Friday, 11 October 2013

A Shocking Allegation Against Duns

A shocking set of allegations have been made about Jeremy Duns. You can read them here.

Obviously I do not know if they are true or not - and unlike Duns I think everyone is entitled to a fair hearing.

But the bullying, sexism and threatening stance is in line with the issues I have raised on this blog.


  1. As I just told you on Twitter, I've answered these absurd allegations already - they're from March. I have no links to security services, ahve never hired a tracing agent or PI, and simply used Google, and I was also doing this person a favour in showing they weren't in fact Assange! My 'attacks' were perfectly reasonable criticisms of their hiding behind an alias - which had a LinkedIn profile so is in fact a sockpuppet - to make their own criticisms (or attacks, if you want) of others.

    Why air unsubtantiated allegations without checking? If you have any further questions, just ask me directly. But that entails a dialogue.

  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  3. The of marthagroup is restricted and reveals absolutely no information. The article in which he briefly appeared reasonably speculates about just how Duns could be so sure that he had personal information that was impossible to obtain.

    "Throughout the whole of the 11th of March, Jeremy Duns continued to attack the @StjarnaFranfall Twitter account and the concept of anonymity. His rationale for this attack was that a photo of Grace Kelly and a name meaning "star decline" amounted to a fake identity, not an avatar. He then tried and failed to make harassing telephone calls. Duns knowledge and certainty (see images) that an Orange mobile telephone account was linked to MarthaMitchellEffect makes it likely that he'd obtained private information because I have not held an Orange account for over 6 months, my old number was never put online and the previous number does not appear in cached web pages. After this I blocked his Twitter account. Where did Jeremy Duns get this private information from? Has this information been obtained by him through gaining possession of my old and current IP addresses? Was a tracing agent or private detective used?"

  4. Oh, hello, Iain. I'm afraid I've had enough of your nonsense now. Yes, your article does indeed *speculate* about me. It's sheer speculation, without any evidence whatsoever. It's also completely wrong. You insinuated I'm involved with British intelligence agencies (!), and that I used a 'tracing agent' or private detective to discover who you were. None of that's true. Several people on Twitter were claiming you were Julian Assange. As I've told you already, I simply used Google to figure out that you weren't - it took around 10 minutes, from memory - and then corrected that misapprehension by pointing out on Twitter that you are in fact someone else entirely, an artist called Iain. I didn't say any more than that.

    But your bad faith is really rather annoying. The last time I discussed this with you on Twitter, you claimed that I had emailed you posing as the journalist (and plagiarist) Nate Thayer, asking you to hack me. That's a curious allegation to make - I'd hardly be likely to invite that - and you had no evidence to support that allegation either. Unsurprisingly, because it's also false. Perhaps consider it might have been Nate Thayer. Just a thought.

    Despite my trying to explain to you politely that I found out who you were simply by using the internet, you refuse to accept this. You are now pushing me on this point on this rather hateful site, the sole purpose of which is to defame me. So I'll explain it to you in detail. It might make it clearer to you that I was previously doing you a favour in not doing that. But you asked for this.

    It's true that the registration details of, your current Assange-supporting defamation-friendly website don't reveal anything about you personally:

    They do reveal that the site was set up on November 26 2012, and that you used the French domain name registrar Gandi. Julian Assange also used that registrar when he set up one of Wikileaks' sites:

    Some journalists thought this suggested you were Assange. Obviously, it doesn't. Gandi has a lot of customers.

    But you're forgotting that this isn't the only site you've set up. On September 6 2012, someone registered

    And it's clear that this was also you. Apart from the identical main body urls, the chances of someone else thinking up that domain name, and registering a defunct website with it a month earlier is extremely unlikely. Looking more closely, I saw that some material on the site concerned Julian Assange, and was credited to one 'Stjarna Verkare', ie the same person as the other site. I found this on this entirely public cached page of the website:

    And the registration details of that domain are here:

    So, clearly, you were and are Iain Struth. You set up and then decided it didn't quite work for your purposes, I guess either because it revealed you were based in the UK, sounded too corporate or you realized you'd revealed your own name registering it, or perhaps a combination. So you scrapped it and set up the new website, from which you've been spectacularly missing the point and libelling people since.

    I think that's enough. If you still seriously doubt that I also found a (defunct) phone number for you on the internet, let me know. I can explain that in detail, too, providing links. Okay?

    I'd love an apology for the 'tracing agent' and private detective smears, Iain. But I somehow doubt one will be forthcoming.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. How odd - I can't seem to access the cached page I linked to yesterday. Never mind, there's plenty still online. Here's a comment of yours in which you linked to the website

    Hovering over your name on that comment shows it is yours.

    You also repeatedly tweeted links to, all of which are still public:

    There are no doubt others. Of course, the record has been slightly distorted here, because you changed your Twitter name to 'marthagroup' after I 'exposed' you by revealing your name was Iain (although you've kept the Grace Kelly avatar). All of the above tweets were in fact made when the account was still called 'StjarnaFranfall', as you note yourself in your article and show with screenshots. Cached versions of your tweets also show that the website was yours:

    You also signed articles that appeared on this website with the 'Stjarna Franfall' identity and avatar, linking to your Twitter account:

    'Stjärna Franfall' absolutely was a sockpuppet identity, by the way, because you pretended it was a real person, under that name and 'Stjärnare Verkare'. Sure, the names mean something rather nonsensical in Swedish and your picture was and is of Grace Kelly. But you knew perfectly well that many would assume it was a person nonetheless, and you deliberately created the impression 'she' was a woman, even going so far as to set up a LinkedIn account for 'her':

    'Stjärna' is not a journalist, but a figment of your imagination. And you're still doing this: your comment above links to a Google Plus account, where you identify as 'her':

    Once again, the registration details of the website are public, and give your name:

    And you're a him, Iain. Not a her.

    I wasn't the first to spot that you goofed with the registration, as the comment from 'butchersapron' in November 2012 shows:

    So this wasn't, as you claim, 'personal information that was impossible to obtain' from the internet. You registered the website under your own name, and a simple online search revealed it. *You* made the information public, not me. I just found it via Google. I didn't need to meet anyone in a trenchcoat on a park bench.

    Your absurd claims in the same post that Guardian journalist James Ball could have been breaking the law and might therefore be liable to be imprisoned for two years are also worth considering in this light (ie that you don't have a clue what you're talking about).

    Happy to show you how I find an old phone number for you if you want. Alternatively, you could admit your accusations are all nonsense and that in fact you publicly registered the site under your own name, making it easy to find for anyone who knows how to use Google.