[uid]

> I'm not sure any of this is "damning" really.

How about the part where he was in another state on the night she says he raped her?

Or the part where she left a comment on Gawker stating that he has been previously charged with rape and went to trial but got off because he knew the judge

Or the part where she deleted evidence on Facebook?

Or the part where she told Gawker that she hadn't been in contact with him since the rape but he shows a large number of messages in a pattern of obsession

Or the part where every other person who is familiar with the two of them denies even seeing a hint of abuse

Or the part where she has previously made a false accusation, of being pregnant, in order to get him to respond to her

Actually, did you read the post? This is as damming as you can get when defending yourself from a false rape accusation.

I can't imagine what else somebody in that situation could do. He is lucky he was able to track down all this information online, otherwise we could have seen an innocent man convicted.

This woman is unreliable. She also accused Arrington of hacking into Robert Scoble's Facebook account and posting as him to defend Arrington. We should have seen through this at that point, that it had to come to this is an indictment of our culture and the willingness of a few to take advantage of an unstable woman to promote their own self interest.

[marcamillion]

> This woman is unreliable. She also accused Arrington of hacking into Robert Scoble's Facebook account and posting as him to defend Arrington. We should have seen through this at that point, that it had to come to this is an indictment of our culture and the willingness of a few to take advantage of an unstable woman to promote their own self interest.

Exactly, now Calacanis, Loren & Gawker all look silly having staked their reputation with, what is clearly now obvious, this crazy, gold digger.

> I can't imagine what else somebody in that situation could do. He is lucky he was able to track down all this information online, otherwise we could have seen an innocent man convicted.

I was thinking that the entire time....at first when I heard her story, even though I didn't know her I thought it kinda strange that Calacanis and company were just piling on. Given what I know of them, that made everything feel so fishy. But I gave her the benefit of the doubt - given the gravity of the accusations.

But now....there is no doubt in my mind that he was clearly the victim of extortion by a money-grubber.

Glad he aired her dirty laundry to dry - so hopefully no one else gets duped. She seems to be a serial psycho, so hopefully there will be no more victims.

[23david]

All of the posts here with the vitriol turned up to 10 seem like either paid shills or friends / associates. Recent accounts, or accounts that just magically started commenting for the first time a week ago. A few comments on other articles, but strong comments defending Mike and Techcrunch. Sketchy stuff.

If you want to help Mike out, calling the girl a psycho / gold digger etc isn't helpful. All it makes me think is "maybe the guy tormented/manipulated her and drove her a bit nuts."

In her posts, she explained pretty clearly the way she expected Mike and his friends to respond through harassing posts and shill accounts etc. It's sad to think that's what is going on here.

WTF why make things even worse by posting the lawyer's letter, including private pictures etc. Fighting fire with fire? Won't that set yourself up for a defamation counter-claim?

[marcamillion]

Did you even look at my profile? I have no interest in this case, just calling it as I see it.

I am an HN regular with enough credibility, I think, to make those types of statements. Not sure where you got your facts from...but maybe you should actually look at the profile of the person you are responding to, before attempting to disparage my credibility.