Don’t Do This Ever: “Defending A Sex Offender” edition

CW: This installment of Don’t Do This Ever deals with child sexual abuse and victim blaming.

This week, popular romance author Karen Marie Moning announced on her Facebook page that fan favorite narrator Phil Gigante would return to record the audiobook for Feversong, an upcoming novel in her beloved Fever series. Certain issues prevented him from narrating the most recent book, Feverborn, disappointing fans. It’s a great thing he’s coming back and everyone is happy, right?

Except for the part where “Phil” is Phil Gigante, convicted sex offender and pedophile, and the “issues” that prevented him from narrating Feverborn were a prison sentence followed by house arrest.

Ceilidhann at Bibliodaze covered the full story in depth, so I suggest heading over there and getting “all the details,” to borrow a repugnant phrase from Moning herself, and view a screenshot example of the discourse that followed the announcement. Some readers were overjoyed at the promised return of their favorite narrators, but others raised concerns over Gigante’s continued involvement in the series.

Moning’s initial response, which you can see at Bibliodaze and Red Hot Books, was to defend Gigante. She claimed to have insider knowledge proving his innocence, but has yet to come forth with it. Readers are meant to take her at her word, and ignore the fact that Gigante pled guilty to accosting a minor for immoral purposes, as well as possession of child sexually abusive material, just two of the four felonies he was charged with in the incident. In a plea bargain, Gigante was sentenced to only four months in jail and three months on a tether.

Despite Moning’s assurances of Gigante’s innocence, some readers didn’t back down, resulting in the current state of the post on Moning’s Facebook page:

Moning's original Facebook post alluding to "issues" that prevented Gigante from recording the Feverborn audiobook, and congratulating Gigante for a recent award. Beneath, where the reader comments used to be, it now reads: "In the interest of protecting all parties involved in this case, we are deleting all comments on this post. My Facebook page is not the place to discuss this.

One party Moning doesn’t seem terribly interested in protecting are readers who have survived sexual abuse, either as children or adults. Whether her motivation is driven by loyalty to a friend or desire for the continuing success of her audio titles, Moning is alienating readers who have stayed faithful to her for novel after novel. For some of them, Moning’s books may have provided them an escape during difficult times. How can these readers be expected to continue to support Moning, now that they’ve seen her defend an admitted sexual predator?

It’s not just Moning who’s to blame for victimizing these readers. Many fans still stand on the side of Gigante. They jumped in to hypothesize what “really” happened, from suggesting that the girl came onto Gigante to sharing anecdotes about the ubiquitous “guy I know”, who pops up time and again in stories about predatory teen girls tricking grown men into committing sex crimes. Gigante is, after all, the voice of the romantic hero of their dreams; he’s simply too sexy and beloved to have done such a thing. Never mind the fact that, no matter how sexually forward a teen might be toward an adult, the adult has the responsibility to not engage them. Never mind the fact that Gigante pled guilty to these crimes. Their enjoyment of his narration precludes him from any possible misconduct.

We’ve talked many times on this blog about separating art from an artist and enjoying problematic content or content made by problematic creators. Ceilidhann brings up David Bowie as an example; while celebrated for the impact he had on GLBTQA+ people, he also had sex with minors, a fact that complicated our global mourning for many fans. The conclusion I arrived to with regards to Bowie was that I didn’t have to defend his actions to recognize the enormous influence he had on my life. I’m sure that, for some readers, Moning’s series has had a profound effect on their personal lives, and therefore they’ll continue to read and enjoy the audiobooks. But they can do that without insisting that Gigante didn’t commit a crime, or that his victim was lying. They can do it without arguing with readers who’ve decided to stop reading Moning’s books. They can do it without harming their fellow readers with their victim-blaming rhetoric.

Moning’s defense of Gigante extended much further than simply defending his innocence. She also suggests there might be some kind of conspiracy behind his conviction:

Facebook post: Melanie Simmons: How can you stand by Phil Gigante when he preyed on children? --Phil Gigante pleads guilty to accosting a child for immoral purposes, possession of child sexually abusive material [link] Karen Marie Moning's reply: There is more to the story than is public knowledge. I will not make a statement about this other than to say this: This is not my battle to fight but I will be having him narrate my future books. What is being reported is not what happened and many people know that. I would not stand behind a sexual predator of any kind. He's not.

screencap courtesy of Melanie Simmons

I’m not privy to all the details of Moning’s business arrangements, but she seems to be saying here that she has some power over who is cast for her audiobooks. If she didn’t want the issue discussed on her Facebook page, it would have been so much simpler to just say that she couldn’t comment on Gigante’s legal issues, and that the producer made the casting choice they believed readers wanted. There was no need to argue his innocence or suggest there was any further information she could provide that would make Gigante’s actions acceptable. She did, and in doing so she gave some of her devoted readers license to speculate as to the sexual predations of a fourteen-year-old girl against a grown man. Her actions give her readers who are survivors of assault and abuse the proverbial finger.

In another comment defending Gigante, Moning lies about the crime he was charged with, and specifically states that links proving otherwise will be removed:

Facebook post: Karen Marie Moning: Read the comments in this thread. We will hide the reposting of the news article. What he was charged with was not accosting a minor. He was charged with 'improper Facebook message to a minor'. I know the facts. I continue to support his narration.

screencap courtesy of Melanie Simmons

Moning claims to want to protect all the parties involved, but she never addressed the rampant speculation and victim blaming that took place on her post, right alongside her own defense of Gigante. Is the fourteen year old girl he sent nude photos to not an involved party? Are the readers who feel tricked or cheated for having purchased books narrated by Gigante not involved? What about fans who would prefer not to support an author who lies to her readers in order to defend a child molester? To the casual observer it seems the only people Moning is interested in protecting are herself, the fans who agree with her and will continue to hand over their money and praise, and Phil Gigante, sex offender.

Authors, if you find yourself in a similar position, you have three choices. You can fight to disassociate your work from the bad actions of the person involved, while sharing disappointment in that person with the fans who are also being let down. Alternately, you can remain neutral, stating that such decisions are out of your control; whether your readers believe this is true is out of your hands. Or, you can defend a man who sent nude photographs to a fourteen year old girl, claim you have some secret knowledge that would excuse what he did, and lie to your readers about the crimes he was charged with. I would hope it goes without saying that the third option is what you should not do, ever.

UPDATE: Moning has released this statement on Facebook:

Karen Marie Moning's Facebook page: Two days ago, a post went up regarding the former narrator of my audio books. I did not have all of my facts straight and I apologize profusely for my post. I will not be working with him in the future.

Screencap courtesy of Yajairia Diaz

99 thoughts on “Don’t Do This Ever: “Defending A Sex Offender” edition

  1. Great post Jen. There is so much wrong with this situation it’s hard to know where to begin talking about it in a meaningful way without simply rehashing the awful facts. One of the aspects of this case that occurred to me as I shuddered in horror watching it play out, was that once again we’re seeing an author fail to understand or take responsibility for, the platform they have and the enormous privilege that goes with it. There seemed to me to be a clear “you lead, we’ll follow” to the nature of the original discussion; with Moning leading the charge to defend this man, deleting any post that offered an alternate view or, crucially, contained links to the facts of the case, and her readers coming along behind in their victim blaming etc. Moning herself stokes these fires, with her talk of conspiracies, shady reporting that doesn’t reflect the “truth” of the case, information that she herself is privy to but shhhh, it’s all very cloak and dagger so she can’t comment on it, and volubly saying she will continue to support this guy in his work on her series. As we’ve seen time and again with Anne Rice, EL James, Joanne Harris etc. there are many readers out there for whom their favourite author is someone they trust without reservation, someone they are willing to go to bat for (how often have we seen people who disagree with them harassed across social media by their fans?) and believe in. Social media gives these readers ‘direct access’ to the their author idols, make them feel engaged and in a relationship with them; a relationship they are willing to defend to the hilt, often regardless of the realities of a situation. So for the author this platform brings with it a huge amount of privilege no influence. What Moning is clearly doing is misusing that to the nth degree. It’s a pity she didn’t decide on the inappropriateness of Facebook as a venue for this discussion BEFORE posting the victim blaming rubbish she threw out earlier in the day. No matter what Moning’s personal feeling about the case or the man involved, had she had the smallest amount of awareness of her privilege, of the damage she has done and could do in the minds of her fans, not only in the way they viewed this victim, but to any future girls who find the courage to report, the least she could have done was shut her mouth.
    Finally I would just add as a survivor of childhood abuse (physical not sexual) who tried to ‘tell’ an adult and was ignored, the damage done ,when you finally get up the courage to speak, and are rejected, ignored or blamed for the abuse, is incalculable. I truly hope the girl involved in this case has no idea what’s been said about her by this author and fans and let’s hope she doesn’t read Moning herself because that could be truly devastating.

  2. “She did, and in doing so she gave some of her devoted readers license to speculate as to the sexual predations of a fourteen-year-old girl against a grown man. Her actions give her readers who are survivors of assault and abuse the proverbial finger.”

    This is the part that was so so gross and disturbing to me. She implicitly gave license to the abhorrent and rampant victim blaming that followed by defending and lying about Gigante’s crimes and invalidating the concerns readers had about him. Thank you for this write up. Like you said, the decision to purchase or listen to content from Moning or Gigante in the future is up to each individual, but they can do that without defending or lying about Gigante’s sexual crimes or blaming the victim. That only supports rape culture, creates a wall of silence around predators and sex crimes, and makes it more difficult for victims to come forward, making it more likely for such crimes to occur and for perpetrators to get away with them. For my part, though I have bought and enjoyed books/audiobooks by Moning and Gigante, I will not be buying, reading, or listening from either of them in the future.

  3. Ugh. This situation is all kinds of gross. It reminds me of when John Grisham went on a rant about how prisons are “filled” with innocent men who “accidentally” clicked on a child porn link and got busted – apparently in reference to a friend of his who was sentenced to something like 20 years in prison for possession of child pornography.

    I totally understand the horror that would come with finding out that someone you knew, liked, trusted, is guilty of something like this, and the urge to minimize it because you don’t want to believe it’s true. But you should always resist the urge to make some kind of public defense statement when it could directly affect your livelihood. I can’t think of John Grisham without thinking about what he said, and now I will never see Karen Marie Moning’s name without thinking of this. :/

    1. To make matters worse, John Grisham lied about what his friend did. He said that he watched porn with 16-year-olds, possibly mistaking them for adults, when he was actually convicted for watching porn with 12-year-olds.

      1. Yikes. I didn’t know that part, but I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. “Minimize the offense” is like, sex offender apologists’ rule one.

  4. Something fishy…
    His web presence is NIL, I can’t find a Wiki, IMDB, Twitter not even the audio narrator has a live link to his Bio data… Why?

  5. The other thing that gets me about this is, where is the sympathy for the victim?? We have a major best-selling author publicly declare that Gigante did nothing wrong, that a guilty plea, court conviction, and sentence are all bogus because SHE knows better than the courts, the victim, and Gigante himself, and we should all just trust her. Sure the courts aren’t 100% infallible, but way more often than not, particularly in cases of rape and sexual violence, they err on the side of NOT convicting perpetrators rather than convicting innocent people. Telling us that we need to trust her vague hints that only she knows the true “facts” over the courts and victim is ludicrous especially in light of him pleading guilty. Throwing the victim under the bus is a mild term for it. And by extension throwing under the bus all the readers and survivors affected by abuse and sexual violence.

    1. I feel so bad for the girl who was hurt by Gigante, and now has to see an author and her fans defend him and paint HER as the bad guy.

      1. I really really hope she doesn’t get wind of this. Having to cope with what Gigante did is bad enough, but having seeing all these people including a high profile author and her fans deny his crimes (essentially saying she’s lying) and victim blame her is pouring salt on the wounds. This whole thing is just terrible. :(

  6. Thank you! I agree 100% and love that you took time to say it! I just can’t get with KMMs thinking or how she has handled any of it. The Bowie thing is a great example. He had an impact on me hugely in my teenage year(the 80s would have sucked without him) but I had no clue about his past till actually when he passed. It does change how I feel about him but not his impact. Same here, her books, his narration have impacted me but their actions change how I feel about them. It doesn’t lessen the past but impacts the future (aka I am not supporting either of them). I think some of the fans and maybe Moning herself feel that admitting the truth makes their enjoyment (past and present) dirty. That is unfortunate but even if that was the case (it is not) victim blaming, bashing is never the answer. Thanks again for addressing this from your platform where more people will hear it.

  7. Its not like there’s a dearth of good voice artists to do audiobooks.

    The amount of excusing the author gives this guy is gross. Its not like he robbed a bank, or stole candy.

    I suspect she may be thinking a: that the readers wanted the original voice, and b: he served his sentence so we’re all groovy.

    We are NOT all groovy.

    She’s free to back the dude, as her audience is also free to go “no thanks.”

    I’ll stick to the no thanks crew.

  8. Wow, I’d never heard of either of these people before reading this post, but you can be sure I’m going to avoid their work like the plague. How demented do you have to be to defend the scumbags who commit crimes like this? I only hope the victim got some kind of closure from his conviction and is able to ignore (ugh, this sounds wrong no matter what phrasing I use) the slander being thrown her way should she ever come across it.

  9. It was the victim blaming that made me think I’m not picking up any more KMM books.
    I read her Highlander series ages ago and I may reread the copies I have, but I won’t be trying the Fever books anytime soon.

  10. RE: David Bowie. I don’t know how to say this without sounding skeptical or defensive but can I get some clarification here? I’ve never heard anything about him having sex with minors until now.

    As said above, I’ve never heard of this author or the person she’s defending and hopefully I’ll never have to hear about them again. It’s one thing to say “I’m going to support this person” but its an entirely different and screwed up thing to say “I’m going to support this person and I demand that you unquestioningly do the same”. All aboard the nope train to Fuckthatville.

    1. Lori Mattix stated that Bowie had sex with her when she was a minor. There’s a lot to say about “It was the 70s” and “groupie culture” or whatever, but it was still a skeevy decision on his part, and one that has left fans feeling conflicted.

      Even though Lori seems to insist that it was her decision, it doesn’t make any of it ok, really.

    2. This is the account from the girl who I’ve seen mostly talked about in regards to Bowie’s sleeping with underage kids: . Not sure if it clears up anything, but it’s pretty clear that he did… though in this case, it does seem to have been mutually consensual (as far as being her choice to engage in things, I mean, not legally, since she couldn’t legally have consented to anything).

        1. It does seem to be a weird mix of the 70′s, drug culture, and groupie culture, rather than David Bowie specifically being any sort of sexual predator. It was not a good action or anything other than skeazy or sleazy, but some of it is being viewed through a lens of presentism. At the time, these girls were being told that engaging in sexual activities at any age was healthy and empowering. Alfred Kinsey and Sigmund Freud still both had enormous influence, and both of them believed children had highly developed sexual urges and that no harm came from “exploring” these urges, even with adults.

          We know better now. We know now that Kinsey wasn’t just an apologist for rape and pedophilia, but he was practically a cheerleader for both – considering them minor perversions at worst and far less disturbing than asexuality. But it was a really strange time when sex was being dragged into the foreground, the foremost sex researcher in the world was saying that rape didn’t really exist (Kinsey testified before the Supreme Court that women really enjoyed rape, and only claimed not to so that they wouldn’t get in trouble), and free love was espoused for any pubescent person.

          Though apparently as soon as Bowie sobered up a bit, he would fire any roadie who tried to bring an underage fan to his room. So he didn’t really have a pattern of sex abuse, unlike Cosby, Polanski, or Marion Zimmer Bradley. He participated in a culture that was wrong, but he seems to have realized it was wrong and tried to make up for it.

          1. Reading about Marion Zimmer Bradley and her husband made me think that liberal, university-educated people in the 1960s had some extremely fucked-up views about sexuality and children. It makes me glad that the era of free love is over.

      1. Even though Bowie (and most 70′s artists actually) slept with underage groupies, I find it difficult to condemn them for it. I know this is very strange as the mention of child abuse often makes my skin crawl. Somehow it’s always struck me as groupies being the ones going after the men, knowing full well what they wanted and often still wear it as a badge of honour.

        The movie Almost Famous depicts this well. Penny Lane in the movie is around 16 years old, and already been an active groupie for a long time. That’s how I see the groupie culture, and somehow, it doesn’t seem damaging. The men shouldn’t have done it, but I have a hard time seeing it as something terrible. If I heard about bands nowadays sleeping with willing 14 year olds, I would be a little shocked I think.

        1. Even if the underage “groupies went after the men,” it does not make it ok for the grown adult men to take up the offer of sex. No one was holding a gun to the men’s head. They could and should have said no (and probably called the parents). They have the responsibility to say no as the adults. Plus, as the famous rock star, they have the much greater power than the underage groupie.

          Maybe in this (Mattix/Bowie) case, she didn’t regret it, but in many other cases, women felt later on that they were taken advantage of and exploited as teens.

          You can feel how you like about Bowie, but please don’t blame the underage child victim.

  11. Disgusting, but not surprising given Moning writing a book featuring multiple scenes of grown men perving on a 14-year-old girl, and her rather vigorous defense of it upon fan backlask.

  12. Considering the number of people claiming conspiracy and defending Bill Cosby and the number of people defending Roman Polanski’s actions and demanding charges be dropped, none of this surprises me.

  13. She has YA books, doesn’t she?

    I’m… I’m not really sorry, actually. If you write YA, you have at least a partly-teen audience helping make you successful. You owe them more than exposing them to a sexual predator.

          1. No that book was advertised as an Adult novel it was not intended for YA. The Genres on amazon don’t list it as YA, the ones I saw on Goodreads don’t either. When I purchased it at B&N it was shelved in the Adult section so her publisher didn’t push it as YA. She blogged about this when it came out, and stated it was an adult novel. She wrote one book that featured her at this age the next book aged the character, as she stated would happen when it first came out. I don’t agree with the way she handled this and I think Phil is scum. But what your saying makes no sense. I hope that the PARENTS of said teens would make smart choices and pay attention to what their young teens are reading. It is there job to keep there children away from pedophiles and predators. Karen Marie Moning who’s work I like and read does not write books I would let my 13 yr old niece anywhere near. They are very sexually explicit, and in that case should not be put in the hands of impressionable teens.

          2. Really, Elizabeth? It makes no sense for me to say that authors shouldn’t expose teenagers to pedophiles?

            Tons of YA readers also read romance. Reading about sex should be a safe way to explore sexuality as a young teen, and most teens do in some way or another. I myself first heard of her books when I was in my teens, much like I first read Jenny’s books when I was a young teenager. Romantic Times even has a YA category. Do you not understand the term crossover appeal? It’s a term used for books that appeal to both a YA and adult audience.

          3. “I hope that the PARENTS of said teens would make smart choices and pay attention to what their young teens are reading. It is there job to keep there children away from pedophiles and predators. Karen Marie Moning who’s work I like and read does not write books I would let my 13 yr old niece anywhere near.”

            Do you have a deal for a sitcom? That might seriously be the funniest thing I have ever read in my life. And if you’re serious and you really believe any parent whose child isn’t locked in a basement with absolutely zero contact with the outside world has that much control over said child, it’s even funnier.

  14. See, I could maybe understand her stance if – say – she came out and only claimed that she didn’t want her audiobooks to be voiced by another person out of respect for those listeners who prefer this man’s work. For me Lord of the Rings just isn’t the same in audio format without Rob Inglis narrating the books and even now, a decade later, I still remember with perfect clarity the voice – if not the name – of the man who voiced the Harry Potter series my mother used to play for us in the car between trips to the barn.

    So this worry about switching voice actors is understandable in my mind. If I was a listener in this situation and graduated from one book to the next it would be EXTREMELY jarring to hear a new voice.

    With that said however, her defense of him as a person while throwing his victim under the bus just makes my skin crawl. I get loyalty to friends, I get wanting to keep the same reader for your book series, I get many other things that might have inspired her to say such disgusting things. What I don’t get is how anyone can victim blame and go to bed with a calm mind. Especially knowing the sheer vitriol many online fandoms can display when rallied forth. She could have been tactful about this, and instead she spat in the faces of any reader who might have been molested or assaulted.

  15. “She did, and in doing so she gave some of her devoted readers license to speculate as to the sexual predations of a fourteen-year-old girl against a grown man. Her actions give her readers who are survivors of assault and abuse the proverbial finger.”

    Honestly, it all horrifies me but this really cinches it for me. I have been watching this play out since Tuesday and I am still sitting here wondering how this is okay? How is her rep okay with this? Those of us who have returned the book for a refund, and tried to comment on her post but then were deleted – we have no outlet. We were censored. So. We will just not give her any more money in the future. I just wish that felt like enough. She has so many other people coming to her rescue to defend his “professional excellence”, I’m more cynical than ever over how people will put their own entertainment above the protection of children.

    Thanks so much for shining a light on this.

  16. Why couldn’t the response have been “Phil has plead guilty to illegal acts. He has worked with prosecutors and been sentenced. While he is serving his punishment, we will not be working with him. Once he has completed his sentence, we will decide whether to resume business dealings with him.”

    It’s objective, it’s short, and it’s simple. What’s wrong with that as a response?

  17. I’ve been a long, long time reader of KMM and not saying what she said was right or wrong. She made a mistake. She had a professional relationship with Phil for many years. Maybe her defense was a way to avoid what really happened. A way for her to buy time to process what really happened.

    You all crucified and author for defending a man she has known and worked with a very long time. Again, what he did was wrong and I’m not making excuses.

    Phil is the voice of so many of her characters. So many!!! KMM is a wonderful author who would in no way, shape or form support a pedophile or anyone who broke the law. She would not want to be associated personally or professionally with this type of person.

    So quick to judge how others would see her, how survivors would see her. How she gave the finger to survivors. You’re assuming that is how we (yes, I am a survivor! I was rapped at 16 buy someone I trusted) view her. That makes you no more guilty than she is.

    I enjoy her books and will continue to support KMM, she had nothing to do with what Phil did.

    1. I’ve, thankfully, never been a victim of sexual assault. But I cannot respect or defend or continue supporting any person who has perpetrated a sexual assault or anyone who stands by a person who has done so — especially when that person denies and defends the action.

      I can understand a family member continuing to love the perpetrator, but not defending and excusing the perpetrator. beyond that, nope. Not OK. Never OK. And my feelings have nothing to do with how other people might feel about it. Some crimes don’t deserve forgiveness.

    2. She absolutely did support and defend him, there are screencaps there to prove it.

      Feel free to continue to support her. But don’t think that your experience gives you license to silence other people who see something very disturbing in the victim blaming and denial that went on both from her and from her readers.

      Moning has come out and apologized. And yet her fans, like you, are continuing to make this a mess for her by insisting that what she did was okay.

  18. Re, my above post .
    Notice how the Facebook comments to her apology Are full of congratulations to the author for doing the right thing.
    There are very few comments expressing Sympathy for the victim, it’s almost like they want to pretend she doesn’t exist.

  19. (admit I haven’t read the comments yet) – Here’s where I have difficulty with criminals back at work – or *not* being allowed back to work….which is slightly off your topic of this author’s not recognizing the gravity of the crime… However, his returning to the job sort of does fit in….. In theory, they have paid their price, right? Served their time, and are now free (I won’t get into the details of this man’s punishment, but that its over now, and he is free to obtain employment). Do we forever make someone a pariah? Never give them a job? I will never apologize for a sex offender, and I speak in more general terms. Once a criminal has been released from their punishment, are they not free to get a job? Is there a reason this guy couldn’t go back to the job he had (there are no children right? A tax offender shouldn’t be back a job in finance, etc)…. Even if the crime is heinous in “our minds”, if they are no longer in prison, do they not deserve a job? Perhaps not the place for this discussion – its a bit esoteric, where your post is specific to this author vis-a-vis this guy’s crime…..

    1. I think you’re right that how we treat convicts who have been released is a broad topic that is better addressed outside a commenting forum; that said, I think it’s also true that things are much more complicated for people with large public presence/celebrity, especially if they try to resume their work like nothing ever happened.

      For example, I’m a Pittsburgh sports fan, and a lot of the city was FURIOUS that Michael Vick joined our team (I was also livid). There were those who thought people should get over it or even forgive give him, because he’d “paid his debt to society.”

      Do I think Vick should be condemned to remain forever unemployed and destitute? No. Do I think that he opens himself up for a backlash by taking any job in the public eye? Yep. Do I believe my team was wrong to hire him to represent them, and to an extent the city of Pittsburgh, and pay him a large salary while profiting off merchandise with his name on it? Absolutely.

      Actions have consequences, and right or wrong, a person with a public persona who commits a heinous crime and is then rehired without question gives the impression that they are above petty things like consequences.

      What should the consequences have been in this case, and who has the right to decide that? I don’t rightfully know. But trying to ignore those who objected to Gigante’s return because of the crime he committed and implying that the whole was made up was most definitely the wrong thing to do.

    2. In theory, they have paid their price, right? Served their time, and are now free (I won’t get into the details of this man’s punishment, but that its over now, and he is free to obtain employment).

      Ahh, but there’s the rub. He’s only served the incarceration part of his sentence thus far. He’s got three months of at-home monitoring, too.

      I’m also guessing he’s not permitted to have any computer presence at all, which will make getting/sending work via the net difficult.

      1. And it was only 4 months it should have been way more jail time. He got off very easy. The article I read said this “Gigante had been charged with accosting a minor for immoral purposes, a four-year felony; possession of child sexually abusive material, a four-year felony; and two counts of using computers to commit a crime, both 4- to 10-year felonies. The latter two counts would be dismissed, per the agreement.” So from that I take it to mean his Two counts of committing crimes using a computer are being dismissed, and he plead to the first two……. If so he will be able to use a computer and will be able to work. This is the only news article I could even find about it:

    3. I think he should have certain curtails on his career opportunities. Besides the obvious “no working with children”, he should not work with people who are vulnerable, such as people who are sick, or need counseling, for example. Ultimately, nobody “deserves” a job. You are given a job by the discretion of your employers. In this case, KMM is his boss , and she needs to protect her business. She would almost certainly receive a drop in audiobook sales, if not print and Kindle sales, too. Hence, why she dropped Phil from the project. People are fired for less every day. Ethically, you bring up a very interesting point, one that I have no real answer for. However, in this case, he needs to serve out his term (in house arrest) and then rejoin the workforce, with another employer.

  20. What I see is an author/aquaintence/employer defending the person “she” thought she knew, and now when given the full facts is no longer defending him. Before all you morally perfect people jump on your judge mental hate filled holier than thou band wagons perhaps you should take a look back at te numerous devoted parents, wives and children of serial criminals that have lived their lives with these criminals and vehemently defended their loved ones because they had no clue there were no signs or signals and until shown the facts they still refused to believe their loved ones, person they knew could have never been the type of person to commit the crimes they did. They were victims of these people living a duel life hiding their true selves and using these innocent people as their cover to be free to victimize others but yet you are labeling this author as a criminal along the lines as The man whom victimized her? She was used and led to believe thisan to be a honest man, she is just as much a victim in this entire scenario as the parents, wives, children and friends of the numerous other serial criminals that have preceded. And now she will continue to be victimized by nasty judgemental women who feel the right to be holier than and judge without all the facts.

    1. At what point did I say she was guilty of Gigante’s crimes, or called her a criminal? You can look all over that post, you’re not going to find it. And I’m dying to know what these nebulous “facts” are that you and Moning’s other defenders keep referencing. There are no “facts” that will reverse the irrefutable proof that Moning’s readers raised concerns and that she denied Gigante’s crimes and defended him.

      No one has called Moning a child molester, no one has accused her of committing his crimes, and if you would have bothered to finish the post you would have seen the bit at the bottom where Moning herself no longer supports Gigante. Now the only real damage being done is the damage that fawning sycophants like yourself are doing. Every time one of you runs out to shoot the messenger, it’s reflecting badly on Moning. She fucked up, she apologized, and now YOU are damaging her career by carrying on like a melodramatic twit with absolutely no reading comprehension.

      1. Why is someone a fawning sycophant for not agreeing with you?

        Here’s a fact: Phil Gigante testified to having had inappropriate facebook conversations. That is the only thing he as admitted to. Here’s my source:

        This also was posted on Bibliodaze in the comments:

        Jan 23, 2016 at 12:49 am
        I am a survivor of a predator and have very strong feelings about victim shaming. However, I have to say No where does Karen (or Phil for that matter) blame the victim she says there is more than what is out there. This is often the case. Many others have also spoken up for Phil calling out that he did not send in-decent pictures of himself to anyone.

        Unfortunately in this day and age pleading guilty is no longer a proof of guilt, 98% of cases are pushed and scared into by the lawyers and public defenders to take a plea bargain (I know this as my nephew was put in this situation, he’ll John Oliver did an entire episode on it) to prevent long trials, and to try to prevent possible damage a long trial brings. I believe that was the choice that Phil made and why Karen understands. The young lady involved even came forward and said Phil was not involved she sent the photos to the other gentleman who was using Phils computer. I am sure there are many that this won’t matter to but I just had to share my findings.

        None of know all of the facts but apparently people don’t know the facts to judge others. There is a lot of anger and ugliness on this thread and I’m shocked that it’s perpetrated by one author to another author. Did anyone here contact KMM and talk to her when all of this happened? I’ve always loved the sense of togetherness that was fostered by the romance community. While no one took romance authors and readers seriously, we did and had an us against the world attitude. To watch one author try and tear another one down, especially after that author has apologized is a mark on the whole community. KMM obviously never intended for all of this to happen (I’ve never seen her say anything negative about anyone). Nothing wrong with open communication and getting the facts out there but no need to attack anyone. There’s enough ugliness in the world.

        1. “He only…”. He only shared Facebook messages with a 14 year old girl. A 49 year old man only shared private messages with a girl 35 years younger than him. What does a 49 year old man have in common with a 14 year old girl not his daughter that he would have private Facebook messages? He only…. he only… he… only is a convicted sex offender on the sex offender registry for life.

          What does that tell you?

          I, for one, don’t understand why Karen posted about her support for this man the way she did in the first place. I do know she deleted comments on her original post from anyone who spoke out against this man, leaving the comments that blamed the victim, and some assuming because the victim was 14, she tricked this man because maybe he didn’t know she was underage.

          No author is trying to tear another author down. If anyone believes that, please point out who and where because I haven’t seen that.

        2. He had a great lawyer. This was his lawyer and the quote from the lawyer’s website, with a link.

          “Mr. Hackett enjoys defending clients in a variety of criminal cases, and he especially excels in Criminal Sexual Conduct cases. He finds the successful defense of his clients to be very rewarding and wants all of his clients to have to best defense available to them. Mr. Hackett understands how vulnerable you may feel when faced with criminal charges. He will fight to keep you out of jail and reduce your criminal charges.”

          Read more:

  21. So sorry for the young victim of Phil Gigante’s sickness , for she is who our hearts should go out to, but I also feel for Karen she spoke too soon protecting a friend, she apologized get over it people she is human and thus flawed and not perfect, no need to commit the crime of assassinating her character, I am sure she is very remorseful

    1. Sorry to take a thread off track a little, but I feel that when we use the word sickness, we are kind of Negating his own responsibility in the act.
      I’m not sure whether it is a sickness, or some genetic querk, but the fact is that this man consciously chose To involve this young lady And he should be held accountable for this.
      Sorry for the long rant.

      1. Well I’m also sickened because he should have gotten actual jail time by that I mean years. He could have been hit with 28 years in jail, but because he plead that down he only got 4 months in jail with 3 months house arrest (in home monitoring). Its sick that in this day and age someone who preys on children/teens in person or online and only gets that little bit of time as punishment. That is what is wrong he needed 5-10 to think about his crimes! Personally I think Jared Fogle got of lightley too!

  22. she apologized get over it people she is human and thus flawed and not perfect, no need to commit the crime of assassinating her character,

    I think you missed the fact that this post and the majority of the comments were posted before she apologised, yeah? Which she took her time to do, during which she actively silenced people who tried to point out that, hey, she was making a mistake and might want to look into the actual facts of the case more and not just what her friend told her. If anyone was assassinating her character, it was her and her own actions. So. Yeah.

  23. What she did was wrong, and she should not be excused for it at all. Apologizing for a convicted sex offender is wrong on so many levels.
    However, I also really really love her Fever series. It is one of my favorite book series, and especially after just finishing the latest one, I cannot stop reading them because of this. If this makes me a terrible human being, I’m sorry. I am appalled at what she said, and at the victim blaming that has gone on among many of her fans. I do not support that at all. However, as she herself is not a sex offender/child molester, and her apology seems as sincere as one can expect nowadays, I will continue to buy her books. Crucify me if you want, but I can’t help it. There are supposedly only two more books in this series, so if I feel more guilty I may bargain with myself to only finish this series and not start another.

    1. I think you should read them, if you want. She was very wrong to defend a convicted sex offender, but you don’t have to approve of everything she does to enjoy her work. If you’re uncomfortable paying for her books in light of this, you could always borrow them from a friend or the library.

    2. Honestly, I think we can all enjoy something created by a problematic creator, unless it crosses a personal line for us individually. As long as we’re not excusing or denying that problematic behavior or condemning the people who choose not to read those books, then I don’t see an issue.

  24. I’ve been a little suspect of Moning’s views on sexual relations since a friend recommended the Highlander series to me, and it was mostly “virgin woman, who has never been touched by a man, meets man who has slept with (in one of her books, literally) thousands of women, gets sexed up and lives with her one true love for ever and ever.”
    I guess this kind of confirms it, that her first response seems to have implied wrongdoing on the part of the minor, because women who have sex are naughty.*

    *I understand from the same friend that the Fevre series doesn’t share the whole “pure heroine” thing, but I haven’t got brave enough to try them…

    1. When KMM started writing romances all of the heroines were virginal in the genre. It’s only over the last 5 or 10 years that romances have pretty much become erotica. I remember how revolutionary it was to me when I started reading romances with non-virginal heroines.

      I loved the Fever series but if you want a traditional romance then it’s probably not for you but if you’re worried about the “pure heroine” issue, the heroines are amazing, and the men, thunk! Hot hot hot! Mac not being a virgin has never been a problem. I would say, try the first book for yourself and make up your own mind. There’s a reason she has such a rabid, passionate fan base. :)

      1. Yeah, her Highlander books were really good, despite the pure, virginal heroine thing. They were leagues above what was being written at the time, which was why they were such big hits.

      2. That’s good to know – I only read them last year on kindle and it can be hard to place a novel in (publication) time when you pick up that format. It was an omnibus edition, so there wasn’t even really cover art to give contextual clues.

        My friend has been absolutely adamant that I’d love the fever series, so I’ll see if I can get the books from the library and give it a go.

  25. This is going to be a long post so you might want to get a snack.

    Karen Marie Moning apologized and said she would not be working again with Phil Gigante in the future. That should be the end of it but no, the attack of a woman by other women continues. What more does the woman have to do before you are satisfied, don sack cloth and ashes to end the public flogging?

    Before anyone accuses me of being a Karen Marie Moning fan, I assure you I am not. However, due to all this character bashing I might make it a point to pick up one of her books. I came across this discussion due to a link on my newsfeed and it caught my eye because Mr. Gigante’s name was mentioned and several co-workers and I had recently been discussing this case and the poor legal representation that he had.

    As someone who works in the area where this case took place I am privy to certain details in regards to this particular case. I can honestly say Mr. Gigante is innocent of the charges. However, he is guilty of bad judgment. He should have reached out to the authorities when the adolescent in question contacted him. The young girl is a troubled and exploited child, as evidenced by the other person convicted, involving her as well, in addition to her past behaviors. This is not victim blaming, this is a known fact recorded in court records. She is a troubled adolescent in need of help and closer supervision. I sincerely hope she is getting what she needs. My heart aches at what will become of this young woman in the future. I see too many young adults in my office that have lived her life as children and teens.

    In the course of the long investigation, people were questioned and not one person ever came forward to accuse Mr. Gigante of improper behavior with children, adolescents or adults for that matter.

    The general public does not know the particulars in this case. As someone who works in the justice system, with sexual predators and their victims, I can tell you that many innocent people have been coerced into taking plea deals out of fear. Our job is to get that conviction. No matter what you may have heard, we do not assume you are innocent until otherwise proven. It is quite the opposite.

    Why would an innocent man plead guilty? Really? In this day and age with cases like The Making of a Murderer coming to light? Do research and you will find countless cases of innocent people doing time. Not everyone in our penal system is guilty of the crime they’re doing time for. Many take plea bargains simply because they simply have no more money to fight it. When a charge is brought against you, it can take tens of thousands of dollars for legal defense. Many people simply don’t have it. Additionally, it bears consideration that the conviction rate of a prosecutor or district attorney is calculated by the number of convictions divided by the number of criminal cases brought before the court. It is beneficial in terms of politics and career advancement for district attorneys, prosecutors and judges to have a higher conviction record than acquittals which is why plea bargain deals are offered to defendants. Who would you vote for? A DA who has a 99% conviction record or the DA with the a 75% conviction record? There are times when my job has called for me to advocate for the defendant and I assure you that if the prosecutor has an airtight case and is sure of a guilty verdict they will never offer a deal. Would you offer a pedophile minimal or NO jail time? Mr. Gigante got a slap on the wrist. If the prosecutor had had a solid case against Mr. Gigante they never would have offered Mr. Gigante a deal.

    But he’s a registered sexual offender you say. Yes, he is one NOW as a result of accepting the plea bargain. As soon as he signed off on the plea deal and it was handed back to the judge Mr. Gigante joined the ranks of registered sexual predators. Before this arrest Mr. Gigante was NOT a registered sexual predator nor had he been in trouble with the law.

    Mr. Gigante was given bad legal advice, he never should have agreed to the plea deal but when you are under extreme duress, out of money to defend, scared and faced with the possibility of 20 years in jail and worried about your family, you don’t always make the best decisions. The man’s life has been wrecked but that is not enough, now everyone who has supported him must pay as well? Does that include his wife and children?

    It’s critical to remember something else—because a minor is involved in this case, even if Moning is privy to facts—she’s not legally allowed to discuss them. So if as she initially said, she knows more, she’s in a complete catch-22, she can never share it. Nor can Gigante. The gag-effect of a case involving a minor was created to protect the minor. Unfortunately, it also prevents a defendant or anyone else from ever being able to present the facts that might defend him. I wonder if she was forced to pull back for this reason. If so, that’s heartbreaking for all parties involved.

    Cases like this are the reason I stopped working in the DA’s office. I got tired of seeing innocent people have words put in their mouths, accept plea deals and ruin their lives out of fear. In short, in order for the deal to become legal the defendant has to sign off on a statement that they had no part in writing and admit to charges that may not even be applicable to them. I am not affiliated with Mr. Gigante, I became aware of this case when I was asked for my opinion and was presented with the facts. Facts that you all are not aware of and which I won’t share due to the confidential nature of this case.

    If you truly want to do something to help kids like the young girl at the center of this case, volunteer your time at a victim’s service center. We are always in need of caring people.

    1. What you say might be true, but what strikes me is that he pleaded guilty to sending inappropriate photos to the young lady in question.
      I’m sure court can tell when inappropriate photos are being sent to a minor, and whether he is guilty or not of the other offences, sending inappropriate photos to underage people is never okay.

    2. So now the circle of blame has expanded to “he must of had a bad lawyer”? That lawyer got his sentence reduced from a possible 20yr+ to 4 mo. Doesn’t sound like poor lawyering to me. He plead GUILY, not “No contest” which is an option that I doubt even the worse lawyer would fail to present as an option to his client.
      The lawyer negotiated the dismissal of two charges in exchange for a Guilty plea on the remaining 2 charges and a reduced sentence. Again, doesn’t seem like ineffectual counsel to me.

      Once again we see someone claiming secret knowledge of the victim’s actions and deflecting blame from the perpetrator. A “troubled and exploited child as evidenced by the other person convicted”? The important word in that sentence is child. Nothing excuses the actions of the adults in this situation. Claiming she is in need of “closer supervision”? Now the blame is shifted to her parents or caretakers. The same caretaker that sought out a policeman in public over her concern for her daughter and instigated the entire investigation according to published reports.

      Defenders can twist themselves and their arguments into pretzels but it is never going to excuse the underlying facts of the case. She was 14. 14 years old. Nothing, nothing trumps that fact.

    3. You talk here of woman on woman hate? I would recommend taking a stroll through the Facebook responses to KMM’s post if you’d like to see some real woman on woman hate; made so much worse by the fact that the ‘woman’ these readers are hating on is a 14 year old child, who is a victim. This is one of the many things your post ignores and I would imagine, one of the reasons that Jen titled her post “Don’t Do This Ever”. Whatever “insider knowledge” you and Ms Moning may think you have regarding the case, however that info may have affected your view, is besides the point. Mr. Gigante had his day in court, took a deal and was found guilty. The end. Do innocent people go to jail? Absolutely but this isn’t the point here either. The point is that Ms. Moning, through her comments and her privileged position and platform, enabled her space to become a place of victim blaming, the personification of rape culture and the reason why so few rape and sexual assault cases get reported; never mind prosecuted. As Jen says Moning “gave some of her devoted readers licsence to speculate as to the sexual predations of a fourteen year old girl against a grown man”. To my mind that is the real “woman on woman hate”. Even though as you say, she has apologized, the rampant speculation and victim blaming continued and nowhere in her apology was this either confronted, admitted to or shut down; never mind addressed for the epitome of rape culture that these attitudes embody. Ms Moning chose to voice her support publicly and in terms that fostered the tenor of the subsequent comments. That she was called out for this, perhaps made to stop and reconsider the privilege of her position and the impact of her words by people like Jen, Jeaniene Frost, and others, isn’t hate. It’s recognizing and calling out everything that’s both awful and dangerous about this debacle. I can only be thankful to them for doing it.

    4. This wasn’t a traffic violation he was pleading down for a lighter sentence. Or robbery. It was a sex offense with a minor. You don’t plea that, you fight that if you are innocent. Nevertheless, now the excuse is his faulty legal representation? That is rich. Once again, portraying the CHILD as the aggressor and the sex offender as the victim. I was just waiting for you to say the evidence was planted, after bringing Making a Murderer in to this. I am relieved to hear you are no longer with the DA’s office – victims have a hard enough time ever speaking up because of rhetoric like this.

      1. Also the fact he volunteered at the school, meeting his victim that way.

        Unless you’re his lawyer or the DA on the case, how do you know the facts??? Show us proof he didn’t do it, even though he’s now a registered sex offender for life. I feel so bad for his wife and children who are living with the convicted sex offender of a 14 year old girl.

    5. I’m glad I didn’t get a snack, as you suggested. I would have vomited.

      This is the kind of disgusting behavior that rape apologists always pull. This is textbook. “You don’t know all the facts” well, point me to someone who knows the facts. FACTS. Documented evidence. If you’re so concerned, bring that here. Documentation, not gossip. Not what you and your coworkers were discussing. “I used to work in a lawyer’s office and I know conveniently confidential information” is not enough. If that’s all you have, then it’s useless in your argument. If it’s so confidential, why did Moning claim to have knowledge of it? You’re coming here and saying, “I know things, but I can’t tell you.” That means you have absolutely nothing to back your argument up, so you shouldn’t have even bothered to comment at all. You’ve wasted everyone’s time and made yourself look like an idiot.

      Let’s move on to your mock concern for the troubled Lolita who caused this. If you were truly concerned for the victim, you wouldn’t be here, pleading with strangers to understand that she is to blame for Gigante’s legal mess. You wouldn’t be sandwiching your “concern” between paragraphs upon paragraphs of rape apologist bullshit. And you certainly wouldn’t imply that this girl is somehow going to end up with no future because you know that happens to a certain type of girl. You have no sympathy, and the fact that you’re pretending to is disgusting.

      Now let’s go onto the “what more do you want” portion. At this point, what people want is for Moning to remove the victim blaming posts supporting her on her Facebook. This post was written before she apologized. When she apologized, I and many others thought that was a good move. But now her apology is littered with follow up comments talking, just like you, about how pedophiles are innocent and railroaded by our justice system. And Moning has let those remain. She closed the comments on the older post, but now allows her fans to continue to degrade and blame a fourteen year old child, who has likely already been through an embarrassing investigation. No one is blaming Moning for Gigante’s crimes. No one is blaming her for remaining friends with him; that’s her business, not ours. We are blaming Moning for allowing this to go on as long as it has, without stepping in and deleting the comments on the first post for two days, and now allowing her readers a continued platform by not disabling/deleting comments on the apology post. She or her staff have had plenty of time to make posts promoting her new release. It takes only seconds to delete comments on a post. Your suggestion that we’re persecuting her for Gigante’s crimes and comparing it to holding his wife and children accountable smacks of such a lack of logic and reading comprehension that I intensely doubt you did anything in a legal capacity beyond making coffee and collating copies. So is your insistence that Gigante can’t be guilty because he wasn’t a sex offender prior to these charges. Again, if you have this extensive and expert legal experience we’re all supposed to trust, I would assume you’d be aware that a crime is a crime, even if you haven’t been caught doing it before. If I go out right now and rob a liquor store, I have committed a robbery, regardless of whether or not I’ve robbed anyone in the past or been convicted of past robberies. Even if everyone I knew testified that I had never displayed tendencies of being a thief, I will still be charged with that crime.

      Your suggestion that people who really want to help should volunteer with victims? You can shove that straight up your ass. What you’re trying to say is that no on is allowed to speak on this issue until they’ve saved the world. No one has to fulfill a minimum quota of good deeds to call out bullshit. I have no doubt that if you’re involved with these girls, yes, there is absolutely a shortage of caring people. You should never be allowed any contact with a victim. People like you are as culpable in child abuse as the abusers themselves, because you make excuses for why the abuse never happened, shouldn’t be punished, or wasn’t the offenders fault.

      And let’s just talk about this “attack of women on women” fallacy you’ve cluttered up my blog with. You come here, talk about women attacking women, then defend a pedophile who had inappropriate contact with a young girl. Does she not count as a woman who should be defended? Clearly not. What would you have ME do, is a better question. Should I don sackcloth and ashes and beg forgiveness at the altar of your fucked up idea of what feminism is? Because that ain’t gonna happen. Moning’s readers attacked another woman, a fourteen year old girl who was preyed upon by a grown man, with their victim blaming and speculation. They even dragged other victims into it with their repeated anecdotes about sexually precocious young women who’ve ruined men’s lives. I assume those girls deserve to be attacked, but no one should call out the women who are still merrily victim blaming on that post? Valid criticism of Moning’s decision to allow those posts to continue should be withheld in the spirit of the Sunshine Sisterhood of supporting women? No. You’re delusional. Please check for a gas leak in your house.

      This is not “heartbreaking for all parties involved.” It is heartbreaking for a young girl who has strangers slandering her on the internet. That’s the only person your heart should be broken for, if you had one. Clearly, your interest is in protecting pedophiles and victim blamers. I don’t believe in hell, but I do believe people like you belong there, and not here on my blog. Your future comments will be deleted, as you and other disgusting, filthy rape apologists are not allowed near me or my readers.

      PS. No one gives a shit if you buy Moning’s book. You’re not teaching us a lesson. We literally do not give a shit what you do with your money, as we are not out to tank Moning’s sales. If it makes you feel like you’re very important to go buy her books, by all means, do so. I recommend her Highlander books, as they are excellent.

    6. Are you… Are you seriously saying that the victim is to blame for what happened because she’s ‘troubled’?
      You do realize that a child being ‘troubled’ doesn’t mean the adult in the situation isn’t responsible for the abuse? And that ‘troubled’ people can still be (and often are!) the victims of abuse through no fault of their own?

      I’m not even going to bother with the rest of your reply. Even if you do have ‘inside knowledge’, you should realize that you’re just as prone to be a dismissive, victim-blamey arse as everyone else. What you’re saying is awful regardless of how much you know about the case.

      1. In fact, being “troubled” often puts a bulls-eye on a person and makes that person vulnerable to predators who seek them out. It makes what he did even worse. He knew she was an easy target and went for it.

        Being troubled isn’t a crime. Being a sex offender is.

        1. Also, in my book (which, admittedly, is full of fluffy clouds and pink unicorns), if a kid is having problems, they need the adults around them to be even more responsible and sympathetic so that they can learn how to take care of themselves and make good life choices. What they do NOT need is inappropriate messages and pictures from a stranger with a lot more power and influence over Facebook.

        2. What does “troubled” mean, exactly? In my experience, it’s a euphemism for mental illness. If that’s how it’s being used here, ugggh. People with mental illnesses are more at risk for violence and sexual assault and less likely to be believed. And if “troubled” means “she’s going through a hard time right now” due to a parent’s divorce or illness/death of a loved one, that’s also NOT cool. The commenter above is invading a young girl’s privacy (or wildly speculating) and using it to BLAME her. Ugggh.

        3. “Troubled” = “already fucked with”. Troubled is at best ableist and more likely victim blamey. This entire case reeks. It’s like wannabe Illuminati sheeeee

  26. People who don’t know the difference between “criticizing” and “attacking” baffle me. And this BS fake feminism of “a WOMAN ATTACKING ANOTHER WOMAN omg” can piss right off too. Criticizing someone who supports and defends an admitted pedophile, and allows her fans to engage in victim blaming is NOT AN ATTACK. And it’s swell that Moning apologized, but she would have done better to refrain from comment in the first place since she didn’t have her facts straight.

  27. I’d say sending inappropriate pictures to a minor is a bit more than bad judgment, plus all the other shit he did. So you work in the area? So you’ve heard the gossip people will be sharing yeah? People who no doubt will be the same victim shaming idiots that are all over Facebook. You’re blaming the girl again. That’s victim shaming. But it’s okay cause you’ve heard gossip? So you know more than the court. He’s guilty. Honestly people are unfuckingbelievable. I’m glad to hear you left your job at the DAs office, I can sleep better at night knowing someone like you doesn’t work there.

  28. What makes me so mad is that her fans have such a hero worship of her that they are willing to agree with ANYTHING she says. And some are women with children of their own. Talk about sheep mentality! Disgusting!

    Even if the girl did come on to him, as a grown adult male he should have had enough common sense not to message her back.

  29. Could we get a signal boost for Navessa Allen? She’s an indie author, and her site is ( She got flooded with one-star reviews on Goodreads after commenting on this issue, knocking lots of her books down to one star

    1. Plus Goodreads removed the review where she informed people about this, telling her it was a violation of their review guidelines since she wrote about the author and not the book itself.

      That said, of course they probably won’t even investigate the flood of one-star reviews she received in retaliation by Moning’s fans.

      (And that is. . .a whole ‘nother discussion. Frankly, I DO NOT want to buy books from people who defend pedophiles, even accidentally. I don’t see why I can’t have a Goodreads review warning me of that).

      1. I reported more than one newly created sock puppet account created simply to 1-star anyone speaking out against the activities of KMM’s fans. Goodreads removed the accounts and their associated bogus ratings within 24 hours. If you see activity that’s purpose is solely to harass and/or intimidate you can flag it or send an email to Goodreads Customer Support with screenshots of any documentation that you have. They appear to be taking the matter very seriously.

  30. I only read KMM’s Fever series (not all of them, because I couldn’t go on), and I found them to be super rapey. I’m not sure if I should be surprised about all this. I am really disappointed, though. And I’m very sorry for the poor girl who’s being dragged through the mud because so many people find it more important that their favourite book narrator gets away with stuff he shouldn’t and their favourite author gets away with defending a sex offender than a child’s life possibly being ruined.

Leave a Reply to Renee Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>