Can you explain this claim? He googled the sender's name and came up with news of an acquistion with that person's name. Is the claim that the email wasn't really from MarXXXX?
Re-read it. #1 the recruiter (Maxine) didn't really work for the famous googler she claimed to work for. She worked for #2 who was just a regular old manager.
I see the claim that she is a recruiter in the article. I do not see the evidence for that claim.
I don't think the article establishes that googler #1 (with the name MARXXXXX) is Maxine. It's all very confusing; why mask out the name in one place, then use it elsewhere? And why would a web search turn up that MARXXXX exists and then we decide that Maxine may not exist "Max will never meet Maxine; she probably doesn’t even exist".
Where is the evidence that #1 works for #2? I see the claim, but what is it based upon?
"Maxine" and "MarXXXX" are different people, I think. The article is confusingly written. I think "Maxine" is a third person (or non-person) brought in by #2 (DavXXXX) to do the first in-person meeting with Max (the author); #1 (MarXXXX) was never going to meet with Max, at least outside of Mountain View.
Her comments questions and tone in the first phone call were totally that of a recruiter and not at all those of someone in M&A trying to start talks for an acquisition.