Just a point of language, these are character witnesses (hypothetical ones at that), not eyewitnesses. Eyewitnesses would have seen the interaction in question. There's a difference and the difference is substantial.
Is is considered a character witness when they're saying that they worked with the two of them and never saw any of the alleged behavior? I always considered character witnesses as more speaking to the general character of the person than having first hand knowledge.
For instance, if they said the behavior was pervasive but then you have 20 people all say that they never saw it happening, are they character witnesses? Or fact witnesses?
I suppose that if behavior was said to be witnessed by Other Persons A, B, C.... and T, and those people were silent but Other Persons C, F, and N said they were present but witnessed none of the behavior they were said to have witnessed, they would count as lay or fact witnesses. I'm not sure if that's the role these three have though because I don't know whether the supposed infractions occurred in front of the crew or in more private settings.
So yeah, while none of these can be eyewitnesses, there are circumstances in which they might be considered fact witnesses instead of character witnesses--they just read that way to me.
That's still character witness, they can't be a witness to something they didn't see happen and asking them to speculate 'would you say the person would do X based on previous knowledge you have' is character witnessing (at best, speculation alone is enough to have the line of questioning stopped by the judge)
I'm talking more about the fact that they have specific knowledge of the workplace and what happened at the workplace. They can't say that they witnessed every conversation or interaction, but they can say they were on set every day working closely with Brubaker and never witnessed any of the behavior alleged, for instance. That's more than just speaking to their character.
Well one of the actual witnesses on this deadline article was a camera operator who worked on every episode of the show and he thinks this lawsuit is BS.
I am a Brubaker fan and am hoping he's done nothing wrong. I've not been swayed either way but I do hope no one was hurt.
But framing these comments as 'eyewitness accounts' is incredibly disingenuous. That's not what they are. They're simply anonymous character references. You're pushing this topic a lot - multiple posts on this, these references deliberately mislabeled as 'eyewitness accounts' to make them seem more meaningful than they are. There's no need to bat so hard for Brubaker, especially because almost none of us know exactly what happened.
Like I say, I am a fan of his. And I do genuinely hope no one was hurt. But this stuff is kind of meaningless. It's best to just wait and let whatever investigative process is happening to complete.
none of comments prove shit one way or the other. I do want to bring up something else.
One of the claims brought up in the article. Is that Ed Brubaker is a staunch zionist seemingly being the presented reasoning behind the comments.
I also want to bring up that Sean Phillips ( frequent ed brubaker collabrataor and also work on this) actually work on a comic back in the 80’s raising funds for Palestine ( like it’s one of the few pieces of anti-zionist comicbooks I can think of) so I would be kinda suprised if Brubaker was so strongly a Zionist to constatntly call it out.
I have seen some people come out in support, but it's been a couple of weeks so I don't recall specific names. The creators I saw work in comics and media. They were saying Ed's been working in both for 20 years and normally if he was all the things the lawsuit said he was, word would have gotten around about him. But they've heard nothing but good things about working with him.
He’s been only doing creator-owned Image stuff for a lot longer than I thought - there’s probably not too many people left in mainstream comics who worked with him directly, which might explain why there’s only been a few people come out
What’s most credible/incredible to me is the fact that Amazon has not immediately severed ties and has instead chose to just hold comment
If the allegations happened and were witnessed as described in the suit, there’s not a chance Amazon would be taking a wait-and-see approach
As this is at the stage of lawsuits being filed against Brubaker, Prod Company, and Amazon. We can know for certain a lot of very serious legal and corporate people at Amazon have went over the details with a fine tooth comb
If they had found there was any merit in the allegations, they would not be rolling the dice on a court case they’re directly implicated in
They would be actively getting ahead of the story by: cutting ties; shifting blame to Brubaker personally; and most probably sending the plaintiff a very large cheque in exchange for signing an NDA
But a public accusation with a name attached inherently carries the risk of being sued for libel if it's false, which is absolutely something that should be done...if it's false.
Maybe. I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is you have to show that the libel cost you money somehow in order to get money. That's something solid a judge or jury can rule on and hold them financially responsible for.
At this point, there's little any of us who support Ed can really do, save for waiting patiently for this unhinged lawsuit to get thrown out. It could take a while, but our resolve will, hopefully, pay off if we're right.
For sure. The other thing we can ALL do is exercise a little critical thinking when people are demonized online. Less interest in APPEARING morally superior and more interest in finding the truth/nuance of any conflict
The fact remains that no one has come forward to substantiate Noohu's story. All of the industry defence has been squarely on the side of Brubaker. To ignore that truth is folly; pure and simple.
Also, Brubaker's work is more important to me than Noohu's "well-being." I refuse to "let go" of all that work, not after 10 years of sibbing accusers pleading for us to let go of so much already: 2 Captain America volumes, Iron Fist, 2000s X-Men, Criminal, Gotham Central. Nope, sorry. Not worth the effort to make some Social Media PA feel "heard." Not after losing Sandman, The Authority, Justice League Europe, Moon Knight, and more. Comics are being erased, and people are too full of the "love" and "empathy" of MeToo to care that it might be all in the name of a lie.
Dont fully buy into it till I see more actually evidence cause entertainment industry is full of lies, but as we know from Hollywood, the nicest ppl can be really fucked up as well.
Didn't someone accuse Brad Fuller of like sexual harassment and the dude that accused him was the one sexually harassing people on set? Also Geoff Johns got accused of racism because joss whedon reduced ray fishers role as cyborg.
I don't see a reason I should believe these comments any more than the accusations. Why would they be anonymous? Doesn't make sense. Brubaker could easily be writing these himself.
You keep using that word. I'm not sure it means what you think it means.
I find the fact that the majority of your posts are either 1.) posting about/defending random celebrities being acquited of sexual harassment/claims and 2.) your roleplay with AI chat bots of fictional characters like Captain Underpants-both hilarious and disturbing. Keep up the good work!
I have to ask, did you like Ed Brubaker before, or only when you found out he may be a sex criminal?
Dude calm down. You are so desperate for this not to be true that you are kinda coming off as pathetic. Especially the childish way you respond to this comment and other ones.
Besides, these are anonymous comments. I can post one saying it DID HAPPEN.
Will you post those comments here too then?
Just wait and see how things play out and we will know in time. What you are doing in this sub and other subs is just sad and desperate.
We have no way of knowing if any of this is true in either side yet. Comments from people saying he was mean or nice don't prove anything until we get some hard evidence.
One dynamic to keep in mind is that bullies often do social engineering to actively come across as likeable and kind to everyone but their target, and then are cruel only in private to the victim. That way when the victim speaks out, everyone thinks the victim is absolutely crazy and doesn't believe them. If the bully is popular and successful and has cultivated a following of fans thats even better. If everyone the victim meets says their bully is fantastic, that just is another way the bully can fuck with the victim.
I'm not saying that's for sure happening here, but it is something to remember when a bunch of people stand up to defend someone accused of bad behavior. some assholes work hard to hide their bad behavior and protect themselves from criticism.
Why would these comments be anonymous though? If you worked in this production, or are somehow involved in this situation, shouldn’t you put your name in the statement? Anyone can leave an anonymous comment.
So, we have a new anonymous character witness from about 2 days ago defending Ed Brubaker. Plus, apparently, his longtime collaborator, Sean Phillips, is very much in his corner. I'll post the latest defence comment so that everyone can see it in full. Sorry if it's a little blurry.
If anything, it just reinforces that we shouldn’t be this connected, which is part of why Ed himself left. I’m open to believing victims. I want both to be true. I want Ed to be innocent so I can, personally enjoy his works, but I also want the plaintiff to be right so there’s not more evidence that harms future victims & prevent them coming forward.
I think this trial is going to take too long & too many years off of my life.
The best we can hope for is that the lawsuit gets dropped or tossed. Either way, the stories coming out against Noohu are the standard, not the exception. Sooner or later, the plaintiff is either going to have to fold or risk the public humiliation of having his case dismissed.
In the end, you have to decide who matters more. Even if Noohu was, somehow, despite all testimonial evidence against him, "telling the truth", the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Siding with Ed is the right choice in the long run, not just for escapism's sake, but, more importantly, to save the career, reputation, and legacy of a beloved writer and, apparently, an overall great human being.
I mean yes if you accused me of hitting you last tuesday, there can be defense witness for me that observe where I was last tuesday and testified that I didnt hit you
They're claiming the crazy shit happened in front of witnesses and not alone in a dark room so if all the witnesses side with the defense you have no case. If they had a case Amazon wouldn't have fired them and dared them to sue anyway but most of reddit decided he was guilty days ago without any evidence.
How it works is this: If they are who they say they are, which, given the nature of Deadline as a website, is almost entirely certain, then, consequently, they WERE on set and around Ed and Nuhoo, turning the timeframe in which these "events" were supposed to have "taken place." Since everything that Noohu claims apparently "happened" out in the open with "impunity," that means that these things he details in his lawsuit couldn't have happened at all, because now we have these three witnesses, plus Matt Moriarty declaring otherwise, all of whom were there at the time.
Yeah, nope. Not unless they were actually there at the time of that specific interaction and can attest to how it actually played out. "I know him and he's a sweet guy" or "I was on the set often" doesn't really cut it. Not in court. Maybe if you want to be a character witness, but that's very different from an eyewitness.
26
u/TheDaneOf5683 Cross Game + Duncan The Wonder Dog Sep 07 '26
Just a point of language, these are character witnesses (hypothetical ones at that), not eyewitnesses. Eyewitnesses would have seen the interaction in question. There's a difference and the difference is substantial.