Bangkok is the penname of I know not who. For speculation on his true identity see: Who Is Bangkok? Is He Dennis Burke? Me, Chet Hardin, or Somebody Else?
In this post, Bangkok writes about Daniel Glavin and Jessica Stirton. They are a couple who seem to hope to achieve stardom with Laura Hoeppner. Hoeppner hopes to make a sizzle reel. She will try to use that to persuade someone to fund and broadcast what will likely be a truthy but not necessarily truthful documentary about J. Michael Shoemaker, AKA Swami Chetanananda. Presenting Dan and Jessica as victims is truthy as hell.
Bangkok is not shy about explaining why.
By Bangkok
Of all the people that are part of the story, Dan Glavin and Jessica Stirton are probably the least of ‘victims’ —– and I don’t see how they’ll gain much fame or sympathy trying to weave themselves into the ‘victimhood’ narrative.
Let’s examine their short story.
While reading Jessica Stirton’s first interview with Frank, I noticed that her only FACTUAL claim to victimhood is that she claims Shoemaker kissed her in public one time (while also admitting she never told him ‘no’ and never pulled away or told him afterwards that it was not okay to do that again).
Likewise, Dan Glavin never said or did anything —- after witnessing this alleged kiss.
Why did they both fail to do anything? Based on their own SELF-SERVING explanations, it was because they both would have been homeless if they had said anything.
What the fuck? I call bullshit.
They both claim they had nowhere else to go.
This was a COUPLE and BOTH OF THEM could have worked full-time, even while attending school, if necessary, to pay the rent for a cheap apartment — just like millions of other poor people do every day in America.
They were not ‘helpless’ —- like they claim.
They were LAZY and enjoyed living cheaply at the compound.
Anyway, that single ‘public kiss’ is the only FACTUAL claim Dan and Jessica have to victimhood here.
Daniel Glavin witnessed a kiss.
Let’s examine the rest of their story.The rest of their story involves Shoemaker offering to let Jessica go to gemology school —— which she and Dan automatically ‘assume’ or ‘interpret’ (with no direct proof) that he intended to sexually abuse her in the future (sexually assault her without consent).
While it’s true that Shoemaker is no saint, there’s just no ‘facts’ to prove that offering her the chance to go to ‘gemology school’ is an act of planned sexual abuse —- mostly because Shoemaker had other women at the compound (that he never sexually assaulted) whom he also helped financially.
The act of sending her to gemology school, for the sole purpose of getting laid one day, seems a bit too extravagant of a theory —– since there are tons of local escorts more attractive than Stirton who can be hired INSTANTLY, for peanuts, instead of having to shell out tens of thousands of dollars on gemology school & living expenses, and then waiting months or years to maybe get laid one day. LOL.
Dan Glavin and Jess Stirton lived with J. Micahel Shoemaker.
The claim (by Dan) that his wife is ‘extremely attractive’ (and therefore Shoemaker could not have had any other motives in helping her) is a little speculative —- mostly because I don’t find Jessica Stirton to be more than mildly attractive, at least by Southern California standards.
I’m just not buying that story. It’s clear that Shoemaker has some type of business involving gemology and was looking to recruit loyal followers to aid him in that business.
Stirton had just graduated with a bachelor’s degree and was asking him for future guidance with her career —- so I don’t see the issue with him guiding her towards gemology school to eventually work for him one day, to aid in his gemology dealings.
Is it possible he hoped that she’d consent to having sex with him one day, as a secondary reason?
Sure, anything’s possible. But I seriously doubt that he’d shell out that kinda money, and wait months or years, for the SOLE purpose of MAYBE getting laid by a mildly attractive woman (this isn’t Miss Universe we’re talking about).
If that’s their story of victimhood, I don’t see how that plays out for much sympathy.
What I do see is this… Dan is hiding much of his activity from us while trying to downplay his role at the ashram.
In my own opinion, I’d say that their combined story is lacking in ‘victimhood’ elements —– while containing many more elements of culpability. Especially in light of the fact that Dan admits to basically being the ashram’s in-house drug dealer for a while, among other things.
There were legit victims at the ashram who were taken advantage of for years —— but Dan Glavin and Jessica Stirton were not really victims IMO.
Have a good day.
