guilty, but this is a symptom of the obsession that most gay men have with youth and no surprise at all.

    Posted by: Dennis | Nov 26, 2012 7:15:41 PM

  4. @Dennis: Maybe some gay men I agree but certainly not "most."

    Posted by: J. Alan | Nov 26, 2012 7:20:15 PM

  5. Did somebody kick over a rock or is every aging hustler in New York tight for cash all of a sudden?

    Posted by: Hoss | Nov 26, 2012 7:25:17 PM

  6. I don't know about Paul R's comment on statutes of limitations. There may not be a relevant one. Especially as 16 is the age of consent in New York. Okay, he likes (or liked) them young, but seems to have kept his hands out of their pants until they were legal.

    Posted by: John D | Nov 26, 2012 7:38:36 PM

  7. This s turning into a sad, sad story. I would like to believe that someone with power to sway children and young adults would not also be a sexual predator. I am waiting for this to expand to PBS management knowing.

    Posted by: 99% | Nov 26, 2012 8:00:07 PM

  8. If he is guilty, I wish people would stop calling him "gay." If he's guilty, he's a pedophile.

    @PaulR: Do you think all those kids abused by priests shouldn't be able to bring charges because of your "statute of limitations?"

    Posted by: jj | Nov 26, 2012 8:21:37 PM

  9. @99%:
    He's already resigned from PBS. At this point it's only a question of whether he'll face charges. In New York, as in a number of east coast states, the age of consent is theoretically 16, but since 16 & 17 year-olds are still considered "minors" in these states, adults who actually have sex with them can still be slapped with certain charges, leaving people like him in legal limbo. Since he's facing a suit rather than criminal charges, he's not facing jail time... yet. The news article doesn't make clear the nature of the suit, so it may be something frivolous, but in any case the man has clearly shown poor judgement and has already lost his job over it.

    Posted by: Dan B | Nov 26, 2012 8:23:03 PM

  10. I'm saddened, of course, and can't understand why any adult gay male (or female for that matter) refuses to accept the fact that sex with 16-year olds is not acceptable. And the so-called justifiable excuses simply don't play well: "He wanted it... (therefore its the kid's fault)" "I THOUGHT he was 18 (but I never bothered to check)"

    OTOH, if 16 IS the legal age in NY and these trysts or affairs took place in NY then legally these guys, now some 10 years later, have no legal claim and the court should throw it out as frivolous. Clash would then have the right to return suit for malicious intent, perhaps defamation, loss of job (even if he did resign he most likely would have been dismissed just for the accusations), loss of income, harm to his reputation.

    What the hell was Clash thinking? This is a guy who panders and plays to children and could too easily be associated with the Gacy Clown mentality simply because he can't keep his hands off 16YOs. Duh...

    Posted by: OS2Guy | Nov 26, 2012 8:27:52 PM

  11. not to split hairs, but i think there's a wee bit of a difference between a priest molesting a child and...well... a 16 year old on a gay chat line.

    but then again i'm not a catholic. is being an altar boy comparable to joining up, willingly, to go onto a gay chat line?

    i take issues pertaining to the abuse and manipulation of minors very seriously. i also take false accusations very seriously.

    i can't wrap my head around a grown-adult wanting to engage in any form of relationship with a TEEN - age of consent "technicalities" and all. i'm 30. i wouldn't date a 20 year old, even though that's entirely legal! why? because i freakin' remember what it was like to be a 20 year old, and all the crazy youthful immature emotional baggage that comes with it.

    i've said it before but i'll say it again - there are some things that younger people should experience and figure out with other younger people.

    if Clash is indeed guilty of inappropriate conduct with any of these men then i hope a proper investigation gets to the bottom of it, and follows the law to the letter.

    but if nothing else it seems these gay chat lines need better age-verification processes. having never used a gay chat line (i suppose one of the benefits of being openly gay is that you tend to meet other comfortable and confident GAY ADULTS in a setting where adults congregate, eh?) i'm not sure what their process is.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Nov 26, 2012 8:30:31 PM

  12. "If he's guilty, he's a pedophile."

    If the kid was prepubescent at the time.

    "Pedophile" has a specific meaning and this case isn't it. Stop blurring the lines.

    Posted by: BobN | Nov 26, 2012 8:34:41 PM

  13. Oh, come on now. He met these boys on gay chat lines. Why were they there? Did he lie and say he was their age? Even if he did, they would have known right away that he wasn't, but still they went through with it. I think its so unfair to come back at him now - years later. Because they want money? That's taking free enterprise too far.
    I know its the gay American dream to come out through a glorious affair with a boy our own age, but in truth, how often does that happen?
    It did for me, but later there were men older than me who made me feel loved and special. Consider myself abused? I think not. I was lucky!

    Posted by: John Freeman | Nov 26, 2012 8:34:55 PM

  14. wow, maybe he should have asked for ID before having sexual relations with them... I mean, anyone can join a gay chat line and the guys could've lied about their ages. Seems they were willing to meet him. He didn't, as of yet, force them to have sex. Seeing those pictures of the other two, looks to me like a set up to get money... not to get over some traumatic event.

    Posted by: Seamus | Nov 26, 2012 8:36:48 PM

  15. Blame this on the Catholic sex abuse lawsuits. These people didn't come forward at the time because the culture of getting money from sex as teenagers wasn't as great in 2000. Now they all see dollar signs and are "broken."

    Posted by: Billy Crytical | Nov 26, 2012 8:37:30 PM

  16. "My" statute of limitations? You're giving me a lot of credit for writing the law. Try getting molested at 7, 14, and 16. There's also the issue that a lot of molestation involves strangers, which makes them difficult to sue. And male-on-male molestation is often dismissed.

    The penalties against priests have been almost entirely financial, not legal or judicial. The Vatican/church has paid the settlements. And no, I couldn't get settlements at this point. There's no pattern or record of abuse.

    Posted by: Paul R | Nov 26, 2012 8:43:38 PM

  17. Both the second and third accuser said they met on a gay chat line. Aren't those advertised as being for people 18 years old or older? And don't people use those chat lines to look for hookups? The stories sound fishy. It would be hard to believe that the only adult these two had sex with was Kevin Clash, so why aren't they suing a lot of people?

    If the chat line was set up for younger teens and and an adult joined in, that would be a different situation, of course, but a "gay chat line" sounds like an adult-only one.

    I've got to wonder how credible these accusers are, and there is not enough information yet to say.

    Finally, PBS seems to be overreacting. There's no evidence that Clash had any interest whatsoever of a sexual nature towards children in the age bracket that watches Sesame Street, and there's no indication that he spent any time supervising children or being alone with them. You've got to wonder if his accusers misrepresented their ages, if having sex at the age they claim is true.

    Posted by: Bill | Nov 26, 2012 8:50:36 PM

  18. I'm sorry, but this is yet another "victim" who is not seeking justice, but a paycheck. If he was so abused, why has he not gone to the police first? Why have none of these accusers gone to the police at all? Because none of them were abused and they know it. In my opinion, if Clash is guilty of one thing, it's being a Chickenhawk. Plenty of straight adult men date and sometime marry girls under the age of 18 (Doug Hutchison, anyone?), but when a gay man does it, he's always painted as a child molester. This as well as the previous accuser admitted meeting Clash on a gay chat line. Since most chat lines are for guys seeking guys for either dirty talk or sex, isn't it possible that these teens were looking for the same? Teens are tried as adults in courts all the time. If they can be tried as adults in cases of assault and murder, why is it not possible that a sixteen-year-old could be actively seeking for sex with an older man?

    Posted by: Keith | Nov 26, 2012 8:51:46 PM

  19. @LittleKiwi, re: "not to split hairs, but i think there's a wee bit of a difference between a priest molesting a child and...well... a 16 year old on a gay chat line...."

    True enough, but then where do we draw the line? An adult having sexual with a 16 year old, as the accuser appears to allege, is still wrong in my book. And, yes, yes, I realize that the 16 year old may have wanted to have sex with Clash....BUT HE'S STILL 16 YEARS OLD. His brain is still forming, for Christ's sakes, he's barely got a handle on his hormones.

    In a better world, he would have met a 17 year old to go off and play with on the chat line. He didn't. He met a pedophile.

    Posted by: jj | Nov 26, 2012 8:58:20 PM

  20. my point, JJ, is that if you want to compare a priest molesting a child in a church it's a wee bit different from a teen logging onto a gay chat line.

    last i checked, you dont' go into a catholic church expecting to get some sexing on.
    unless you're a priest, of course. but i'm talking about the victims here.

    if what happened is true, then YES, i'm on your side. it's like i said before, my 30 year old @ss wouldn't EVER date or hookup with even someone as young as TWENTY, even though that's perfectly legal.

    why? because it's about so much more than mere technical legalities - i believe in being a good gay. and a good gay pats that randy young'un on the head, gives him condoms, and tells him to go romp with boys his own age.

    my point was simply that it's not an apt comparison, boys in a church and boys logging onto a gay chat line.

    Clash was closeted 13 years ago, right? i know that closeted adults can often prey on younger people because they're easier to control, and attempts to Control define a closeted person's existence - just check out the nutbag trolls on this site, for example: adamant about protecting the elaborate personae of their internet handles.

    but that's what you get from people who prey on the young - someone who wants to take advantage of the immaturity and emotional dependence of youth.

    i can't understand a rational sane adult engaging in any form of relationship with anyone whose age ends in the suffix TEEN.

    heck, ever brought some cute and LEGAL twink home? eek. the worst part is when you wake up the next day and discover that not only have they already added you on facebook, they've proceeded to "like" everything you've said or posted for the last 5 months. and will continue to do so.

    leave. the. young. folks. to. each. other.

    Posted by: LittleKiwi | Nov 26, 2012 9:08:11 PM

  21. @JJ: the kids are old enough to make the proper descriptive term "pederast", not pedophile.

    Consensual sex with 15-16 year olds is illegal, morally questionable, but not something of the same magnitude as sex with someone too young to decide if he wants to do it. Clash is not in the same relative power relationship as a priest, teacher, scout master or other Authority figure would be.

    I think that somebody who is now an adult making these accusations and allegations ought to reveal his name. If he is prepared to risk ruining somebody's life--somebody who may or may not be guilty, may or not be culpable, may or may not be responsible for emotional or physical damage--he should take responsibility for that "may or may not be" element.

    Posted by: gregory brown | Nov 26, 2012 9:45:19 PM

  22. Sexual attraction to underage post-pubescent teenagers is not pedophilia, it's pederasty. In fact, many adult men and women who're are called pedos or pedophiles in the media [I'M NOT EXCUSING THEIR BEHAVIOR BY SAYING THIS] are really strictly speaking not pedophiles since their victims were post-pubescent, although still underage.

    This Clash character if what's said is engaged in pederasty, not pedophilia, but of course they were underage and it's still very much illegal and IMHO wrong in many ways.

    As for his latest alleged victim, he moved to NYC as a young teen to become a model? Seriously, this is becoming really cheesy.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Nov 26, 2012 10:03:54 PM

  23. @Gregory Brown;

    Agreed. If the accusers are now adults, they should have to reveal themselves. These are serious charges that can totally ruin a person's life, even lead to suicide.

    Posted by: ratbastard | Nov 26, 2012 10:05:11 PM

  24. Beware of gay roaches.

    Posted by: M. Scott Hernandez | Nov 26, 2012 10:08:57 PM

  25. I also moved to NYC to be a model but I'm ugly and the only people who molested me were poor. So it didn't work out.

    I blame Lady Gaga and Madonna.

    Posted by: Rick | Nov 26, 2012 10:10:29 PM

Post a comment


« «Former Florida GOP Chair Admits Party Aimed to Suppress Voters« «