ComputerWeekly Uses Seth Rich Settlements To Smear While Evading Accountability For Their Previous False Allegations & Disinformation

ComputerWeekly tries to shoe-horn this author (Leonard) into their Seth Rich settlements story with no logical basis.  It seems that they were short on material and needed to spice up their narrative with a new conspiracy theory.  This new attempt at creating fact from fantasy is unwarranted and may be driven by ulterior motives following negative feedback on their first story.  Rather than take responsibility for false allegations and disinformation in their previously published story, it seems they have decided to resume their smear campaign because it worked so well for them the first time.

For several years, I used a pen name, Adam Carter, to write articles that generally catalogued what is known and what has been discovered about an anonymous persona, "Guccifer 2.0", who played a central role in the Russian hacking claims that came out in 2016. I also maintained a Twitter account with the same pen name.

In 2017 and 2018, I was pursued and my friends were hounded by a ComputerWeekly reporter, Duncan Campbell. Campbell saw fit to dox me and disclosed my real name (Timothy Leonard). He disclosed where I live and where I work. Campbell's actions placed my family at risk and my career in jeopardy. Campbell justifies these disclosures by claiming that I was part of a conspiracy to advance Russia's agenda to de-stabilize the political situation in the UK and the US.

Nothing can be further from the truth. Campbell has no facts: he dwells in innuendo and spins conspiracy theories. Yet, because of his irresponsible actions, I have to deal with the collateral damage that Campbell left behind (twice now). I am also left in the impossible situation of trying to prove a negative while Campbell is unwilling to substantiate his claims when challenged.

A year ago (2020) I provided evidence to the editorial staff of ComputerWeekly that showed Duncan Campbell had engaged in disinformation and made false allegations. Yet, ComputerWeekly ignored those facts and decided to call on Campbell again to produce a new hit-piece. In his recent article Campbell makes further false allegations and recycles old, discredited frames and insinuations.

The primary narrative of the new hit-piece is, fortunately, quite easy to discredit with a few simple facts and links.

It's worth noting, too, that this is the second time that Duncan Campbell has run with the "fueling Seth Rich conspiracy theories" frame, and, in both instances, he seems to just ignore or hand-wave inconvenient facts and evidence that are inconsistent with his narrative.


Campbell's First "Fueling" Seth Rich Conspiracy Theories Frame

On July 9, 2017 (almost a year after Seth Rich's death) an anonymous indvidual who goes by the pen name "the Forensicator" published an article titled "Guccifer 2.0 NGP/VAN Metadata Analysis". It analyzed a 7-zip archive file that Guccifer 2.0 disclosed (in absentia) at a computer security conference in London on September 12, 2016. Forensicator discovered that this zip file had likely been packaged a couple of weeks earlier (September 1, 2016). Forensicator saw indications that those files were likely copied locally to a fairly fast media (like a thumb drive). Further the files were probably copied on a system that had its clock set to the Eastern time zone. Forensicator disclosed an additional clue: the files had "FAT time" signatures (all of the last modified times were an even multiple of 2 seconds). Most thumb drives are formatted using the FAT file system. Therefore, it seemed likely that the contents of the 7-zip archive file had been copied to a thumb drive before being published by Guccifer 2.0 a couple of weeks later.

Well before Forensicator's analysis, the fact that the files in Guccifer 2.0's zip file had last modified dates of July 5, 2016 had not gone unnoticed (this was just five days before Seth Rich's death). Some amateur investigators, with a following on social media, deemed these files to be "the Seth Rich files". Neither this author (Leonard) nor the Forensicator ever made claims that would suggest a connection between this set of files published by Guccifer 2.0 and Seth Rich. In fact, both Leonard and the Forensicator cautioned their readers not to jump to such conclusions.

Around August 3, 2017, in response to a friend pointing out that Jerome Corsi had conflated Forensicator's work with Seth Rich, I posted a statement to Twitter warning people AGAINST assuming the analysis and discoveries had anything to do with Rich and noted that this was the position of Forensicator, myself and Disobedient Media.

On November 7, 2017, Duncan Campbell authored an article that was published by The Intercept. The article argued that findings from Forensicator's work was "fueling" Seth Rich consipracy theories (but did so on the basis of other parties conflating these when the researchers and reporters involved in reporting the findings actually cautioned against this).

In January 2018, Elizabeth Lea Vos reiterated that Forensicator's work is NOT related to Rich.

I never argued that the evidence demonstrated anything in relation to Seth Rich and neither did Forensicator or Elizabeth Lea Vos (the two people I worked with).

I explicitly argued AGAINST people conflating Forensicator's research and findings with Seth Rich theories.


Campbell's Latest "Fueling" Seth Rich Conspiracy Theories Frame

Two years after publishing the results of his "ngpvan" zip file research, Forensicator analyzed the DNC emails (released by WikiLeaks starting July 22, 2016).

In early 2019, I notified Bill Binney about the research Forensicator was doing and highlighted a familiar even-second rounding pattern that Forensicator had noticed in several batches of DNC emails. I did note, at this time, contrary to Campbell's "a new campaign that pushed information to point the finger at DNC insiders" claim, that if a thumbdrive was used, we still couldn't be sure that it was used for exfiltration.

Binney and a fellow VIPS member, Larry Johnson, then wrote an article about this of their own accord. In their article, they did state that they weren't necessarily arguing for activity at the DNC headquarters but stated that the evidence suggested someone may have copied the DNC files to a storage device and then handed that to WikiLeaks.

Following this, I wrote an article, in which I cited Binney and Johnson's article and followed it with a reason for DOUBTING a local exfiltration to thumbdrive due to the relatively slow disk-writing rates observed:

In September 2019, Johnson let me know about a new article they were working on, I warned AGAINST arguing definitively for thumbdrive use.

.In December 2019, in response to queries from Matt Couch's attorney, I advised the same and explained that I didn't feel the evidence was adequate to be considered as proof of thumbdrive use.

Campbell has tried to spin all of this into a nefarious "campaign" narrative that, unfortunately, it's now necessary for me to dismantle.

Response To ComputerWeekly's Latest Hit-Piece

Reporting by Computer Weekly was “vitally important” in ending three years of “damaging falsehoods” by Donald Trump-supporting conspiracy theorists who campaigned to hide Russian involvement in hacking during the 2016 presidential election, according to a top Washington attorney

The "vitally important" ComputerWeekly hit-piece was riddled with inaccuracies, contained bogus conspiracy theories and it was primarily about Forensicator's NGP-VAN archive study which I had already stated was nothing to do with Seth Rich almost a year earlier.

In 2018, Computer Weekly identified one of several Britons who have spent years continuously creating streams of messages and complex theories suggesting insiders, rather than Russian agents, were responsible for the DNC hacks. These theories helped to fuel and perpetuate false claims about the Rich brothers.

I reported on digital forensics discoveries, mostly in relation to Guccifer 2.0 and it's not really that complex. We have a considerable volume of evidence that suggests the origin of Guccifer 2.0's activities was in US timezones and we've found evidence suggesting some of Guccifer 2.0's Russian breadcrumbs were falsified.

This isn't to say Guccifer 2.0 had to be an "insider" but it is difficult to reconcile the evidence (when considered in aggregate) with the premise of Guccifer 2.0 being a GRU operative.

Campbell has tried to make things appear more complex by attributing conclusions and theories to people who did not hold those theories, mixing in his own conspiracy theories and attaching false cause/intent to people's actions.

After Couch published in December 2017 an hour-long video diatribe of lies about the Rich family, Leonard tweeted: “Matt & team, you’ve always had my back... anything that I can do from here, just let me know.”

One of Couch's team had shared information with me relevant to my investigation (separate from the topic of Seth Rich), another was skeptical of material relating to Guccifer 2.0 and the persona's claims about Rich being his source. If they had new material or evidence, I'd have been willing to ask contacts to analyze it, etc. (No guarantee they'd accept but I'd have been willing to try.)

Butowsky and Couch’s attorneys planned to rely on information from a mysterious source channelled to them by Leonard.

In Summer 2019, I discussed (or "channeled") some links to articles in the public domain including Forensicator's study of the DNC emails with Ty Clevenger, someone who had represented Butowsky in the past (though I wasn't aware of this until very recently). This contact, however, was in the hope that Clevenger might submit FOIAs to get more information in relation to my own investigations.

I did NOT mention anything about thumb drives, DNC insiders or mention Seth Rich's name. The only point I raised about the emails was in relation to Luis Miranda's emails being exported two days before we're told the DNC's Exchange server was hacking into as I wanted to know how and why the Department of Justice had missed or omitted this and/or whether CrowdStrike had reported the incident.

When Couch's attorney, Ed Quainton, contacted me in December 2019, I advised AGAINST arguing for a thumb drive being used and didn't provide any information from Forensicator.

However, Leonard has previously posted on Reddit that he believed Seth Rich was the source for the DNC leaks.

Sure. Rightly or wrongly, I did state this, though, it was clearly stated as a belief. It was also way back in April 2017 (before most of my reporting and before I'd met Forensicator). At the time, I found the WikiLeaks reward and Assange's adamance that it wasn't a "botched robbery" quite a compelling suggestion that there was more to the story.

Leonard was the main hub in a network supplying and publishing information about the DNC hacking to US campaigners supporting Donald Trump. He denies being employed or supported by Trump supporters.

I've not been hired or financially supported by Trump supporters. I'm sure there are Trump supporters who were supportive of my work in spirit but the same is true for supporters of other candidates too.

As Campbell likes to bring partisan affiliation and ideological leanings into his narrative so much I should point out that I actually lean left, that the last US presidential candidate I expessed support for was Bernie Sanders and that my editor at Disobeident media also leaned left and ended up supporting Jill Stein.

Computer Weekly has examined many of the documents he passed on. All of the documents checked are technically well prepared. Some show high levels of forensic analysis and understanding, but none of them prove the US government to be wrong.

With regards to the DNC emails, it shows that some of the material leaked by WikiLeaks was acquired two days before the period in which we're told the Exchange server was hacked, so, it shows that there is a critical incident relating to the acquisition of the DNC emails that has been missed (and which occurred on May 23, 2016).

It's good to see them being a bit more respectful of Forensicator's work considering they had him down as someone who didn't even know how a BASH script worked in their previous piece!

Leonard said he has no knowledge of who or what is originating the documents and charts he passes on, or their nationality. “Employment details and background have not been shared with me,” he said, admitting he had never attempted to find out who was passing him information

When they asked whether I had tried to dig for details into who my source was, my full answer was:

No. I respect my source's desire to remain anonymous and as long as his statements and claims are supported by the evidence I've no reason to try to find out this information. I endorse Forensicator's work because it's legitimate, he's open to peer review, he's been meticulous, his arguments are supported by evidence, he's happy to make corrections when the evidence calls for it and he has given me no reason to suspect any foul play, unlike the various examples we have relating to Campbell's efforts.

Regarding, "or their nationality", Forensicator is an American living somewhere on the West coast (USA) and pretty much revealed he was working from within the Pacific time zone in his first study.

Leonard does not dispute he sent Couch and Butowsky’s attorneys “Forensicator” data to try to back up claims about Rich in the planned trial. He said: “I may have shared evidence with them, but only to answer queries or provide corrections.”

I didn't send them anything to "try to back up claims about Rich".

I didn't send Couch's attorney (Quainton) any "Forensicator" data either.

So there are two things I dispute already.

I shared links to Forensicator's already published work with an attorney who had represented Butowsky in the past, Ty Clevenger, but it wasn't intended for Butowsky to use, wasn't intended for anyone's defense and wouldn't have substantiated allegations of the Rich family withholding evidence and/or either of the Rich brothers receiving payments, etc. I shared these links with Clevenger because I wanted to see if he'd be willing to submit FOIAs so that I could get more information on any references to a specific date identified on which DNC emails were exported (May 23, 2016) before the DNC's Exchange server was hacked (May 25, 2016 - June 1, 2016).

(ComputerWeekly's William Goodwin was advised of this context in response to queries on January 20, 2021 and should have known at the time of publication that this sentence from Campbell was misleading.)

While registering his campaign website name – – Leonard tweeted the suggestion that “Guccifer” might be “NOT Russian” and “NOT even a hacker”. He later added: “Those behind Guccifer 2.0 sacrificed their own hacking claims in an effort to point out that Seth Rich had dealings w/Russians when alive.” As d3fi4nt, he told Reddit: “To be clear – I believe Seth Rich was the source for the DNC Leaks."

We have evidence indicating that Guccifer 2.0's initial Russian breadcrumbs came about through a deliberate process, his choice of Russian VPN service and a proxy in Moscow (to carry out searches Campbell makes reference to) don't exactly suggest Guccifer 2.0 was serious about covering-up a Russian origin, it suggests the opposite. Also, a lot of evidence has come out since that statement was made showing that many of Guccifer 2.0's activities likely originated in the US.

As for Guccifer 2.0 not being a hacker, he fabricated his proof of hacking the DNC (apparently using Podesta attachments, which even the AP published an article about), he also lied about hacking the Clinton Foundation and it was reported that none of his hacking claims could be verified (and some experts argued that his breach methods were implausible).

The statement about Guccifer 2.0 claiming Rich to have ties to Russians was deleted as Guccifer 2.0 could have been referring to either Assange or Rich. Campbell ignores that, just three days later, I addressed this when I published an article in which I stated:

There is some potential for ambiguity but Guccifer 2.0 is either stating that Seth Rich is unsafe and may be connected with Russians - or he could be stating it about Julian Assange. - As G2 states "he's unsafe", it would seem most logical that he was referencing Assange as it's not the sort of thing you'd say in reference to someone that was deceased.

Campbell has cherry-picked at an outdated and deleted tweet and ignored the reporting that followed it three days later (which corrected the mistake).

Five months later, Leonard began channelling material from his anonymous source – material which displayed deep knowledge of the Russian hacking. He made efforts to cultivate and help activity by a group of former US intelligence officers, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). His actions precipitated the VIPS organisation to split, creating a divide between Trump supporters and others. 

Forensicator published his study on his blog in July 2017. This was later noticed by VIPS members and I was then contacted by a VIPS associate with questions. Campbell has long portrayed this as an effort to "channel information" and "cultivate" when I was just answering queries and passing questions from VIPS to Forensicator and sending back his answers.

The material didn't demonstrate much, if anything, about hacking, it was just digial forensics analysis of some of Guccifer 2.0's files that suggested the files had been transferred via a thumb drive in July 2016 and that these were organized and archived in September 2016 on a device that had it's system time aligned with the Eastern (US) time zone.

During 2017, Leonard – as “Carter” – promoted "Forensicator" charts and data to suggest that DNC data was copied onto a USB thumb drive inside the party’s Washington offices on 5 July 2016.

Actually, it was VIPS members who tied the July 5 2016 date to Guccifer 2.0's own statements about hacking and they drew their own conclusions. In July, 2017, I reported to another VIPS member that the July 5 2016 disk writing activity would have overwritten any prior dates, so we couldn't be sure about it being the acquisition and I think Campbell has probably known about this for a long time.

In August, 2017, Forensicator provided clarifications on this too, making it clear that he was not arguing for the July 5 2016 activity being directly from the DNC, again, this is something I'm fairly sure Campbell knows.

Leonard and his information provider became frustrated that one VIPS member he had tried to cultivate, former US National Security Agency (NSA) director Bill Binney, was not fully taken in. Binney told Computer Weekly in 2018 that information about this data had been “manipulated” and was a “fabrication”. The supposed date that the DNC emails were copied internally was three weeks after the Russian hackers had been spotted and removed – but five days before Rich was killed.

Binney clarified, back in 2018, that these words (those in quotation marks above) were in reference to Guccifer 2.0's documents and not my work or information provided because Campbell's first article had led people to wrongly believe that I had fabricated evidence.

Also, the files Campbell references above were not the DNC emails, they were the files from the NGP-VAN archive.

Campbell has managed to muddle up evidence from two separate incidents here.

Although Binney was a forthright Trump supporter, he refused to change his mind. He maintained that the files Leonard had relied on contained “no evidence” that copying or downloading DNC files had happened in Washington. After their attempts to keep the “insider” conspiracy theory alive appeared badly damaged, Leonard and "Forensicator" expressed anger and frustration, loudly, lengthily and, often, across multiple sites, as seen in the articles linked here and here.

Binney's position here actually aligns with what Forensicator had already published in August 2017 and what I had reported to a VIPS member in July 2017 but Campbell portrays this as though it's disagreement/defection that causes "damage" to our "attempts to keep the insider conpiracy theory alive".

In January 2019, Leonard started a new campaign that pushed information to point the finger at DNC insiders as the possible source of the stolen DNC data.

I shared some observations Forensicator had made (while he was researching the DNC emails) that seemed to suggest a thumb drive could have been used at some stage between exfiltration and WikiLeaks publishing them. There was no campaign, except in Campbell's mind.

Leonard started the new campaign by tweeting a data table (see below) that analysed files held (and still held) on WikiLeaks servers. His new “insider leak” theory was then used by lawyers fighting the Rich family’s complaints. Data and charts supporting these claims came, again, from the unknown and anonymous secret source, "Forensicator".

Well those lawyers must have missed the fact that, when I subsequently authored an article about this in February 2019, I provided a reason to doubt that the emails were exfiltrated locally via thumbdrive and argued that the disk writing rates actually suggest a remote transfer.

Leonard quoted Binney and Johnson as saying: “A savvy defense attorney will argue, and rightly so, that someone copied the DNC files to a storage device (for example, a USB thumb drive) and transferred that to WikiLeaks.”

I quoted them but Campbell misses out the other part of the quote, which was Binney and Johnson stating that they weren't necessarily arguing that this was at the DNC headquarters. I also followed that quote by explaining that it looked like the files were exfiltrated remotely rather than locally.

As the trial date approached, Butowsky’s lawyer, Quainton, notified the Rich family that Leonard would be their expert witness for the Washington libel trial.

Well, Quainton shouldn't have as I did NOT agree to be an expert witness at any stage.

The “thumb-drive theory” about the DNC insider, created and pushed by Leonard and "Forensicator"
We did not argue that this was proof of a DNC insider.
Leonard said he advised the attorneys representing Butowksy and Couch that he would “NOT argue that the DNC emails had to have been transferred by thumb drive and stated that I knew another possibility for this pattern”.

That's an accurate sentence, which obviously means it's going to be followed by...

His explanation of “another possibility” was to suggest that the hacked emails could have been sent over the internet before being put on a thumb drive by a Wikileaks helper. He did not spell out that, if this was true, the “DNC insider” theory would be untrue.

This is wrong. The "another possibility" doesn't even involve a thumbdrive and is something I updated my article to report on (a scenario in which Linux's unzip command could cause the same fact pattern) and this information was shared with ComputerWeekly's William Goodwin.

Leonard’s standard template for his articles denying Russian involvement has normally been to promote “possibilities”, intended to cause other people to take his claims further by adding additional false material and unsupported conclusions.

I have looked at possibilities and probabilities based on the evidence and speculated, but I've been clear about where I am doing that. Campbell just seems to be assuming intent here and considering his track record on producing false material, making sensational allegations where he lacks evidence and getting proven wrong by evidence, he's clearly ill-equipped to evaluate my intentions.

The February 2019 report first quotes Binney and Johnson in large letters explaining that the DNC could not have been hacked by the Russians. Leonard adds a caveat questioning where the thumb drive was used. He then reverses it, keeping open the idea of a DNC insider being responsible, saying: “Thus, this scenario does not necessarily rule out the possibility of an insider acquiring the emails.”

I did mention that some could argue that the initial remote transfer was in line with statements made by Sy Hersh (regarding DNC emails initially going to a dropbox) and that the remote transfer scenario doesn't necessarily rule that possibility out.

The large text was dictated by Disobedient Media's styling on block quotes.

Leonard said that he pushed back on certain theories relating to Seth Rich: “In 2017, I stated publicly that the evidence we were discovering did NOT support Seth Rich conspiracy theories and said that people shouldn't be making unsubstantiated claims about this. I have also combated disinformation and hoaxes in relation to Seth Rich.”

To support these claims, Leonard cited five tweets, including this one. However, in none of these does he retract his original claim on Reddit saying he believed Seth Rich was the source for the DNC leaks.

I have more examples and I did also share an article in which I dismantle a hoax from someone who suggested that they had met and received DNC emails from Seth Rich with ComputerWeekly but they don't seem to want to report on that.

Ultimately, I didn't need any more evidence than what was provided to them to substantiate my statements.

Regarding the belief stated in April 2017, it's ludicrous that Goodwin and Campbell treat it like an allegation while they have published numerous false allegations against me that they cannot substantiate, that, in some cases, are proven false and that they stubbornly refuse to correct in spite of verifiable evidence.

He added: “My editor at Disobedient Media also stated in an interview that we were in no way saying that the evidence has anything to do with Seth Rich and also advised against people mixing these things up”. Leonard was unable to provide a reference to this interview.

I don't think I was asked for a reference but the interview is available here.

When asked directly if he still thought Seth Rich was responsible for the DNC leaks, he did not answer.

My first response was:

I'm not sure who WikiLeaks source is but, considering WikiLeaks offered a reward, Hersh's recorded statements (though, he did later walk those back) and what Ty Clevenger has been reporting regarding his FOIA efforts lately, there is still reason to suspect that there could be more to the story. However, I accept this is all circumstantial which is why I've not made a definitive argument about this and why I've not made such arguments in my reporting. I think people going on about Seth Rich actually distracts from the evidence we have and I cringe when people just blurt out Seth Rich's name (which is why I've said in the past that people should not conflate the digital forensics evidence with such theories). I think it's best to focus on the digital forensics evidence rather than pursue alternate attribution theories regarding WikiLeaks sources.

When pressed on this further, I told ComputerWeekly's William Goodwin, in an email sent on January 26, 2021, the following:

It's a possibility and, while it's circumstantial/hearsay, there is still more evidence to support the premise than the "botched robbery" hypothesis. Both are yet to be conclusively proven or proven false, of course. Personally, I remain ambivalent. I don't think there was a particular point in time where something changed, I think I've just grown tired of the topic and tried to keep it at arms length as I know it's toxic and I know some people are desperate to conflate my work with Seth Rich conspiracy theories because they can't actually engage me on the truly relevant and newsworthy evidence that I've reported on in good faith.

So, although I answered this twice and explained that I was ambivalent, for some reason, they decided to omit these responses and claim that I didn't give an answer.

When asked directly, William Goodwin did not answer a litany of questions about his publication's previous false allegations and beliefs that his author, Campbell, had previously stated as claims of fact.

The “thumb-drive theory” campaign was knocked again after it was shown that WikiLeaks’ second huge batch of hacked data – the “Podesta” emails – could have nothing to do with a DNC insider, as they were a hack of a personal Gmail account. Podesta’s emails were hacked from Google by the Russian GRU. They were never in reach of insiders at the DNC for that reason

We've never argued anything about thumb drives in relation to Podesta emails and I've long accepted and stated that the Podesta emails appear to have been phished.

The Netyksho indictment, Mueller report and Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report do not invalidate Forensicator's analysis and don't have any impact on the evidence discovered that points to Guccifer 2.0's activities originating outside of Russia.

If anything, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and SSCI have avoided addressing the countervailing evidence and the only time I did see them address any of the evidence I've reported on involved DOJ prosecutor Jessie Liu making statements that do not appear to be consistent with the evidence.

Realising this, Leonard started leaving out the Podesta emails. On 20 July 2018, Leonard tweeted this revised message: “I think the DNC insider assumption is more related to the DNC Leaks emails. I’m still curious who phished Podesta and how the emails went from there to WikiLeaks.”

I'm not sure what "leaving out the Podesta emails" is in reference to and the statement cited wasn't a revised message, the tweet started with "It's a good question" (which Campbell omits) and was very likely to have just been a simple response to someone making a flawed argument about insiders and the Podesta emails.

Campbell, seems to be stripping out inconvenient context and manufacturing his own.

Alt-right US media platform Disobedient Media, which formerly published Carter’s articles and claims, has also removed all content. It was identified by media bias analysts as a “conspiracy-pseudoscience site”. Before collapsing, Disobedient Media switched to platforming North Korean propaganda. Leonard’s final article for the site promoted his “thumb-drive theory”.

Disobedient Media's editor, at the time I wrote articles for them, was Elizabeth Lea Vos. She leans left and was a Bernie Sanders supporter who ended up voting for Jill Stein. She did not support or vote for Trump. The publication accepted articles critical of the Trump administration and covered Bernie Sanders positively. The "media bias analysts" referred to are known to have been excessively critical of independent media and even rated WikiLeaks negatively despite it's record on accuracy and reliability. They were also caught lying about Disobedient Media. I'm not sure what the North Korean propaganda stuff was about as that was published by William Craddick around the time he took over as editor (and Elizabeth and I no longer had access).

As Forensicator was in direct contact with Elizabeth, Campbell's chart (posted to Twitter on February 3, 2021) is clearly wrong.

Moving away from Disobedient Media and on to the topic of my company...

Leonard told Computer Weekly he subsequently asked for the company to be restored, so he could have some income and run websites.

This is false. I did not state anything about requesting that the company be restored. I stated that the company registration was updated by my business partner and that this allowed me to retain an income because Campbell and Goodwin were pursuing nonsense theories about me getting income from my "" site when it's been the opposite of profitable).

hosting about 15 small websites running on one server at a UK datacentre

We have several dedicated servers with the hosting provider identified by ComputerWeekly and we have more servers with another provider. Campbell should already have known about at least one of the other dedicated servers based on his communications in the past (in which he was also caught making false allegations).

Blake and Leonard then connected and held public conversations on Twitter, backing Russia on issues such as the Salisbury nerve gas attacks.

Campbell has a habit of rolling with the black-and-white logical fallacy, where, if you question or express skepticism about the US or UK government's claims about Russia due to inconsistencies or anomalies you're deemed to be "backing", "supporting" or "helping" Russia.

Blake then worked with Leonard in publishing material created by "Forensicator".

I did not work with David Blake on his blog. Blake published his own analysis. His blog and articles were a surprise to me when they came out. Blake made some discoveries about Guccifer 2.0's documents that had gone unnoticed by myself and the Forensicator.

In his recently published book, "Loaded for Guccifer" [Amazon], Blake did briefly mention the reporting and work we've done and was critical of how certain other parties have reacted (eg. Campbell) however, to my knowledge, this did not include publishing any of Forensicator's material.

Leonard refused to apologise for what he said was “a belief” and not “an allegation”, adding that Computer Weekly was “hectoring me over apologising to the Rich family for making false allegations”.

When ComputerWeekly's William Goodwin asked me if I would retract a false allegation and apologize for it, I asked him to point to the alleged false allegation. He referenced a statement that started with the words "To be clear, I believe" and referenced a statement of suspicion about what the DNC/CrowdStrike would have known (with the words "I suspect" omitted) and presented this to me as an allegation.

Goodwin also presented this to me as though I had stated that I knew this to be a fact when the verb "knew" was applied to others, not myself and was stated as a suspicion, not a fact..

I explained that an "allegation" is a claim of fact not a claim of belief and asked that they retract their own false allegations (as there are claims of fact that they cannot substantiate when challenged and claims of fact we have already shown to be false) and apologize.

It seems Goodwin and Campbell cannot bring themselves to do this.


Key Facts


Campbell has produced another inaccurate article littered with allegations he can't demonstrate and has, once again, pushed claims he should have known to be false or misleading at the time of publication.

It also seems that he is eager to have the public unduly blame me for fueling "vicious" Seth Rich conspiracy theories despite the fact I've argued against such things and have called out hoaxes that supported them.

There is a lot more that can be said and demonstrated but, for now, I just wanted to defend against Campbell's latest attacks by showing where his efforts are deceptive, misleading and contrary to available facts and evidence.


Disinformation, straw man attacks (inventing conclusions and attributing them to Forensicator and attributing theories to me that I have not argued for), feeding false allegations to friends and associates, making false allegations about the evidence I have reported on (including denial of verifiable evidence that corroborates my reporting), peddling ridiculous conspiracy theories about myself and Forensicator, dragging my company in to the frame over a co-director's mistake (unrelated to my reporting and the Seth Rich settlements story), trying to have the public unduly blame me for "vicious" allegations (where I have actually called out such things and discredited hoaxes supporting them) after already doxxing me (unduly putting me and my family at risk) and refusing to correct demonstrably false allegations are all things attributable to Campbell's efforts against me so far and I have to admit that I do find his apparent malevolence disturbing.

Published: February 14, 2021




If there are any concerns or issues here that anyone would like to speak with me about, please feel free to contact me on: