weiners




Below is a complete log of all correspondence and conversations I've had with journalists or bloggers regarding Starchild111 and Weinergate. I had never spoken to any of these people before via email or phone previously. My first knowledge of the name/handle Starchild111, or any variation thereof, came when Lee Stranahan emailed me Sunday night (June 19). All times in the headers are Pacific as far as I know. All that follows is in chronological order. I realize that the headers aren't consistently formatted. I will update this log with any additional contacts and reserve the right to add anything that I have accidentally left out. I will highlight these changes as they occur.

Jennifer E. George
www.jennifergeorge.com
June 21, 2011

[APRIL 29, 2012 UPDATE: Added new information below]


>>>>>>>>>>

Jun 14, 2011 at 1:30 PM
Preston, Jennifer wrote:
Subject: New York Times reporter

Hi Jennifer,
I would love to talk to you about a story that I am doing. Might you be available? My direct line is 212 556 4472.
Thanks! Jennifer

Staff Writer, Social Media
The New York Times
jepresto@nytimes.com
facebook.com/nytjenpreston
(212) 556-4472

>>>>>>>>>>

Tuesday, June 14, 2011 7:22 PM
From: Jennifer George
To: Preston, Jennifer
Subject: New York Times reporter

Hi Jennifer:
Why on earth would you want to talk to me?
Jennifer

>>>>>>>>>>

Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 6:37 PM
Preston, Jennifer wrote:
Subject: New York Times reporter

Jennifer,
Will buzz you in the morning. I came across your work. Highly respected. I will give you a buzz in the morning. Looking to find people who blog/post on Twitter for a living, and someone said, you might hve some ideas, leads. Jennifer

>>>>>>>>>>

Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 9:42 PM
From: Jennifer George
To: Preston, Jennifer
Subject: Re: New York Times reporter

Okay, great. Thanks.

>>>>>>>>>>

Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 7:29 AM
Preston, Jennifer wrote:
Subject: Re: New York Times reporter

Jennifer, So sorry we didn't get a chance to talk last week. Will buzz you on Monday and give you an update. What is the best number to call?

Jennifer Preston

>>>>>>>>>>

Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 7:37 AM
From Jennifer George
to "Preston, Jennifer"
subject Re: New York Times reporter

Hi Jennifer. You can reach me at [redacted].

>>>>>>>>>>

Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 2:54 PM
From: Lee Stranahan
To: Jennifer George
Subject Question about @Starchild111

Can you please call me at 505 306 9678

>>>>>>>>>>

Facebook notification
to Jennifer George
date Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 2:58 PM
subject Lee Stranahan wants to be friends on Facebook.

>>>>>>>>>>

Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 5:41 PM
from Jennifer George
to Lee Stranahan
subject Re: Question about @Starchild111

Just googled you, and figured out what you're after. It's not me.

>>>>>>>>>>

Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 5:52 PM
from Jennifer George
to "Preston, Jennifer"
subject Re: New York Times reporter

Hi Jennifer:

Saw your story today and got a weird email from a guy named Lee Stranahan. After a quick Google search I finally figured out why you contacted me. Just wanted to let you know that I had nothing to do with this whole thing. I don't care who Anthony Weiner sends pictures to.

Jennifer

>>>>>>>>>>

Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 6:32 PM
Preston, Jennifer jepresto@nytimes.com
to Jennifer George
subject RE: New York Times reporter

Jennifer,
I understand completely. Let's chat tomorrow and I will tell you what I know. Jennifer

>>>>>>>>>>

Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 6:50 PM
from Lee Stranahan stranahan@gmail.com
to Jennifer George
subject Re: Question about @Starchild111

I'd assume you knew what I was looking into because of the subject line.

Hasn't the New York Times been in touch with you already?

>>>>>>>>>>

Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 6:58 PM
from Jennifer George
to Lee Stranahan
Re: Question about @Starchild111

I saw the subject line, but I didn't know what Starchild was. I've received a couple of emails from the NYT but she didn't say what it was about. She told me originally that she wanted to talk to me about people who use social networking professionally. Your email was the first hint I had to what it was really about. Then I googled myself and saw my name linked to the Starchild handle and mention of her story. None of this has anything to do with me.

>>>>>>>>>>

Twitter follow
to Jennifer George
date Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 7:04 PM
subject Sarah Wells (@SarahWW) is now following you on Twitter!

>>>>>>>>>>

Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:24 PM
from Lee Stranahan
to Jennifer George
subject Re: Question about @Starchild111

A number of people I've spoken seem to think this has something to do with you.

If you can call me at 505 306 9678, I can explain more. If you can be ruled out, that'd be great for everyone - -especially you.

>>>>>>>>>>

Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:32 PM
from Jennifer George
to Lee Stranahan

What would it take for you to rule me out?

>>>>>>>>>>

Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:38 PM
from Lee Stranahan
to Jennifer George
Re: Question about @Starchild111

It's.a pretty complex story which is why I'm suggesting calling. Not trying to be cryptic..

I like your blogs and stuff, btw

>>>>>>>>>>

Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 8:40 PM
from Jennifer George
to "Lee Stranahan."
subject Re: Question about @Starchild111

Can we IM on google talk?

>>>>>>>>>>

[Attempted Gmail Chat with Lee Stranahan, Sun, Jun 19, 2011 8:42 PM]

me [Jennifer George]: This is ruining my sunday evening

>>>>>>>>>>

Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 10:00 PM
from Lee Stranahan
to Jennifer George
subject Re: Question about @Starchild111

Talking via phone is one way to eliminate you...and nothing sinister..

We have a number of things in common

>>>>>>>>>>

June 20, 2011, 9:41 am

I spoke with Jennifer Preston, NY Times, via phone. I had never spoken to her on the phone before. I told her that I am not Starchild111 and I have no involvement in the Anthony Weiner story.

>>>>>>>>>>

Facebook notification
to Jennifer George
date Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 12:16 AM
subject Simon Templar wants to be friends on Facebook.

>>>>>>>>>>

date Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 10:28 AM
to Lee Stranahan
from: Jennifer George
subject Re: Question about @Starchild111

Hi Lee:

I listened to your radio show. I'm not the person you spoke to on the phone about StarChild111. I used to work at UCLA, but left in July 2010. I was also a student there in the late 80s. I worked at Reason Magazine about 10 years ago. I have no interest in, or involvement in, Weinergate.

I'd appreciate it if you would stop speculating about me online. It kind of freaks me out. I spoke on the phone with Jennifer Preston this morning. Maybe she can convince you that I'm not involved in this.

Jennifer

>>>>>>>>>>

from Lee Stranahan stranahan@gmail.com
to Jennifer George
date Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:46 PM
subject Re: Question about @Starchild111

Well, if you ask Jennifer Preston I think she'll tell you that I'm an okay person to talk to.

Do you know how I'd find out if there's a Jennifer George in the creative writing program at UCLA?

>>>>>>>>>>

June 20, 2011, 3:59 pm

Received phone call from Alison Gendar, NY Daily News, but missed it. She left a voicemail.

"Hi, this is a message for Jennifer George. This is Alison Gendar. I'm a reporter with the New York Daily News. I'd like to talk with you regarding a lot of the chatter and Twittering about Anthony Weiner and Congressman Weiner and some allegations that you possibly were behind some of the fictitious Twitter accounts that were set up and that were trying to grab his attention. This is my cell [Redacted]. Thanks. Bye."

>>>>>>>>>>

June 20, 2011, 4:09 pm

I returned Alison Gendar's call. I had never spoken to her on the phone before. I told her that I am not Starchild111 and I have no involvement in the Anthony Weiner story.

>>>>>>>>>>

Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 5:45 PM
from Jennifer George
to "Preston, Jennifer"
subject Thought this was funny

There's a Jennifer George writing for the NYT! :)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/02/opinion/02george.html

>>>>>>>>>>

Twitter follow
Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:02 AM
to Jennifer George
subject Verum Serum (@verumserum) is now following you on Twitter!

>>>>>>>>>>

Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:14 AM
from John Sexton jsexton@socal.rr.com
to Jennifer George
subject Weinergate story

Hey, I believe you were contacted by Lee Stranahan today. Im also a blogger/writer working on this story. I dont know if youre the Jennifer George were looking for, but there is some evidence pointing in that direction.

Was hoping youd be willing to talk about this and help me clear it up.

You can email me or, if you prefer, call me anytime tomorrow at [Redacted].

John Sexton
Verum Serum

>>>>>>>>>>

Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 5:14 AM PST
from Jennifer George
to John Sexton
subject Re: Weinergate story

I am not the Jennifer George you're looking for. I am not starchild111. I have no interest in Anthony Weiner.

>>>>>>>>>>

June 21, 2011
In response to twitter user @sarahWW's ("Sarah Wells") June 21, 2011 public tweet:
"jennifergeorge.com/weiner.html No interest in Weinergate? Why all the shared links about it?"
[https://twitter.com/#!/SarahWW/status/83231400584683520]

I publicly tweeted:
@SarahWW I guess I mean I'm not any more interested than the average person following the news.
[https://twitter.com/#!/blogarsay/status/83232025523400704]

>>>>>>>>>>

June 22, 2011

Google Talk/IM chat between me and someone claiming to be "Lee Stranahan" (stranahan@gmail.com)

4:36 PM
Lee: Hi.

5:20 PM
me: Hi

5:21 PM
Lee: Hey there. Thanks for IMing back. Have you figured out how weird this story is yet>

5:24 PM
me: What's weird is the fact that I've been drawn into this, when there are a couple of thousand Jennifer Georges out there.

Lee: Hang on - phone.

5:26 PM
Lee: Well, what's weird - you came up because ot the STLActivist hub post -- I'd never heard of you before that.

me: sorry, got logged out for some reason

5:29 PM
me: sorry, google keeps logging me out
are you there?

5:29 PM
Lee: yes. phone again.

5:31 PM
Lee: So, I heard of you from the STLActivist Hub post

5:32 PM
Lee: never heard your name before -- but then whem I spoke to two reporters, they both had already been aware of you

me: Did they say why? Or how? Which reporters?

Lee: Yes but I don't think it's for me to say that,

5:33 PM
Lee: Jenn Preston from the NYT and Alison Gendar from the Daily News But -- ask them. I am pretty sure they'd tell you - just not my place to say.

5:34 PM
me: Ok

5:35 PM
Lee: So that's extra-weird, really.

me: What is?

5:36 PM
Lee: That your name didn't up for them because of the STL piece -- Preston obviously contacted you days before that.

me: Yes, it's weird.

5:38 PM
me: Are you implying that Jennifer Preston has some other connection besides that search that the STLA people posted about?

Lee: Yes. Not implying. Stating as fact.
Well.

5:39 PM
me: I'll have to ask about that.

Lee: That's my understanding at least. Can I ask why you haven't wanted to talk to me on the phone? I mean -- you don't have to, obviously.

5:40 PM
But that's come up with one other person in the this story and it's strange to me.

me: I would like to have a record of what's said so that there are no misunderstandings.

5:41 PM
Lee: Sure, makes sense. Although you've talked to Preston and Alison. And I don't think I've done anything to make you think I'd misrepresent anything.

5:42 PM
me: You've speculated about voice-altering software publicly on Twitter. You've speculated about me personally on Twitter.

5:43 PM
Lee: Sure -- but ya know, honestly. I've also not said a ton of stuff I know. Not about you, but about the story in general.

5:46 PM
me: But people are still implying that I have something to do with this, and I don't, and even though there's no evidence linking me to it, it doesn't seem to matter. So what's the point of me even participating? Everything I say will be analyzed, and I'm sure you'll decide that there are "inconsistencies" in what I say, so I'd rather just stay out of it or do it in a way that's in writing, that I can make public.

5:48 PM
me: If I were to speak to you on the phone, I would have to trust you to accurately characterize what I said. And then you could imply that you're holding back information.

Lee: There's no evident at all of me holding onto 'inconsistencies' in this story. I don't have a conclusion in mind.

me: And drop little hints about how you're still suspicious.

5:49 PM
Lee: I wouldn't even have to discuss what we said. Again, I believe Jenn Preston suggested you contact me -- she or Alison will tell you, I'm a straight shooter on this.

me: Well, we're in contact.

5:50 PM
What do you want?

5:51 PM
Lee: I dunno. Do you have any questions for me?

5:52 PM
me: No. I thought you were investigating this story. Don't you have anything you'd like to know?
You contacted me.

5:53 PM
I have nothing to hide.

5:55 PM
[Very long pause.]
5:56 PM Lee?

5:57 PM
Lee: Sorry.
Kids / phone.

5:59 PM
Well, I don't exactly have any questions. I'd like to be able to cross you off my list. Preston doesn't seem to think you're involved. I don't quite know what to think.

6:00 PM
me: So it's up to me to prove to you that I'm not involved?

Lee: No, of course not.

6:01 PM
There are a bunch of ways to cross you off my list, including someone like Jenn crossing you off of HER list.

6:02 PM
Lee: But it's not your job or duty or anything to clear yourself.
"Clear" from my speculation.

me: In your show last night you said that you see some inconsistencies in things that I've said (about 12:15 mins in)
Exactly what are these inconsistencies?

6:03 PM
Lee: Obviously, whoever is actually behind this is going to deny it.
I don't think I was referring to you. Are you sure I didn't mean the JG I spoke to on the phone?

me: You said the JG who had done political work

Lee: Oh, okay.

6:04 PM
Did I get specific at all?
I just don't remember

me: No, you just hint.

Lee: I'm trying to think what I meant by inconsistent

6:05 PM
you haven't said much...to me, at least

me: Why should I?
Say what?

Lee: Not saying you should.
The real inconsitencies right now are the woman I spoke to on the phone

6:06 PM
Crazy stuff, there...
With you -- not talking on the phone is suspcious-ish, like I've said
so maybe that's what I meant...

6:07 PM
Lee: the fact that both reporters knew about you is weird

me: Why?
It's weird that I'm even talking to you here.
I have nothing to do with this.
There's no evidence.

6:08 PM
Lee: Oh -- I think you're said you don't care about the Weiner thing but you have a few blog posts that make reference to it

me: No one's even claiming to have evidence.

Lee: Well, that's not strictly true
There's some evidence -- but it's not 100% conclusive and not for me to talk about.

me: Okay, I can see how that is technically an inconsistency. Perhaps the phrase "not interested" was a mistake. I meant not personally involved.

6:09 PM
Lee: But two reporters both having you on their radar, totally independtly -- that's off.
oops
odd

6:10 PM
me: It doesn't mean that they're correct.

Lee: I know.

6:11 PM
Just saying -- it's not 'no evidence'. But not conclusive, either.

me: I know there's no evidence, because it's not true.
There can be mistaken beliefs, but there is no evidence.

6:12 PM
me: If Jennifer Preston has some evidence, why didn't she ask me about it?

Lee: Sure - but you'd have to say that, right? That's the problem.

me: Generally in this country people are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Lee: I'm not saying you're involved. But you saying you aren't involved doesn't autmatically rule you out.

6:13 PM
Well, that's true in courtrooms but not journalism. But that's why I've personally tried to leave your name.

6:14 PM
me: Well, if you're not going to ask me any specific questions and give me an opportunity to answer you, then I guess I'll go have dinner.

Lee: Have a nice dinner. Feel free to be in touch if you have any questions / requests.

6:15 PM
me: One question. Is this mysterious evidence that the Times and Daily News allegedly have something other than my resume and what's made public on my site?

6:16 PM
Lee: Yes -- it's not conjecture based on your resume at all.

me: Well, that's quite intriguing. I'll have to ask Jennifer Preston if she can clarify.
It's pretty disturbing to have people imply that they have something to hold against you but not tell you what it is.

6:17 PM
Lee: Yes, do that. Like I said -- JP doesn't believe you're involved. So whatever it is, it's not THAT overwhelming, apparently.

6:18 PM
Again -- I read the STL thing. Then I talked to 2 reporters -- I thought they'd be suprised.
Instead, they were both 'oh. yeah. we know all about her.'

me: So they know how to google the word "Starchild111" too?

Lee: So -- at that point, it's interesting to me.

6:19 PM
They both have the resources of a major paper -- it's more than googling

me: Bing?

Lee: But -- again -- not 100% conclusive. They both admit that.
LOL

6:20 PM
their proof is AskJeeves -- you've nailed it

me: Ok then. Good night.

Lee: Night.


>>>>>>>>>>

UPDATE, JUNE 23, 2011: NEW CORRESPONDENCE:

June 22, 2011
[http://twitter.com/#!/blogarsay/status/83734037142831105]
I publicly tweeted:
@NYT_JenPreston Any comment on my conversation with @Stranahan? Do you have evidence linking me to Starchild111? See: jennifergeorge.com/weiner.html#20"

June 23, 2011
[http://twitter.com/#!/NYT_JenPreston/status/83873672800108545]
NYT_JenPreston Jennifer Preston
"@blogarsay Sorry I didn't include you in story. Should I have? No evidence to connect you. So, no comment. cc:@stranahan @wittier @rocksem"

[http://twitter.com/#!/blogarsay/status/83883287130546177]
I publicly tweeted:
"@NYT_JenPreston Thank you for responding and clarifying. No, you should not have included me, since I am not involved. cc: @stranahan"

>>>>>>>>>>

UPDATE, JUNE 26, 2011: NEW CORRESPONDENCE:

from Preston, Jennifer jepresto@nytimes.com
to Jennifer George
date Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 12:15 PM
subject RE: New York Times reporter
mailed-by nytimes.com


Jennifer,

Would you please call me as soon as possible? As I told you on the phone last Monday, you are not part of any story that I was or am working on. Nothing as changed since our conversation last Monday. And, I am now learning that people are spreading lies, telling you that I am working on a story involving you, for reasons I do not understand. I am completely baffled by these claims. Please call me asap at [Redacted]. Thank you. Jennifer Preston

Jennifer Preston
Staff Writer
The New York Times
212-556-4472
jepresto@nytimes.com
Twitter.com/nyt_jenpreston

>>>>>>>>>>

from Jennifer George jennifer.e.george@gmail.com
to "Preston, Jennifer"
date Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 2:50 PM
subject Re: New York Times reporter

Jennifer:

As you know, I have taken an approach to this situation in which I post all communications related to allegations of my involvement in Weinergate publicly on my website. Therefore, I will not be calling you, since it would not give me a written record of what was said and would undermine my strategy and ethic of openness. My webpage on the matter is simply a collection of correspondence, without commentary. Communicating via phone would allow you, and me, to characterize what was said.

I imagine you have my unique policy in mind and want to use me as a conduit, since you have my phone number and could have called me. Perhaps you are dismayed by the situation but are reluctant to make a statement in a public medium. You would prefer that I take on the burden of communicating with your network of whackjobs, allowing you to avoid further sullying your reputation and that of the New York Times. In future, if you have something to say about this matter, do it publicly.

The 10 or so people who are fervently speculating about this matter online seem to be caught up in some sort of mass hysteria or groupthink, and are veering into potential vigilantism. Are these the sort of people you want to be associating with under the auspices of the New York Times?

I'm not sure if you've seen it, but commenters on at least one site are now talking about approaching one of their targets directly, in person. It appears someone has contacted one of her professors about her. She has been identified by name and publicly described as "unstable," and people are speculating about her love life.

I wonder how many other women named Jennifer George have been unwittingly drawn into this ridiculous situation, most of whom don't have the tools I have at my disposal. I have my own website, and enough experience to deal with the situation proactively and get a couple of people to say publicly that I'm not involved. Most people would not be so fortunate, and would have no effective way to defend themselves.

When you contacted me initially, you were deceptive and implied that you wanted to speak with me about a story on social networking. Is that part of the New York Times' approach, to lie to people? You'll have to forgive me if I'm reluctant to associate myself with you further.

In a situation like this, my only power is my willingness and ability to document and expose all my correspondence with those investigating me. Therefore, I will be posting your email and this response on http://www.jennifergeorge.com/weiner.html. You're welcome, and good luck.

Jennifer George
www.jennifergeorge.com

>>>>>>>>>>


UPDATE, JUNE 27, 2011: NEW CORRESPONDENCE:

from Preston, Jennifer jepresto@nytimes.com
to Jennifer George
date Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 4:05 AM
subject RE: New York Times reporter
mailed-by nytimes.com

Hi Jennifer,
I was at home this weekend and did not have your phone number, which is at my office. Hence, my email. So, I see now that you have posted my response on Twitter on your site that you are not part of any story that I was or am working on. I was puzzled why you were contacting me on Twitter when days ago ago I told you I am not working on any story that has anything to do with you.It did not make sense until I saw your IM w/Lee Stranahan. I can not speak for Mr. Stranahan or these other people who are recklessly speculating online with information that they are getting from sock puppets. I have had my own problems with people invoking my name, falsely claiming I have said this and that. And I have made it clear to all of these people not to use my name again.
I admire your approach of posting your correspondence. It certainly allowed me to see how people were spreading lies in my name. I will be formally taking care of this matter this morning. Thank you. Jennifer

Jennifer Preston
Staff Writer
The New York Times
212-556-4472
jepresto@nytimes.com
Twitter.com/nyt_jenpreston

>>>>>>>>>>


from Jennifer George jennifer.e.george@gmail.com
from Preston, Jennifer jepresto@nytimes.com
date Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 8:38 AM

Jennifer:

Just a few points from me and then I would prefer that we not limit this conversation to my website.

- If you have anything further to say about me, or to me, do it in some other public forum, in complete sentences.

- I'm not going to be your forum for damage control and I reserve the right to not publish any future communications from you.

- I publicly Tweeted @ThePublicEditor, the NYT "readers' representative", about this matter and have not received a response.

- I have no comment at this time about your characterizations of our phone conversation.

Jennifer George
www.jennifergeorge.com

>>>>>>>>>>


UPDATE, JUNE 28, 2011: NEW CORRESPONDENCE:

June 27, 2011

Google Talk/IM chat attempted by someone claiming to be "Lee Stranahan" (stranahan@gmail.com). I did not respond.

6:40 PM
Lee: Hi. Hopefully, you've seen that I've tried to be as clear as possible that 1) I don't think you have anything to do with the story and 2) that you are no the Jenny George in Massachusetts who is clearly connected to the story

6:41 PM
Lee: But if there's anything else I can do to clarify, please let me know,

>>>>>>>>>>


UPDATE, JUNE 29, 2011: NEW CORRESPONDENCE. I did not respond to either of these messages.


from neal rauhauser nrauhauser@gmail.com
to jennifer.e.george@gmail.com
date Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 1:28 PM
subject Researching Weiner stalking, not interested in you

Jennifer,

So, I am researching the Weiner stalking, I have a short list of people I know were involved, a few more that I think were involved, and I might spend another month or three watching and gathering info. You're not on my list at all. I do like Ginger Lee, Meagan Broussard, Mike Stack, and I think I know where to find the person who posed as Dan Wolfe.

I see this tiresome Stranahan fellow bothering you, and maybe this Patterico creature would like to get into the act, too. Sorry to hear you're facing this - they pulled something similar to Weinergate with me last fall, but I'm not a big fish like Weiner so it didn't go anywhere. But that's why I take this stuff so seriously.

Maybe you've been told things that would help me solve the puzzle. Feel free to whisper in my ear if that's the case, either from this one or anonymously - my email is quite public. If you're sick of it all and just want it to stop I can understand that, too ...

Neal Rauhauser


>>>>>>>>>>


Direct message sent by Ron Brynaert (@ronbryn) to you (@blogarsay) on Jun 29, 6:28 PM.

Dan Wolfe is talking to me and asked me to tweet this message, which i did http://t.co/9Oig0ZK


>>>>>>>>>>


UPDATE, JULY 1, 2011: NEW CORRESPONDENCE.


7:25 pm, June 30, 2011
[http://twitter.com/#!/LaneLipton/status/86621368833155072]
From: @LaneLipton Lane Lipton

I'm curious if @blogarsay authored this comment: tinyurl.com/3cjt5ys & if so, why she thought story was "ridiculous" Or was it impersonator?

9:36 pm, June 30, 2011
[http://twitter.com/#!/blogarsay/status/86654278915194880]
From: @blogarsay Jennifer George

@LaneLipton I did not author that comment.

10:01 pm, June 30, 2011
[http://twitter.com/#!/LaneLipton/status/86660562049695746]
From: @LaneLipton Lane Lipton.

@blogarsay that makes sense - thx J!


>>>>>>>>>>


UPDATE #2, JULY 1, 2011: NEW CORRESPONDENCE. I did not respond to this message.


from Ron Brynaert ronbrynaert@yahoo.com
to "jennifer@jennifergeorge.com"
date Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 1:29 PM
subject I sincerely apologize for any intrusion

Although for unknown reasons why she won't confirm it publicly, I worked along with Jennifer Preston on this June 17 article for The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/18/nyregion/fake-identities-were-used-on-twitter-to-get-information-on-weiner.html?_r=1) and I found the cache a few weeks before an entirely unconnected person found it and posted it on the internet, which had nothing to do with us. I can vouch that after stumbling upon your name, neither one of us thought it at all likely that you had to do anything to do with the Weinergate story, which involved the faking of identities.

I'm not privy to the first hand details of the circumstances that led others to contact you, but I can also vouch that Preston did indeed plan a future article like the one mentioned in your letter. Perhaps she might have tossed in a question about Weiner, as any good reporter would if they didn't want to spill the goods, but during the weeks we spent working on this story we had talked about similar stories.

I am not referred to in her letter in any way, at all.

After I saw the IM conversation with Lee Stranahan, I called her on Sunday night at her home and advised her to address it in exactly the manner you stated - publicly.

But I would like to plead that both Mr. Stranahan and Ms. Preston have also been punk'd by a person who appears to earn a living planting false stories in the press and blogs, and sowing division on the internet.

I am a firm believer of open source journalism but I think there are boundaries and I have been doing my best to get people to respect those boundaries.

I'm sorry you've been dragged into this mess along with other innocent people. I know that you are adding all correspondence to your page, and suggest that you add retweets and @mentions as well, especially from people who say menacing things to you, since that is one way they have been menacing many of us.

One of the emails you are displaying on your Weiner page is from a person who made indirect threats to my family on public twitter. He also writes smear letters or spreads vicious lies about other people who have been threatened such as Ginger Lee and myself and sends them to reporters and associates, which may be one reason the media refuses to report on the threats.

The very presence of the letter on your website, knowing full well that you would publish it - is his apparent method of operations. He and other "sock puppets" he appears to recruit and/or fool like to inflict confusion on their victims, by targeting people of different ideologies sometimes at the same time.

We recommend you ask your friends and past business associates if they had any communications with this same individual.

Sincerely yours,
Ron Brynaert


>>>>>>>>>>


NOTES (July 1, 2011):

1) I have made no attempt to verify the identies of any of the correspondents named on this page.

2) I am maintaining this page in order to defend myself against allegations that I had something to do with Weinergate, not to provide a platform for other people's theories, agendas, or research. Please respect what I'm trying to accomplish.


>>>>>>>>>>

UPDATE, SEPTEMBER 16, 2011: NEW CORRESPONDENCE:

https://www.hushmail.com/express/PHQR5PVL/
Password is 4472.

From: peterpavel@hush.ai
Subject: For you and Neal
Sent: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 23:49:13 -0400
To: jennifer.e.george@gmail.com

Ms. George,

You must grant me pardon. My English is not good. I am now trying to contact you regarding Neal Rauhauser. I will no longer explain. I am of confidence that you know of the situation well enough to understand.

Why the search is continue

It is for the most simple reasons I can even imagine. Security steps you have made did not work. I have now seen amateurs make the finding of you beyond what you made available for public information on the internet. This was very easy. I make no effort for finding the info. I let the amateurs do.

I decide to send this email to your gmail and not to your hotmail. I do this for the reason because you do not make it public. But now you have a mission. You should now make the contact to Neal Rauhauser and tell him of this message.

You may notice that I include no link. I not need you to click any link to capture your data. That has been done already. MD5 and more trace me to you and Neal. And the fun will begin.

If you make decision not to send message to Rauhauser (the German) it is no problem still. I or maybe I can say "we" are watching already :)

It is now the time for the end of Weinergate investigation. No more time can you remain in the background. No one will from my group can ever think to do the same you have already done to the others that are investigating this. This can not even be dreamed of. But law men will be taking this to their files:)

So now you must for this contact the Rauhauser. A method does not matter. Email I can see. Phone I can see. Chose to mail a letter with postal service? that I may not be abled to see.

Merci,

Peter Pavel L.


>>>>>>>>>>

UPDATE, APRIL 29, 2012: NEW CORRESPONDENCE:
Please note that the Twitter message referenced below is from the handle "biogarsay", with a capital "i" substituted for an "l", the two of which look identical in Twitter's sans-serif font.

-------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ron Brynaert
Date: Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: Jennifergeorge
To: "jennifer@jennifergeorge.com"

How come you never posted this on your website?

How come I got lots of weird DMs from you claiming you were hacked and calling me different names?

If you won't tell me I hope you will talk to Mike Stack and his lawyer who are trying to catch the criminal who swatted him on June 23, 2011. And NJ police.

From: Ron Brynaert
To: "jennifer@jennifergeorge.com"
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 10:11 PM
Subject: Fw: Jennifergeorge

Sorry to intrude once again,

I assume this is a hacker trick ....

Again, I'm so sorry you're caught up in this...I cant wait until this horrible nightmare ends.... I believe his is evidence of a crime so please send his to the authorities. I have a few more what I assume are fake ones from you, too.

Sincerely yours, Ron

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Twitter
To: ronbrynaert@yahoo.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2011 7:59 PM
Subject: Jennifer George (@bIogarsay) has sent you a direct message on Twitter!

Jen, has your twitter account been acting funny today too? I been hacked maybe!!
Direct message sent by Jennifer George (@bIogarsay) to you (@ronbryn) on Jul 05, 7:59 PM.