[rdiddly]

I'm sympathetic to the author but now I'm finding the epistemology here interesting to talk about.

Firstly I generally think of information provided voluntarily as being more suspect than that which is elicited, coerced or happenstance. Think of the criminal who under questioning volunteers to "help" the cops by putting them on someone else's trail with a false accusation. (Made to seem offhand, of course.)

This applies to the stalking example too - in terms of possibly being able to frame and spin something by mentioning it first, when you know some version of it is going to come out regardless.

I agree with your point about written records, at least to the extent that writing behooves the writer to consider things carefully. Although it still doesn't preclude someone's being inept or unwise about it.

Just speaking generally, not necessarily about this case.

[ironmagma]

While in that particular case, volunteered information seems suspect, I would argue that is only so because the person providing it is already under questioning for something. The would be the exception rather than the rule, since in the vast majority of cases, no attention is the desired scenario for a person who has done someone else wrong. And generally speaking, the easiest way to achieve zero attention is by not informing others as to the existence of a situation.

[rdiddly]

Indeed - the "hope no one notices" approach!