The Unsought Evidence

Anyone who read my publications about the devastating impact that cancellation had on me, and the lack of due process leading up to that cancellation should have recognized that the authors of the Open Letter and the two blogposts participated in an act that was disproportionate and extrajudicial.

I’m grateful that many people removed their signatures from the Open Letter afterwards. But those who remain may have found some comfort in a belief that they were condemning behavior that was heinous and real.

I intend to dismantle that belief by releasing my exculpatory evidence.

I have reached this decision reluctantly after careful consideration, and with particular regard for the likely impact on the two women who made the accusations. But I have tried every alternative route to exoneration and justice, and I have been met with intransigence by the authors of the Open Letter: there is no willingness to listen to me privately.

I will exercise my proportionate right to reply. The argument I will make is not one of subtlety, of nuanced interpretation, or of framing. I will not quote messages out of context and then tell you how to interpet them.

Instead, I will share my view that the allegations materially misstate events, and that they present a misleading narrative. I will show you documentary evidence, in context, so you can judge for yourself. I will show what didn’t happen, as well as what did happen.

The Evidence

My evidence will include emails I exchanged with the two accusers and third parties, 20,377 direct messages over eight months with the first accuser (whom I shall call Y) and 132,464 messages over four years with the second accuser (hereafter, V). It will include precise records of my whereabouts and whom I stayed with on every night from 2014 to 2019, derived from my phone-tracking data, travel and accommodation records. This evidence was prepared in anticipation of my legal action in 2022, and I was prepared to present it in court.

Starting today, and over the next few weeks, I will address the most flagrant falsehoods that were promoted across the three publications on 27 April 2021. At the time of writing, all three publications remain online, four years later and at least seven years after most of the events they misrepresent. And they continue to cause me harm.

Throughout, I will avoid naming the two accusers. This will not hide their identities from those who know them, but I am deliberately making it inconvenient for uninvested bystanders to target them with online hatred. I am aware that my posts carry that risk, and I wish to minimize it. I encourage others to do the same.

While both women are ultimately responsible for the words they put their names to, I speculate that that they would never have published anything without the facilitation and encouragement of the authors of the Open Letter, though I cannot speak for each author’s motives. I believe that Y and V were let down by those who endorsed the Open Letter alongside their publications as a “solution” to the problems they claimed.

For this reason, Y and V should be given every opportunity to move past this matter and get on with their lives. I would like the 23 authors to offer them better support and care now than they did in 2021. That support should be unconditional, for the simple fact that they are human beings, and deserve kindness and forgiveness.

Artificial Intelligence

I have used ChatGPT 5 extensively to evaluate my evidence. This has three significant benefits:

analysis is unbiased, objective and does not need to omit or limit context
it can analyze a larger corpus of text much faster than a human, and
it preserves the privacy of the participants.

All factual claims have been checked against the primary sources that I cite.

The truth is on my side. My extensive documentary evidence of my relationships with Y and V is hugely advantageous for the discovery of objective truth. And artificial intelligence can find and reveal that truth.

I have tried to ensure that my prompts did not coerce ChatGPT into giving biased responses, and I always show my prompt so you can make your own judgement.

The Allegations

1. Allegation: I initiated the relationship with Y at a conference

I approached Y at a conference only because Dr Heather Miller asked me to encourage her within the Scala community; for no ulterior reason. We developed a genuine and mutual friendship based on common interests, which became romantic only later, over the course of eight weeks, almost exclusively through online interactions. I felt that the words and photos Y sent me became increasingly romantic. When we met in Berlin, I was not in any doubt that Y wanted an intimate relationship, and she reciprocated when I kissed her.

Full details and evidence

Significance

Professional conferences are not intended to be a venue for romance, and women should expect to attend Scala conferences without being approached by a prospective partner. For a man to do so would compromise this expectation, and the trust of the conference organizers.

2. Allegation: I stopped Y inviting someone else to join us in our AirBnb

This refers to a specific conversation on 13 May 2018, but omits important context that materially changes its interpretation. It fails to mention two important details: the AirBnb we booked had only two beds (in separate rooms); and our conversation took place one day before we were due to arrive at the AirBnb.

Y proposed a specific mutual friend to join us, but neither of us had spoken to him about it. I rejected the suggestion because it was very unlikely that he, or anyone else, would have no accommodation booked two days before a conference. But more importantly, if we did find someone, they would have nowhere to sleep. The conversation was flirty, not tense, and continued in the same manner after this conversation.

Full details and evidence

Significance

This alleges that I made a deliberate intervention to maintain a situation where Y and I would be sharing an apartment alone together. It suggests that I did so against her will, and exploited power in doing so.

❧

3. Allegation: My relationship with V was similar to my relationship with Y

Full details and evidence will be published on 18 August 2025.