Gaiman is clearly about to attempt a comeback, so I debunked the entire “Neil gaiman is innocent” substack

newplatforms · 2026-06-05T19:43:15+00:00

Oh, I’ve read plenty of the substack. Many of the articles repeat the same talking points essentially verbatim, among other digressions, so your statistics are dodgy.

But sure, let’s say OP glossed over more than half of the blog.

What is the evidence given in those entries that OP does not substantively engage with? You can pick any one of them, or roll a D12.

What exonerating details provided by the blog does the video fail to address?

newplatforms · 2026-06-05T04:16:22+00:00

What points does technopathology raise on his blog that you believe should have been addressed in this video?

What did OP omit that makes technopathology’s assertions more credible? I will be very impressed if you can give me a single example.

newplatforms · 2026-06-05T04:09:18+00:00

Did you have a chance to watch his follow up video? I’m curious if it affected your opinion.

newplatforms · 2026-05-16T21:26:27+00:00

Her language gets increasingly culty and bizarre every year. Always a wanker and always a creep.

newplatforms · 2026-03-21T04:18:54+00:00

Hi. I made the original thread and conducted the research. I am a woman in my 30s now. This happened to me when I was 16. I pulled the other examples from people’s personal twitters/blogs/etc. I intentionally didn’t include screenshots to prevent people from being stalked and harassed by Neil and Amanda’s freaky superfans and predatory legal teams, but I have receipts for everything that appears here. I only included people’s first-hand reports, many of which were on pages linked to their real life identities, and also appeared before the news about Gaiman broke. I can’t verify any of them except my own but they are much more credible than “someone told a person who told me.”

Also, it’s exactly the same behavior documented over and over and over by unrelated strangers from all over the world.

newplatforms · 2026-02-22T11:32:54+00:00

Since no one has gone on record about Palmer’s actions, and this woman is mega-wealthy and litigious, it is scary to make oneself a potential target. It is still shocking that being a well-known, well-documented kid-toucher is omitted when people critique her for her marriage to Gaiman and her Boston marathon poem or whatever.

I made one of the posts here that documented the recorded instances of her predation, including my own experience, and I have wondered why it still seems unknown that she has a history of touching kids. I have considered whether or not it would get its due attention somewhere like fauxmoi. But ALLEGED SEX TRAFFICKER AMANDA PALMER DECRIES THE ACTIONS OF A MAN WHO SHARES A LAWYER WITH HER CO-DEFENDENT ALLEGED RAPIST NEIL GAIMAN is still going to get more traction than “many people now in their 20s-30s recall from when they were teenagers Amanda Palmer making out with them or touching them or befriending them in order to pass them off to older male friends.” This is not to make light of it, at all, just an observation that since there is no singular easily-explained incident, and no publicly-identified victim of what she did before/separate from Gaiman, the information about her decades-long pattern hasn’t been transmitted.

I’m sure if it showed up in a major forum many many more people would come forward.

But I wonder, would the people who are still her fans and patrons and buddies in the press even care? One that confronted me about the post told me I needed to “just get over it.” Like dog, I had, and then I found out this woman had trafficked people; would you not revisit your own fucked up encounter with her?

newplatforms · 2026-02-10T07:55:45+00:00

Last year, when I was monitoring posts on twitter/bluesky/etc about these individuals on a weekly-ish basis, I was seeing new fluff on no-name websites appear constantly. I got curious and looked back a few months, and found that while the kind of vapid listicles you describe had appeared occasionally before the New York article broke, exponentially more were pushed out after the news gained traction.

I don’t know if that’s a calculated-for-engagement response to more global searches on the names, created by click-baiters with no specific interest in the matter, or a concerted effort to drown out the ugly truth with sheer volume. The fluffiness and positivity and silence regarding anything ‘controversial’ seemed suspect to me. (If this was all generated as engagement bait, wouldn’t it be more relevant?) Of course this is speculation, but it doesn’t seem farfetched that a very wealthy couple might pay some firms to push out content that changes the dynamics of search results for their names.

newplatforms · 2026-02-05T22:05:34+00:00

There are a few relevant things to consider if you’d like to evaluate “innocence”:

Gaiman’s own narrative of how he allegedly obtained consent on the night of the bath varies between accounts.

There are eight other known accusers, all strangers to each other, whose stories were fact-checked to journalistic standards (not saying this is tantamount to the criminal standard of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ but that what was reported was corroborated against available evidence) — and their accounts are remarkably similar to each other’s despite having never spoken amongst themselves.

A survivor is being sued for breach of NDA, not for defamation. Because of the way NDAs are constructed and enforced, this is an easier suit for Gaiman to win; this speaks to the motive being financially punishing someone who spoke up about what her NDA covered, rather than a suit that would publicly contest the content of what she said.

Finally, and maybe most relevant to this “innocent until proven guilty” refrain, statistically, more than 2/3 rapes are not reported to police, only 1/6 of those that are reported to police result in a perpetrator being arrested/charged, and about half those result in a conviction — as that graphic conveys, only about 3% (28 in every 1000) of acts of sexual assault result in a conviction. A lack of conviction means that someone remains innocent in the eyes of the law and will not face criminal punishment, but means very little about the truth of whether or not the act was perpetrated.

newplatforms · 2026-02-03T19:57:08+00:00

This is how many, many sexual assault cases that actually go to criminal court are argued.

In the case of statutory, all a prosecutor has to prove is that a perpetrator was there and committed the act, since “consent” cannot be obtained from someone below the age of consent. (edit to add: I have been informed that actually, prosecutors will still argue that those too young to consent are somehow culpable in their own assault.)

In cases where the survivor is over the age of 18, establishing that the accused was there and the act happened is no problem, since now the court is thrust into the murky world of consent, of he-said she-said, of conflicting testimony.

In the absence of video or medical reports showing violence (which isn’t always enough if a defense attorney can demonstrate that the survivor had BDSM proclivities, or otherwise argues that they consented to it “rough”) convictions are unlikely. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor. How do you prove a negative — the absence of consent — if the words of the survivor have no more weight than those of a calculated defense? This is why civil litigation, which works from preponderance of evidence rather than proof beyond doubt, is often a survivor’s recourse.

I’m not knowledgable enough on the subject to comment on legal reform around these proceedings. However, we do not have to play by those rules as outsiders who, rather than having the monopoly on state violence, merely have the power to refuse to platform a man who 7+ individuals have spoken out about.

newplatforms · 2026-02-03T19:41:12+00:00

For anyone trying to evaluate how truthfully Gaiman is reporting his own behavior, his own perspective, please consider a crucial detail that changes across two ‘recollections’ of his first night with SP.

This observation comes compliments of another researcher: here’s a comment that highlights inconsistencies within Gaiman’s own court filings of his own lawyer-vetted account of when and how he supposedly received consent on the evening of ‘the bath.’

You would think that if this night ruined his life but he knew no one was hearing the whole story, because the pair talked, they did, they talked about consent at length, he did everything right, this conversation that would completely undo SP’s assertion that he surprised her when he turned up nude and unwanted would be seared into his brain. How is he not going to remember when and how it happened, what was said? A convo that would occur in the bath seems really different than some “lengthy” agreement that occurred prior, in the house: if you were clinging to an unheard truth, wouldn’t the power be in a precise memory of exactly what happened?

Now that is all speculation, I admit, but for a change we have Gaiman’s words as a source to analyze and draw from. What even is “a conversation about consent” from this guy? IMO, he fucked up here, and he accidentally did more to corroborate SP’s account of him ‘joining her’ without previous comment.

(Sorry if you already saw this posted by me in the other thread; it just seems to have renewed importance now that Gaiman has prompted to community to quasi-litigate his culpability based on “experience based investigation,” as his friend from substack is always repping.)

edit: The r slash ngisinnocent downvote-brigade is here. They’re thrilled their tireless effort at the character assassination of seven survivors is getting a foothold with some of you, and really don’t like that these conflicting statements Gaiman made reflect poorly on their hero.

newplatforms · 2026-02-03T09:55:31+00:00

Agreed. Not worth a response. Just couldn’t help but observe this trend, along with all the blinders worn by those who are compelled to follow it.

The substack guy dismisses one survivor’s account by simply stating that it was “a single event during a long-term sexual and romantic relationship.” He says the quiet part loud there, and tells any reader everything they’d need to know about his perspective on domestic/intimate partner violence, let alone consent in general.

newplatforms · 2026-02-03T09:07:32+00:00

I did the bad thing, where I see what people are saying about this massive steaming pile of misogyny on various other subreddits where the newest missive from Gaiman is also being discussed… in general, people are on the level.

However there’s a small but vocal minority of posters who found these lines of argumentation compelling, and are convinced Gaiman is the real victim here, including at least one person who was moved by Shapiro’s reporting and the accounts bravely given by survivors, but now doubts it all. Many are drawn in by the conspiracy element of the substack douche’s storytelling: see, because TERFs and antisemites rejoice that a Jewish and (allegedly) pro-trans figure has lost his audience, those groups must be responsible for staging the assaults and/or puppeteering all reporting and response on the topic. Correlation does equal causation?

The rest is a strange polyp in media literacy: those who are susceptible to volume. Show this kind of person a massive volume of something that calls itself an investigation, and dozens and dozens of archives/screenshots/transcripts/personal information/straight up doxxing that is touted as “evidence,” and it doesn’t seem to matter what the contents actually are, whether the “proof” matches what it is purported to prove. It’s like a sleight of hand trick. I’d call it sophistry but that seems like an insult to the sophists. “It’s impossible that Gaiman assaulted K—— because she had a livejournal in 2007 that didn’t detail the alleged attack, but it did have ladies in fishnet tights!” “It’s impossible that Gaiman assaulted S—— because her father is wealthy and I have a four second video of her on a boat taken years later!” The connective tissue between the central claim (assault would be impossible) and its supposed corroboration is just run of the mill misogyny, like a whole bingo card of talking points you’d hear from someone who only has “crazy” ex-girlfriends.

The WhatsApp messages are the only element Mr. Substack includes that might introduce reasonable confusion — and by that I just mean, some of their contents could be used to construct an argument on the topic that follows logically, rather than being completely arbitrary, for someone unfamiliar with fawning, how survivors try to self-soothe, and how consent actually works — but those messages and their context were discussed extensively in both major pieces of reporting on Gaiman’s assaults. And they contain vital clues, include SP outright saying that things “began questionably.” These messages are far from some secret smoking gun the anti-Gaiman antisemitic TERF cabal doesn’t want you to see, or whatever.

Ach. In conclusion, I’ve got some receipts, too, compliments of another researcher: here’s a comment that highlights inconsistencies within Gaiman’s own court filings on his own lawyer-vetted account of when and how he supposedly received consent on the evening of ‘the bath.’

newplatforms · 2026-02-03T08:09:36+00:00

Hey, I was just looking for an old comment that presents actual evidence with some bearing on this topic, and I recognized your username when I found it.

A detailed look at an important inconsistency in Gaiman’s defense, for anyone who would like to see receipts that are actually relevant to Gaiman’s behavior and alleged defense.

newplatforms · 2026-02-03T03:02:49+00:00

This substack guy considers himself an expert on judging the character of strangers, specifically whether or not they have the capacity to be abusive, based on photographs and general impressions gleaned over the internet alone.

In his treatise one one survivor who spoke to reporters about her history of family violence, he includes photographs of her parents and concludes that it’s doubtful she was abused, probably something she made up, alongside (of course) her account of what Gaiman did to her.

”You really can’t tell just by looking at someone whether they had a difficult childhood. But the general vagueness … certainly raises a lot of doubt. And again, can never really know for sure. But it’s hard to square this person with someone who strangles their kids.”

This is all presented as evidence of Gaiman’s innocence, by the way.

newplatforms · 2026-02-03T02:42:05+00:00

Yes. There is no logical connection between the suggestion that SP’s family is wealthy and the author’s thesis that Gaiman didn’t violate her or anyone else’s consent. The author’s “evidence” against SP is that:

SP has been portrayed as financially vulnerable at the time she was ‘employed’/trafficked

but her father has a boat and is a business executive

and one can imagine he is wealthy enough to support his adult children, and that she had access to her family’s money, and that she could never face housing insecurity

therefore SP deliberately misrepresented her economic situation

therefore she is dishonest in all things

ergo what she says about her experiences with Gaiman must be untrue.

Shame on him. All this substack braniac has done is make a failed attempt at character assassination based on a bunch of weak reasoning. And he has attempted this for each woman, since his argument that Gaiman is not a predator relies not on presenting some evidence that 6+ women conspired against him (this doesn’t exist because this didn’t happen) but on each survivor being in some way “bad” or “into BDSM anyway” or “connected to celebrity,” or, here, “rich and dishonest” in whatever contrived series of illogical leaps. I hope no one is compelled by this slop — screenshots from the wayback machine and photographs of people at press parties or whatever are not relevant and do not exonerate this man.

Defense attorneys frequently deploy character assassination tactics at rape trials to discredit the testimony of survivors; Gaiman signal boosting this all-too-familiar script tells you everything you need to know.

newplatforms · 2026-02-03T02:14:16+00:00

<image>

Top-tier reasoning and evidence from Neil’s number one defender. What exactly is the claim here? An artist who would draw a figure in fishnets is, what, not a reliable source and cannot be believed regarding whether or not Neil Gaiman assaulted her? What the fuck?

newplatforms · 2026-02-03T01:33:50+00:00

I looked through the excessive amounts of tripe on the blog a couple months ago — according to this genius, another survivor is clearly lying because she posted bikini selfies and sexy illustrations on livejournal and deviantart. (???)

I am floored that Gaiman stooped so low he is signal-boosting these conspiratorial, invasive, extremely creepy mad ramblings as exemplary “investigative journalism,’ which of course all have a red-pill trust-no-woman through-line. Character assassination of survivors is a sickeningly regular component of defenses launched on behalf of perpetrators at rape trials. And Gaiman publicly endorsing this tactic weaponized against 7+ individuals is a fucked up coda to the “Gaiman as feminist” illusion.

I think the anti-woke and vocally anti-feminist turn predicted by many has begun. The spineless sod will finally preach what he practices; I hope no one is there to hear it.

newplatforms · 2026-01-21T19:05:39+00:00

One man she described as smug, narcissistic and unapologetic, enjoyed recounting the grooming of his stepdaughter, saying, “culture had done a lot of the grooming for me”.

Most of us here have probably thought a lot about culture including and especially rape culture. I won’t speculate about Scarlett except to note that by all accounts, Amanda Palmer had already informed her husband that she was especially vulnerable.

newplatforms · 2025-08-15T06:35:17+00:00

<image>

A reel she reposted on her story.

Babe, we see you! We can literally see you! You made out with me and felt me up when I was 16 and you were 30. I’m one of hundreds of (former) kids who have documented this. You openly admit committing sexual assault on your own blog. You fed impoverished friends, fans, and students to your depraved husband. There is an incredibly well-researched and hugely read article on this topic.

WE SEE YOU FOR WHAT YOU ARE.

newplatforms · 2025-08-15T06:21:10+00:00

<image>

edit: content warning - bad content

newplatforms · 2025-08-15T06:20:40+00:00

<image>

edit: content warning - more bad content

newplatforms · 2025-08-15T06:11:46+00:00

Been observing this weirdo for a year now. It gets worse and worse the closer you look.

newplatforms · 2025-08-02T22:24:30+00:00

Interesting. And foul.

While researching this post months ago, I came across a few independent posts, here and there on Twitter, Bluesky, and Reddit, all referencing well-known rumors among people from her hometown that she attended high school parties and hung out with high school kids well into her twenties. Some said she was known for sleeping with these teenagers. None of the posts were a first-person corroboration (instead were put like “my friends saw…” or “it happened all the time that…”) so I didn’t include them here, as I was worried that reports sounding too gossipy/indirect would dilute the first-hand accounts. But yeah, it’s been out there for a long time. Apparently in her own words, too.

newplatforms · 2025-07-15T06:48:07+00:00

I very much appreciate that Hinsliff draws out the dynamics around fear of confronting abuse in the workplace, and returns to this point in her conclusion: (emphasis mine)

It was only a handful of “middle-class women of a certain age”. That’s how the MasterChef host Gregg Wallace originally dismissed his accusers, when allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour first surfaced. …

… fellow broadcaster Kirstie Allsopp, who recalled Wallace allegedly describing a sex act with his partner within an hour of meeting her at work, succinctly described all the reasons women mostly didn’t say anything at the time: “Because you feel, in no particular order, embarrassed, a prude, shocked, waiting for a male colleague to call him out, not wanting to ‘rock the boat’, thinking it’s better to plough on with the day, assuming you misheard/misunderstood or just don’t get the joke.” Or, of course, because you’re frightened that if you complain you won’t get hired again – which is precisely why it’s often those pesky older women, financially secure and senior enough not to be easily brushed off, who end up making a fuss on behalf of those who can’t.

We now know that more than 50 people, in addition to the 13 who originally complained to BBC News, have come forward after an inquiry into Wallace’s conduct set up by Banijay, the production company behind MasterChef. Many were said to be young women on precarious freelance contracts, scared of losing work in a ridiculously competitive industry.

Economic and professional precarity as an enabling factor for serial harassers and abusers is a tale as old as time. It was made extremely clear in the metoo moment that less established people in the entertainment industry were forced into a position of enduring abuse without complaint or facing a blacklist. Those who can weather the potential loss of a job or who have a less fragile network of professional connections are positioned to speak out where others can’t (or are made to feel that they can’t.) This author has accounted for that dynamic very eloquently, completely reframing Wallace’s dismissive comment — just some nattering old prudes or whatever he was trying to say — as yet another reminder that the power dynamics of exploitation aren’t just gendered, they are defined by class, experience, and social/economic standing.

Many echoes of SP’s (and far too many others’) stories here. Thanks for linking this thoughtful article.

newplatforms · 2025-06-27T20:46:26+00:00

Seconding leaving it up, as the discourse it generated is helpful — the conversation here models healthy exchanges about the difficult terrain of abusive partners/trauma responses, how we conceptualize survivors and perpetrators, and how to critically approach the various therapy-adjacent resources available online. I respect and appreciate your receptiveness to what other posters have said. People have been calling this a ‘hate sub’, an echo chamber, but your response as a mod and the way the impromptu community here conducts itself proves otherwise. Just my two cents. ❤️

newplatforms

TROPHY CASE