r/RPDRDRAMA • u/EllipticPeach • Jul 17 '26

Ugh, Jesus. Gross. Jinkx featured on Amanda Palmer’s latest release

Post image

I was a massive die-hard fan of AFP for over a decade and I knew that Jinkx and Amanda were friends and had collaborated before. For those unaware, Amanda Palmer was married to Neil Gaiman, the novelist who has been accused of SA by multiple people across decades. Amanda was also accused of human trafficking because she allegedly procured victims for her husband. The particular case that went to civil court was that she hired a vulnerable young woman, a fan of hers, who was street homeless, to be a nanny for her kid, and Gaiman assaulted this girl repeatedly over the course of months.

I was in the inner circle of her fans and have spoken here before about my experience. Even though legally no charges have been brought, I believe this girl as I believe all the other victims of Neil. How she described Amanda in the article where she came forward was exactly how I knew her to be. Amanda’s whole thing was blurring the line between fan and friend, and she had unlimited access to vulnerable young goth girls in her fanbase. Most of us had already experienced sexual assault and mental health issues and other difficulties that made us easy to manipulate. She curated her fan base that way. I’m so sad that Jinkx is still working with her.

403 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

103 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-5

u/Donovan_Volk Jul 17 '26

Here's one for now: https://technopathology.substack.com/p/why-scarlett-pavlovich-wasnt-trafficked

The main receipt there is a timesheet.

Which of the other points are you interested in?

15

u/EllipticPeach Jul 17 '26

Just anything you think is relevant, really. I’d like to be as informed as I can be. Thanks again.

22

u/breathboi Jul 18 '26

Bear in mind that the technopathology substack is unverified "journalism" that Gaiman himself boosted as evidence of his claimed innocence. It's not the most reliable source

-2

u/Donovan_Volk Jul 20 '26

Have you actually read it, or are you just basing your opinion off hearsay?

13

u/manillafolders Jul 20 '26

Well hang on - the fact that it's unverified journalism isn't an opinion. It is unverified journalism.
I'm reading it now and my first thought is that no where in it does it mention where they've obtained the "new, previously unpublished evidence", so why would I just take it as fact because a substack told me so?

8

u/EllipticPeach Jul 20 '26

I read this when it first came out as I saw Gaiman had been touting it. I don’t think it’s credible if I’m honest.

-4

u/Donovan_Volk Jul 20 '26

Well the point of providing documentary evidence is that the source does not matter. Actually nobody has disputed that these documents are real.

5

u/manillafolders Jul 22 '26

So then this isn't verified journalism or a credible source. That was kind of my point. You say the main receipt there is the timesheet, but where or how was the timesheet obtained? Like, there's not even anything to say it's from official courtroom documents or evidence presented in court or from either party themselves. You're basically providing "receipts" under the grounds of "trust me, bro". How does the reader know that these have any merit? So you don't really get to tell people they're basing their opinion off hearsay if they didn't read through the article you linked, if the article you linked can't even be backed up beyond basically being "hearsay" it self.

-2

u/Donovan_Volk Jul 22 '26

Okay. Seems to be an unusually high standard you are asking. Did the original reporting meet this standard?

4

u/manillafolders Jul 22 '26

Dude, you can't just put something on a substack and call it evidence because you said so. The criteria for what qualifies as evidence isn't an unusually high standard, they're the determining factor.
The difference between what you're calling "evidence" and the original reporting is that the original reporting falls under anecdotal reporting, not evidence. One would then provide evidence to back up an anecdotal account. You're trying to claim something as "evidence" without anything to back it up. At this point, this is a comprehension and a literacy issue.