Content warning: this article contains discussion of rape and sexual assault

After almost a year’s silence on the matter, author Neil Gaiman released a statement this week to once again deny the allegations of sexual assault against him.

The allegations against Gaiman date back to 2024. They were first reported on the Tortoise Media podcast *Master: The Allegations Against Neil Gaiman.*The New York Vulturethen published a more lengthy – and widely read – article in 2025 entitled:

There Is No Safe Word

How the best-selling fantasy author Neil Gaiman hid the darkest parts of himself for decades.

Beginning with an initial two, eventually nine women would come forward with allegations including rape, other forms of sexual assault, and non-consensual and un-negotiated BDSM practices. Many of the descriptions are graphic in the extreme, and I try not to repeat them here without need.

‘I should have done so much better’

At the time, 14 January 2025, Gaiman put out a statement on his blog denying the accusations. He described re-reading messages from the accusers on the dates of the situations they described as assault – messages which displayed consent.

These messages are now a matter of public record. They do appear to display consent, although the Vulturearticle framed this as a product of being scared to upset Gaiman.

In his statement, Gaiman also wrote:

And I also realise, looking through them, years later, that I could have and should have done so much better. I was emotionally unavailable while being sexually available, self-focused and not as thoughtful as I could or should have been.

However, he also stated unambiguously that all of his relationships were consensual, and that:

Some of the horrible stories now being told simply never happened, while others have been so distorted from what actually took place that they bear no relationship to reality. I am prepared to take responsibility for any missteps I made. I’m not willing to turn my back on the truth, and I can’t accept being described as someone I am not, and cannot and will not admit to doing things I didn’t do.

However, production companies moved quickly to cancel adaptations of Gaiman’s works across stage and screen. These projects included a musical version of *Coraline,*a Disney production of *The Graveyard Book,*and the Netflix adaptation of Dead Boy Detectives.

‘Smear campaign’: Neil Gaiman

Gaiman then remained relatively removed from the public eye for over a year. However, on 2 February 2026, he posted a new statement. Again, he denied all of the allegations against himself:

I’ve learned firsthand how effective a smear campaign can be, so to be clear:

The allegations against me are completely and simply untrue. There are emails, text messages and video evidence that flatly contradict them.

In particular, Gaiman decried the “echo chamber” of journalism reporting on the allegations. He spoke about his conviction that the “truth would, eventually, come out”:

I expected that when the allegations were first made there would be journalism, and that the journalism would take the (mountains of) evidence into account, and was astonished to see how much of the reporting was simply an echo chamber, and how the actual evidence was dismissed or ignored.

Then, he went on to single out one blogger whom he believed exemplified the journalistic rigor he’d expected:

I was a journalist once, and I have enormous respect for journalists, so I’ve been hugely heartened by the meticulous fact and evidence-based investigative writing of one particular journalist, whom some of you recently brought to my attention, who writes under the name of TechnoPathology.

This investigator, Technopathology, produced pages and pages of reporting on Gaiman, under the umbrella title of “Neil Gaiman is Innocent”. Gaiman actually linked to the introductory page of the Substack blog in his statement.

Technopathology and ‘Neil Gaiman is innocent’

For full disclosure, in writing this article I read a lot of Technopathology’s blog, but not all of it. There is an awful lot to get through, and I have other articles to write. The author makes some valid points about the overall timbre of the reporting and its motivations, and some that I found reaching or off-mark. I’ll get to them later.

Technopathology’s introduction to their extensive project contained a complaint that there was “no room for nuance” in the reporting on Gaiman:

Even requiring evidence was deemed to be ‘‘victim blaming’’. No deviation from the party line, (that is to say – utter and complete condemnation) went unpunished.

This type of complaint will be familiar to anyone who observed public reactions to the MeToo movement. Technopathology talks about the importance of the MeToo movement, but couples that with their disbelief in the specific allegations against Gaiman.

In the introduction, the author mentioned something that made me sit up in my seat:

I wasn’t completely unprepared, I am after all a journalist and make all of my paltry income from writing. I have a steady beat with technology trade magazines, and used to pen a lot of political articles for The Canary. But I had no idea what form the investigation should take. It was new territory.

So, a fellow (ex-)Canary writer. One other mention of theCanaryon the blog indicated that they were around for the inception of the site, long before my time or that of most of the current employees. After a bit of digging, we’re confident in our guess on who they are, but that’s not terribly important for this article.

Fact and speculation

Some of the points that Technopathology raises in their articles are valid. In particular, they highlight that the allegations against Gaiman were gleefully seized upon and amplified by elements of the far-right, including Nazi-types and transphobes, due to Gaiman’s Jewish heritage and outspoken support for LGBTQ+ causes.

However, other conclusions that they draw are much more of a stretch. This includes speculation that one accuser, Caroline Wallner, could in fact have known another, Scarlet Pavlovich, before they made their allegations, which could potentially cast doubt on the similarities in their accounts of Gaiman’s behavior.

The problem is that Technopathology’s speculation rests on the fact that Wallner is a friend of Michael Stipe, the lead singer of REM:

Interestingly, Michael Stipe is good friends with Tilda Swinton, who Scarlett Pavlovich says personally gave her a scholarship to her school in Scotland. I’m not altogether convinced that there was no prior contact between the accusers, so these degrees of separation are interesting.

This is quite an extraordinary reach, even if it is framed as a speculation.

Consent is consent

However, and most importantly, I feel that Technopathology elides some of the features of the cases that simply shouldn’t be ignored. For example, the blogger highlights one exchange between Pavlovich and Gaiman, and the way the Master podcast framed it. Pavlovich told Gaiman that:

I have told Amanda [Palmer, Gaiman’s then-wife] that even though it began questionably eventually it was undoubtedly consensual and I enjoyed it.

Technopathology then highlighted their problems with the the reporting of the exchange:

Master of course zooms in on ‘’questionably’’ rather than ‘‘undoubtedly consensual’’. Questionable does not mean non-consensual, and it’s not certain what element is questionable. There’s always ways to do better.

I would point out that if the very first sexual encounter between two people features ‘questionable’ consent, then that’s no consent at all. If consent isn’t firmly and unambiguously established beforehand, it can’t be gained retroactively when people are left to decide what happened. That’s not how this is meant to work.

Pavlovich’s relationship with Gaiman began the day she arrived at his house to work informally as a nanny. Gaiman ran her a bath in the middle of the garden. He then later climbed in with her. Technopathology quotes from Pavlovich’s interview on Master regarding the encounter:

“He ended up sort of asking me to put my legs down and I ignored him.”

We should note that he is ‘asking’, she is not compelled to put her legs down, thus revealing her body.

But the next time he asks, she does. There is no force here. This is an action freely taken, at Gaiman’s request.

“He asked me again and sort of gestured, so I put them down.”

Again, the problem with Technopathology’s framing here is that when Gaiman made a sexual advance that Pavlovich didn’t take up, *that should have been the end of it.*Anything after that point carries an implicit threat, because it doesn’t take a lack of ‘yes’ as an answer in itself.

Neil Gaiman and Technopathology

Technopathology later writes that:

Reluctant consent vs enthusiastic consent is a big topic of discussion, but its a lot to go into here. Suffice to say, in legal terms, even reluctant consent is still consent – and it’s not clear if she was reluctant at the time or if this a later reframing. Certainly the WhatsApp messages affirm an enthusiastic consent, effusively and repeatedly.

Definitions of sexual assault and rape vary from country to country. As such, I’m not particularly concerned with guilt or innocence in the law, and I won’t make pronouncements on it.

However, what I will say with confidence is that anyone who was particularly concerned with consent probably wouldn’t show up naked to a bathtub someone else was in without asking first.

Even if they missed that detail, making requests that the other person doesn’t acquiesce to isn’t a prompt to ask again.

Technopathology, among their many articles on Gaiman’s purported innocence, analyses a lot of situations and exchanges around Gaiman in similar detail. You can go read them if you like.

However, I chose the bathtub scene as an illustrative example. The fact that Gaiman pointed specifically to Technopathology’s Substack as the kind of journalistic integrity he expects is a point that I find damning in itself.

Yes, Technopathology poured at length over the reporting and some of the dubious motivations behind it. They also took it upon themself to scour the accusers’ stories for inconsistencies. However, the blogger’s actual understanding of consent is very, very different to mine, and – I would hope – most everyone else’s, too.

If that’s what Gaiman thinks is proof of his innocence, I’d hate to see his definition of guilt.

Featured image via the Canary

By The Canary

From Canary via This RSS Feed.