Subway flasher ID'ed?

bluedove wrote: If it's him, he hasn't aged well in the past four years. Of course, that's entirely possible, I suppose..

thats what raw foods will do to you :twisted:

dailyheights wrote: Hoyt, 43, was arrested in 1994 and charged with public lewdness after he unzipped and flashed a victim at what was then the N platform at Manhattan's Eighth St. subway station, sources said.

Call me naive, but I have absolutely NO comprehension as to what would drive someone who is seeminly normal to do something like that. It's not particularly criminal, but it's just so very weird.

Any shrinks on this board who can explain this phenomenon to me?

bluedove wrote: If it's him, he hasn't aged well in the past four years. Of course, that's entirely possible, I suppose..

I'm sure jerking off on subway platforms doesn't exactly keep you young. :twisted:

EmilyM wrote: [quote=Daily news as quoted by dailyheights]A subway flasher caught in the act on a cell phone camera may have been arrested in 1994 for exposing himself at one of the same subway platforms he hit recently, sources told the Daily News.

The Daily News really seems to have trouble parsing what is "alleged" and what is "for real." I think what they're trying to say is that Dan Hoyt, who is allegedly the person caught in the recent picture, was arrested for exposing himself in 1994. But what they actually said is that Dan Hoyt, who was caught in the recent picture, was allegedly arrested for exposing himself in 1994--which is stupid, because the police obviously have a record of it. Also, by saying that "he recently hit subway platforms," they're saying that there were more recent incidents than the one that was photographed. D'oh.

You're totally right, but I did actually hear that he struck (and was photographed) again...due to the lack of coverage on that, though, I'm beginning to doubt it...

FLUTE wrote: Call me naive, but I have absolutely NO comprehension as to what would drive someone who is seeminly normal to do something like that. It's not particularly criminal, but it's just so very weird.
Any shrinks on this board who can explain this phenomenon to me?

The problem is what people define as normal. He's white, clean-cut and owns a restaurant. He can't be weird, right? Well, that's the problem.

Psychologically, people tend to think that people who look bad ARE bad when that is very often not the case. Look at the BTK killer. One of the plainest and most normal looking people around. Why do you think mafia guys and other criminals like dressing up in suits and try to look as clean as possible?

Don't just a person by their looks. Judge them by their character. And if this alleged flasher is Dan Hoyt, I have a pile of raw food jokes I want to start unloading like crazy.

daveb wrote: What's crazy is the tons of seriously fucked up comments the photo taker has picked up after posting the photo to flickr.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/94886948@N00/35501732/in/photostream/

She's taken a lot of abuse.

wow. people are jerks.

dailyheights wrote: The New York Post has already labeled Dan Hoyt as the "Subway Sicko":

Good lord! Anyone know who the previous subway sicko was? I'm sure with the N.Y. Post there had to be at least one other one.

Subject: subway flasher?

setting dangerous precedent.
after reading the story, viewing the photo, one can reasonable,
(subjectively) assume what was said to have occur, did in fact occur.
however, after seeing the photo i am not certain in any way that this
person if fact did expose himself. why? there is nothing showing in the photo. he may have just realised his zipper was undone, & the 1/60th of a second expression caught on camera may have been one of embarassment. (if you've done excessive photography you know what i mean in terms of facial expressions)
my only point is on face value i can accept the testimony of this woman.
would i feel confident based solely on someone's testimony
assuming another's guilt, & throwing them in rikers for up to 6 months?
no, i wouldn't. not for this crime, or robbery, or homicide either.
because of the abhorrant nature of this type offense we are all disgusted, outraged, & eager to have done with it. i feel it's unfair, & in the legal arena may get complicated; (posting someone's pic online/in daily news)
convicting them of a crime. posting their name, etc. without proper
cause. (on the word of one person)?
the same is done for accused rapists.
fine if the person is guilty. if not then tragic for that individual.
how would you like to find your photo in tomorrow's paper
accusing you of a crime when in fact your only crime was to
have been photographed, unaware.
my point is, if he's guilty, fine. but as i said this is a really dangerous thing.
there will be abuses of it...

Subject: Re: subway flasher?

mojobebop wrote: setting dangerous precedent.
after reading the story, viewing the photo, one can reasonable,
(subjectively) assume what was said to have occur, did in fact occur.
however, after seeing the photo i am not certain in any way that this
person if fact did expose himself. why? there is nothing showing in the photo. he may have just realised his zipper was undone, & the 1/60th of a second expression caught on camera may have been one of embarassment. (if you've done excessive photography you know what i mean in terms of facial expressions)
my only point is on face value i can accept the testimony of this woman.
would i feel confident based solely on someone's testimony
assuming another's guilt, & throwing them in rikers for up to 6 months?
no, i wouldn't. not for this crime, or robbery, or homicide either.
because of the abhorrant nature of this type offense we are all disgusted, outraged, & eager to have done with it. i feel it's unfair, & in the legal arena may get complicated; (posting someone's pic online/in daily news)
convicting them of a crime. posting their name, etc. without proper
cause. (on the word of one person)?
the same is done for accused rapists.
fine if the person is guilty. if not then tragic for that individual.
how would you like to find your photo in tomorrow's paper
accusing you of a crime when in fact your only crime was to
have been photographed, unaware.
my point is, if he's guilty, fine. but as i said this is a really dangerous thing.
there will be abuses of it...

Actually, the one at the top of the page is not the one we've been discussing...in the alleged Dan Hoyt photo, you can see EVERYTHING, and he's not looking embarrassed, he's definitely leering.

i agree that they should be using the terms "alleged." and that if its not him, he should sue the crap out of people.

Subject: Re: subway flasher?

jayce wrote: [quote=mojobebop]
the same is done for accused rapists.

lets not go there. because then we would have to talk about how rape victims and survivors get their names dragged through the mud as well for every bit of their sexual history as one can imagine. so cry me a river for the accused. cause i think the victim takes it a whole lot harder.

but thats more about our media and society. and so i'll remain open that its not Dan Hoyt. but if and when we find that it is, then fine. innocent until proven guilty. but comparing him to an accused rapist is only valid, in my humble opinion, is as much as our flasher was using power and control to victimize innocent people on the subway.

the only truly fair approach would be to omit the alleged rapist's info
& the accuser as well. it's erroneous to take sides. your bias is obvious,
therefore you cannot be fair. to say one suffers more is subjective.
if there is another photo it's fair game to say this person is guilty.
to say it is hoyt because there is a resemblance, (publicly) is
outrageous. to have the police phone, or drop by to question would
have been proper. the news only motivation in this is lack of sales.

Subject: Re: subway flasher?

mojobebop wrote:
the only truly fair approach would be to omit the alleged rapist's info
& the accuser as well. it's erroneous to take sides. your bias is obvious,
therefore you cannot be fair. to say one suffers more is subjective.
if there is another photo it's fair game to say this person is guilty.
to say it is hoyt because there is a resemblance, (publicly) is
outrageous. to have the police phone, or drop by to question would
have been proper. the news only motivation in this is lack of sales.

again, i am not disagreeing with you.
and yes, i am biased. i will admit to as much. but my bias has nothing to do with Dan being a subway flasher. my bias is about not having sympathy for accused rapists having their pictures and reputations put into question by the media. i am trying to say only that not only do the accused rapists have to go through that, but the victims do too. so thats why i am saying lets not make this a discussion about alleged rapists. lets keep to the topic of Dan and if he is the subway flasher. again, i remain unbiased on that topic. he has a vague resemblance but thats not enough to convince me its him. so thats my opinion on it.

Subject: Re: subway perv

mojobebop wrote: oh, fine. if that's the case you know i've yet to find this other photo.

The other photo is in this thread, fifth post from the top. If that's the one you were originally referring to, then I'm not sure what you mean when you say you can't see anything, because I can clearly see WAY more than an innocent "oops, my fly is unzipped" moment happening there. Totally unambiguous (and disgusting).

I agree with you that the photographic evidence of it being Dan Hoyt is not totally convincing, and that he should definitely not be dragged through the mud like this on the basis of those photos alone. That said, if you read the rest of this thread, you'll see that (a) those photos of DH are in fact four years old, so he COULD have aged enough in that time to look more like the flasher does, and (b) everyone on here has mentioned that it's unfair to skip the word "alleged" at this point...I think the confusion is stemming from the fact that your tone sounds rather defensive, but I'm not sure who you're arguing with...we all agree.

Subject: Re: subway perv

daveb wrote: [quote=bluedove]...if you read the rest of this thread, you'll see that (a) those photos of DH are in fact four years old...

At least 4 years old because I found an article with the photo, dated 2001, but it's entirely 100% feasible that in writing the article, a request was made for photos to run and the images provided wee siginificantly older. It's pretty common in my line of work, when these headshot requests are made, the interviewee will submit a photo, sometimes 10-15 years old because they think they look better. They're skinnier, still have hair, etc. So, I'd say trying to judge the age of that photo, since there's no definitive dating of it, is pointless.

Headshots lie. Plain and simple. They are self-selected by the subject and 9 times out of 10, they really don't give a good reflection of who the person is.

I was just reading the flickr blog on this and was suprised that the photo taker hasn't expressed any opinion about whether or not Dan Hoyt is the perpetrator. It is sad, some of the abuse she's getting there, even tho most people seem supportive. How can people think this is acceptable behavoir? Would they think the same thing if the victim was a child?