OctoSue here thinks it is stupid for Jarvis to not target Susan, as herself, on Twitter.
There are reasons I chose not to do so.
First, Susan herself was suggesting it. That implies she wants to use whatever material her poorly conceived deception creates as a legal attack, filing restraining orders, lawsuits and such. This trolling tactic Rocco nicknamed as Lawfare, stating that it is a Neal thing. ;)
Second, Conspirator0 foolishly suspended my account after you guys failed to mass report it offline. While you guys think it is funny creating Tom Portnoy to threaten my wife and kids, I would only use my front facing personal account to contact Susan if that was my desire. It isn’t.
Third, when I investigate somebody privately, I don’t follow the exact trail that someone else did to confirm an identity. I chose to ignore Susan begging me to contact her via a link to Jim’s Substack after her amateurish self-email ploy. Independently I ID’ed Susan recently via shared images posted on both her deleted archived tweets from 2017 and her blog.
H/T to Erin Gallagher.
Plenty of evidence as you promised it would be, proving Susan’s identity.
So what of Susan’s personal front facing account?
I took a screenshot of it so people can see the date is today, Saturday April 23.
Susan’s front facing twitter account while online isn’t actively updated beyond occasional retweets of her blogging and photography from a few years ago. That isn’t normal behavior for someone who claims their livelihood is dependent on freelance work.
In the upper right corner of any account one can see recent pictures or GIFs that an account has tweeted. I blocked out the pictures Susan took, leaving just the edges visible. Here is the text box and date from Susan’s primary “I am a real authentic person with a passion for photography” account’s most recent photograph tweeted.
It’s April 2022.
Just like her article last week about an October safari she claims she took last year, the shoddy timeliness of her freelance work and extremely limited interactions from readers of it, indicates she can neither afford to live in New York nor go on lavish out of the country adventures whose price tags likely exceed $10K per person.
Sue is Susan as Jim has stated. Even her real account though, is now just a sock.
Still I don’t condone any of my readers throwing out her last name or tweeting at her. That is their tactic. I suggest not using it and let the authorities handle her instead. That being said, here is one change Susan has encouraged that I will now let happen:
I have decided to no longer prevent her fellow trolls like “Gael” from using her full name in their comments on my Substack.
Cue Rocco on what Rocco did:
About that @traitorflynn account that Susan via Octopus_teach sock interacted with.
Operatives make new batches of socks all the time, then park them, reserving the account to be pulled up later for another attack. Surprised they found that handle as it is definitely a good one.
I had to ban "Rachel" for spam and manipulation, like conspirator0 does.
Even though Rachel's reply to me was removed, I can still see her comment in my email, so I will answer.
Rachel, I believe that the "burden of proof" is a legal term, and if there was legal action taken by one of the parties involved then ,yes, it would apply.