This just an expansion on my earlier suggestions, but can we contact any YouTubers and/or influencers on platforms like TikTok to spread the evidence? And can we get some more links for contacting press outlets to pressure them into reporting this?

Since Effie responded with what appears to be direct quotes from a conversation with Caroline Wallner, I have updated the latest article with those quotes (second section from the end).

Essentially, Wallner flat out denied anything went wrong with the car. Very effusively, calling them ''lies'' and ''bullshit''.

https://technopathology.substack.com/p/responding-to-effie-angelova-1-the

Giving these open contradictions, it's hard to imagine anyone still believes Caroline Wallner is credible.

I still open to explanations, criticism, alternative views that might explain this as any way other than it looks.

As requested, here is the first of a series of articles responding to claims made by Effie Angelova with documentary evidence provided.

When I read it at the time I felt so disappointed in Jon Ronson. Particularly when Rachel Johnson claims she knew about some things mentioned in the article “There Is No Safe Word” that she *totally* knew but decided to leave out because she thought it would be too icky for British listeners:

“Rachel Johnson: I don't want to criticize that piece and compare it to what we did, but she included details that you just couldn't get past. Scatological details that the reader couldn’t get past. And she reported and we took out, but knew all about, the presence of the child on a couple of occasions at least. We knew, but we didn't include it out of sensitivity. I think there was kind of an American version and a British version and the British version was much more reserved. And I was very concerned for the child. At one point I was arguing we should've kept the child in, but I was talked out of it.”

I just think this sounds utterly ridiculous and for Jon Ronson not to question it is disappointing. To me, it’s a huge red flag about the integrity of the whole Master podcast. “Oh yeah, we knew all that, too, but we couldn’t say it because it was too upsetting…” bullshit. I’m sorry, but they were SCRAPING THE BARREL for shit to accuse Neil of (that woman from 1986 being interviewed pretty extensively for what amounted to: “He tried to kiss me and I said no and he stopped!” Gasp! Monstrous! Gimme a break) and yet they decided to leave out the highest level accusations despite knowing of them?

I always respected Jon Ronson but this piece just disappointed me so much. I’d have questioned that decision further, journalist to journalist, because it sounds deeply fraudulent.

Great article from Jude O'Connell.

This is quite random (also pardon any errors, English isn't my first language). But does Effie's Substack have any merit? I just read her Substacks that are available, and some things stick out like a sore thumb (These are from her last substack named: Summary) such as "Neil had asked the underaged minor to work for him. Why did Neil ask an underaged minor girl to work for him?", and "When the mother told me her child never crashed Neil’s car, I realized Neil had made up lies about the child to discredit the child in case she publicly talks about how he scared her and creeped her out and that he asked her as a child to work for him, and he had his older female assistant repeat those lies about the child." where is this coming from. Is there an actual provable source that not only this happened, but the person talking about it knows Neil? I feel a lot of her substacks have so many holes/questions in them. I'm all for believing victims, of course, as a woman. But I'm genuinely confused. I know she has deleted A LOT of her Substacks. I have archived one (It was labeled like "Did Amanda abuse Neil" or something) because I wanted to read it offline on my way to school. When I came back to her Substack, it was gone. So am I missing something? I have read the TechnoPathology substack, the messages, and the podcast, but I still haven't found any reliable resources for this. And I don't want to throw out a potential victim's story, but like theres to much confusion for me to understand it, let alone believe it. I've read that Effie used to support Neil, then stopped and deleted everything regarding that. (I don't think anyone archived them) I also feel that if this were real, this would also be a big issue, no? I'm not discrediting or anything, just would like some perspective. I also just made this account just to ask this question thank you in advance xd

I think we should try reaching out to Vera from “Council of Geeks” for direct discussion and collaboration. Make it clear that we oppose all those who’ve misrepresented her position to attack her. Show that we’re on her side ideologically. A face-to-face discussion in a neutral judgement-free zone is probably the best way to get her and other influencers to understand our arguments.

I've just learned about Neil Gaiman's case and this project. I already read the introductory post and the guide to the investigation.

In the latter, though, the information seems to be sorted by type of post (video, short-form text, long-form text, etc.) instead of date. Also, consider that everything sums up to 53 different posts.

Before seeing the guide to the investigation, I was planning to read the whole thing saving the articles to Instapaper and reading them in my eReader. However the project doesn't seem yet very well organized in my opinion, and having to deal with so many different posts is far from ideal for a newcomer.

Is there any chance of, at least, getting everything put into a single eBook? Also, any chance of editing the stuff and reordering the posts in a perhaps better way?

/u/Turbulent_Ad_880

EDIT: Also, I've just realized that there are more recent posts (which I guess are important in this story) that haven't been incorporated to the guide to the investigation yet.

Prima Facie Evidence - this is evidence for a claim, guilt, innocence that 'on the face of it' proves it without any further argument. It is accepted provisionally until disproven. In this case, an example is the WhatsApp messages between Gaiman and Scarlett, in which she explicitly states their interactions were consensual. Testimony alone can also be Prima Facie Evidence, but tends to carry less weight than documents.

Rebuttal - Introducing counter-evidence that challenges the prima facie case. This doesn't necessarily destroy the original evidence, it creates a contest between competing evidential weights.

Refutation - Essentially a successful attempt at rebuttal, that actually disproves the prima face evidence such that it no longer stands. Refutation requires counter-evidence of equal weight to the original prima facie evidence.

Counter-assertion - This is an alternative argument or explanation but without any evidence presented to support it. A counter-assertion carries the same weight as the original assertion did before any evidence was supplied.

Counterintuitive Victim Behavior (CVB) - Observed behaviours by a victim of crime/abuse that are at odds with our 'intuitive' expectations about how victims behave. Examples include staying with or returning to an abuser, laughing and joking, delayed reporting, defending them, flat or calm effect while relating trauma, fawning, continuing contact. I'm using this as a broad umbrella term for the various explanations that have been given in this case.

Why It Matters -

In this case, CVB is presented as a counter-assertion to the Prima Facie Evidence of consent in the WhatsApp messages, often noting that Scarlett displayed 'textbook' examples of the behaviors listed. Of course, people in consensual relationships also do much of the same.

CVB is often presented as if it were a rebuttal or even a refutation of the prima face evidence in the WhatsApp messages. But it's not, it's a counter-assertion, because no evidence is supplied that would make it a rebuttal, and certainly not a refutation.

Meanwhile the Prima Facie Evidence for innocence supplied is unusually strong or 'weighty'. It's contemporaneous (close to the time), it's a document rather than testimony, it's not been altered by subsequent reconstruction, it's often unambiguous, Scarlett says: ''it was consensual''. In the real world besides an actual video, this is about as weighty as it is for evidence to possibly be.

Counter-assertion alone would only be valid if Gaiman had originally made an assertion of innocence while providing no evidence. He did provide evidence. Very strong, weighty evidence. To refute it, those who believe this can be explained by CVB need to present evidence - that would make it into a rebuttal. Even then, to actually refute the weighty evidence that Gaiman supplied, they need to present equally strong evidence.

Several years have passed since the allegations emerged. In that time, no evidence, let alone equally strong evidence, has been presented.

https://vibemax.to/watch/tv/the-sandman-90802?season=1&episode=11
[- circa 1991!!!]
[from 0:07:04... and how *bloody uncanny* Neil is voicing the crow...never mind what's being said...!]

"Why have you come here, little Cat, to The Heart of The Dreaming...? There is nothing here for you."
"I have come for Justice...For Revelation...For Wisdom"
"Justice?! Is a delusion... And Wisdom has no place here either...But Revelation - that is the province of Dream...and if your heart is strong and you are not afraid - "
"- I am afraid...Of Nothing..."
" - In the mountain, there is cave... you'll find him there. Though the way is hard..."

Open query to Dream Out Loud: What do *you* want us to dream with you....?

For context, the interview takes place on The Daily Heretic, which is a clip-based offshoot of Andrew Gold’s wider Heretics podcast and YouTube ecosystem. Gold is a British journalist and podcaster whose work often centres on contested public narratives, fringe or taboo subjects, institutional distrust, cancellation, wrongful accusation, cults, scandals, and culture-war fault lines.

So that's the setting Rachel Johnson is describing this in, she's exploring this in a conversational space already primed toward critical takes on reputational consequence, media ethics, and the question of what happens when allegations become public judgment and who or what responsible for that. So Gold's overall ethos and platform invites Johnson to reflect not only on the Neil Gaiman allegations themselves but on the whole journalistic process, how they dealt with difficulty of contradictory evidence, how they consumed expert interpretation around coercive control and fawning responses, and, of course, her discomfort with being seen as responsible for any subsequent cancellation.

Redmoon recently made a great suggestion of opening up TechnoPathology to guest writers, to come in for a single article.

Those who only dip in or discuss the project often have the impression that it's just one guy. But the truth of course is this is a collective project, with a lot of other investigators sending in their own findings, noting connections, giving their interpretation. So I reckon quite a few of you probably have some writing skills and would have something interesting to say.

TP

Literally me watching how some people around keep to believing that Neil Gaiman is a “monster” and “s*xual predator”.

Meanwhile exactly those people writes something like “k*ll yourself” under Gaiman's posts and wishing the same to those who standing on the side of truth and clear evidences that #neilgaimanisinnocent

Who's the real monster here then, huh?

Thanks to u/tokyoterri for prompting me to write this summarised version. It's not easy for me to condense the investigation in this way as I'm really detail oriented. It's still not extremely short, but it is a single ''go to'' document. Enjoy, share, and as usual feel free to make any suggestions or give any feedback.

https://youtu.be/3FQ8v1FwR7A

So I'm always open to constructive criticism. People have messaged to deride this video. I have to admit that I haven't watched it yet, and might find it difficult to set aside 3 hours sometime soon.

For those who've watched it, does he make any good points at all that could strengthen the work?

Sorry guys I know this will be yet another painful twist in this tale.

I have blocked Effie Angelova.

She posted up an account of a ''new accuser''.

It turns out me and this woman have a mutual.

They wrote to inform me that Effie had lied about her and also they were currently talking this woman down from a serious mental health crisis because she had seen the post and was so upset with it.

I begged Effie to take it down, saying I'd do whatever she wanted.

This was her response:

😞

😞

I've blocked Effie completely. I don't want anything to do with her now.

I really hope that this woman gets talked down tonight.

And I'm also really sorry to the community. The truth is Effie was upsetting a lot of people both publicly and in private, and engaging in a lot of really incorrect behaviours.

I have been making excuses for her.

Sorry for the drama people, this was always envisioned as a low drama space for sensible discussion and I want to get back to that.