The many fake identities

A coordinated disinformation campaign is being conducted through a network of at least ten fabricated online identities.

While tactics vary, with some accounts impersonating me and others not, their synchronized posting of identical false narratives and avoidance of facts reveal a unified operation.

A significant body of evidence provides a strong, direct link between this fraudulent network and Mr. Simon Griffiths, establishing his central involvement.

The precise nature of his role, whether as the primary orchestrator or a key participant, is the critical question that follows from this established connection.

simonsospan13 is a handle used by Mr. Simon Griffiths.

Cwshty griff is another handle used by Mr. Simon Griffiths.

This seems to be a slip, the writer states:

which perhaps provides some insight as to who the real writer is.

The comments of sickofit565@yahoo.com

In the following screenshot, Simon Griffiths refers to the writer behind the email address as Kisha.

Here are some of the many emails received from that address.

The simonsospan13 handle used by Mr. Simon Griffiths can be seen in the next comment

In this screenshot the user states:

Yet in this screenshot the user stated:

In the above article published on 3rd February 1989, Alan Delaney was said to be 48 years old.

In 2024, Alan Delaney would be 82 years old.

My birth certificate shows I was born in 1956, which makes me 67 years old.

Mr. Griffiths changed his profile picture to an old picture of me.

That picture was cropped and used in the blatant attemps to make out I was a peadophille

Cwshty is another handle used by Mr. Simon Griffiths.

This fake identity has used my name, an old picture of me, and created an email address and a YouTube account using my name.

Some of the posts:

I did not say that there was a drug ring operating out of College Street.

I did report on the fact that Trang Thanh Tran was the leasehold owner of Sophia Nails at the time the noises were recorded, and she was convicted for her part in a police operation that was named operation Violet Panama.

The writer seems to accept that the noises do exist but fails to explain the noises of children that were recorded, or the references to death.

After the civil court case Gareth Edwards sent me the following email, it seems that he did incur a significant financial loss.

The court transcript can be read here.

This narrative is inverted.

Our charitable activities were never a topic of our promotion but were raised by critics in an attempt to discredit us.

When falsely characterized, we corrected the record with facts.

Transparency in correcting a defamatory misstatement is not 'highlighting' charitable works.

It was the writer who first mentioned our charitable work, we only replied to put the record straight.

The claim that we lived on a 'remote farm' as part of a predatory scheme is a malicious fiction.

We resided in the village of Nickolaevka, a short drive from Varna.

Our engagement with local schools was transparent and welcomed: my wife taught English voluntarily, and we donated educational equipment to three schools.

To liken this positive community contribution to the crimes of Jimmy Savile is not only false but a deeply offensive analogy designed solely to provoke disgust without evidence.

The theory that the recordings were purchased from 'underprivileged people' is not only baseless but logically incoherent.

It does not account for the multiple five-hour duration recordings of the material, the complex acoustic environment containing machine noises and gunshots, or the spontaneous cries and screams.

This implausible explanation is offered precisely because the critic has no legitimate answer for the content of the recordings themselves.

Our support for microfinance platforms like Kiva and Zidisha is being deliberately misrepresented.

These are structured, peer-to-peer lending platforms where lenders have no direct contact with borrowers.

Funds are distributed electronically through the agency.

The claim that this enables 'cheap voice samples' is a non-sequitur, revealing the critic's ignorance of how these organizations work.

The true value is not in trivial dollar sums but in the aggregate impact: these platforms have enabled over $5,700 in loans (from my donations) to real entrepreneurs, facilitating tangible economic independence.

Having failed to discredit the evidence with fabrications about our personal lives, the critic now resorts to vague, racist insinuations ('sounded particularly Vietnamese') and promises to dig into unrelated business histories.

This is a classic smear tactic: when you cannot address the substance (the unexplained, disturbing recordings), you attack the character of the person presenting it.

We welcome scrutiny of facts.

We dismiss campaigns built on defamatory fiction.

The central, unanswered question remains: what is the true origin of the cries, screams, and gunshots captured on our recordings?"