You are on page 1of 30

William N.

Evans
[address redacted]
[address redacted]

March 19, 2018 ATTN: DEMAND LETTER

Brennan M. Gilmore
[address redacted]
[address redacted]
[address redacted]

Andrew Mendrala, Esq., and Aderson Francois, Esq.


Attorneys for Brennan M. Gilmore
[address redacted]
[address redacted]
[address redacted]

Mr. Gilmore, Mr. Mendrala and Mr. Francois,

On March 13, 2018, Mr. Gilmore and his counsel published false and defamatory
statements about me, using my YouTube and Twitter handle “SonofNewo”, in a
Complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia.1 Since its
publication, Mr. Gilmore and Mr. Mendrala have spread the false and defamatory
statements in the Complaint to a national audience through media interviews,2 in an
opinion column,3 and in a televised interview on CNN.4
The deliberate intent of this media campaign is to spread false statements,
insinuations, and associations that injure my reputation. I demand that Mr. Gilmore
issue a public correction and an apology by April 2, 2018, for the reasons stated herein,
and further demand that Mr. Gilmore and his counsel remove the false and defamatory

1 Complaint, Brennan M. Gilmore v. Alexander E. Jones et. al (W.D. Va., filed Mar. 13, 2018).
2 See, for example, Sam Levin, Suit claims Infowars' Alex Jones stoked harassment of Charlottesville
witness, The Guardian (Mar. 13, 2018) (news article quoting interviews of Brennan Gilmore
and Andrew Mendrala); Dahlia Lithwick, Fake News Goes to Court: Will Fox News and Alex
Jones have to pay for pushing bogus stories about real people?, Slate (Mar. 16, 2018) (quoting an
email from Brennan Gilmore).
3 Brennan Gilmore, Alex Jones is a menace to society. I’m suing him., Washington Post (Mar. 14,
2018).
4 CNN Reliable Sources, Interview of Brennan Gilmore and Andrew Mendrala (Mar. 18,
2018).

1
statements from the Complaint by filing an Amended Complaint that does not mention
me or my pseudonym “SonofNewo” as soon as practicable, but no later than April 2,
2018.
Brennan Gilmore’s Complaint is for defamation and intentional infliction of
emotional distress. It is filed against seven distinct people (“Defendants”), none of
whom are me, and two companies with which I do not have, and never have had, any
affiliation. Although some of the Defendants are public figures, I do not personally
know any of them, and have never spoken to any of them. The Complaint does not
directly say that I am associated with the Defendants, but it implies that I have an
association with them. To be clear, I have never had any association with any of the
Defendants.
I was not involved in the production of any of the articles or videos that the
Complaint alleges to be defamatory and/or emotionally distressing to Mr. Gilmore.
Moreover, I cannot recall having read any of the articles, or having seen any of the
videos, that the Complaint alleges to be defamatory and/or emotionally distressing to
Mr. Gilmore. The Complaint directly says that I was influenced by these articles or
videos. To be clear, I was not influenced by any of these articles and videos when
making any of my public remarks about Mr. Gilmore.
Mr. Gilmore states in the Complaint that he is suing the Defendants because
“[f]act-based journalism is essential to our democracy, because it provides citizens with
objective, reality-based information on issues of public concern.”5 Without saying
anything about the Defendants or their work, I wholeheartedly agree with this
sentiment. I am a “fact-based” journalist myself, and I have sought over the past seven
months to investigate the August 12, 2017 car attack in Charlottesville. My YouTube
videos have shed light on facts and testimony that have not been covered by the
mainstream media, and have been viewed hundreds of thousands of times by interested
members of the public. I am also a lawyer, and am currently engaged in litigation with
the local government in Charlottesville to gain access to evidence of the August 12, 2017
car attack that has been unlawfully concealed from the public.6
Part of my investigation concerns the public statements of Brennan Gilmore. To
be blunt, I have determined that he misled the public in TV interviews in the days after
the car attack, and that he lied to me on Twitter last month when I asked him about it. I

5 Complaint at 3.
6 See Samantha Baars, Conspiracy theory? Petitioner wants videos of fatal crash released, C-Ville
Weekly (Feb. 14, 2018), < http://www.c-ville.com/videos-of-fatal-crash/#.WqqP3-jwbIU >

2
explained my reasons for reaching this conclusion in several of my YouTube videos,7
and I do so again in the attached “Analysis of Brennan Gilmore’s Charlottesville
Testimony”. I have repeatedly asked Mr. Gilmore to contact me if I have misstated or
misinterpreted his public statements in any way. He has not done so.
Rather than address this analysis and my conclusions about his Charlottesville
testimony, Mr. Gilmore has defamed me. His Complaint, and the media blitz that
followed, baselessly associate me with the Defendants, who he says “spread lies to
construct false narratives”8, “break legal guidelines” and “launch[ ] harmful
accusations.”9 His Complaint also baselessly and deliberately associates me with other
individuals who, according to Mr. Gilmore, have committed serious criminal offenses.
Finally, his Complaint contains three pages of false and defamatory statements that are
directly about me.
There was no reason to include me in this Complaint except to defame me by
association and through the false statements therein. These statements about me are
wholly unconnected with the rest of the Complaint and Mr. Gilmore’s causes of action
against the Defendants, and do not enhance his case in any material respect. Thus, the
baseless associations and false statements appear to have been maliciously included and
published in the Complaint in order to defame me. They are damaging to my
reputation and career as an independent journalist and lawyer.
In the bulleted paragraphs below, I set forth some of the baseless associations
and false statements in the Complaint. The following list is not comprehensive.
 Part IV.C, subheading “C. Conspiracy Theories About the Attack”: Mr. Gilmore
accuses the Defendants of publishing defamatory articles and videos about
him.10 Mr. Gilmore impliedly associates me with these Defendants by
naming me in the Complaint. To reiterate, I have no association with the
Defendants, and had no involvement in the production of these articles and
videos. Any statement, suggestion or insinuation to the contrary is false and
defamatory.

7 See, for example, “Charlottesville EXCLUSIVE: Brennan Gilmore's BREAKING NEWS to


SonofNewo” (published Feb. 20, 2018) < https://youtu.be/4J3PCru63zE >
8 Complaint at 3.
9 Dahlia Lithwick, Fake News Goes to Court: Will Fox News and Alex Jones have to pay for pushing
bogus stories about real people?, Slate (Mar. 16, 2018) < https://slate.com/news-and-
politics/2018/03/fox-news-and-alex-jones-could-pay-for-pushing-fake-news-about-real-
people.html > (quoting an email from Brennan Gilmore).
10 Complaint ¶¶ 32-58.

3
 Part IV.D, subheading “D. Threats and Harassment”: Mr. Gilmore lists “threats
and harassment”11 that, he says in ¶ 59, are the “direct and foreseeable result” of
the Defendants’ publication of articles and videos about Mr. Gilmore.12 This
section refers extensively to my behavior, thereby implying that my words
and actions are the “direct and foreseeable result” of Defendants’ articles and
videos. To reiterate, I have never spoken to any of the Defendants, and I do
not recall, prior to the filing of this Complaint, having ever read any of the
articles or viewing any of the videos listed in the Complaint. Thus, I was not
– and moreover, could not have been – influenced by their articles and videos
when I made public statements about Mr. Gilmore. Any statement,
suggestion or insinuation to the contrary is false and defamatory.
 In ¶¶ 60-66, Mr. Gilmore lists internet threats and harassment that he says
occurred in August 2017. He says that internet trolls doxxed his parents’
address on 8chan13 and sent him threatening messages on Twitter and
YouTube,14 and says that he and his parents were forced to contact the local
police, the FBI, and the State Department to protect themselves.15 Mr.
Gilmore impliedly associates me with these accusations by putting them all
under the banner of “continu[ing] . . . threats and harassment” that are,
according to him, the “direct and foreseeable result” of Defendants’ actions.
For the record, I had nothing to do with these things, nor any association with
the people who did. Any statement, suggestion or insinuation to the contrary
is false and defamatory.
 In ¶ 67, two paragraphs before he begins making false statements directly
about me, Mr. Gilmore says that he “was physically accosted on the street in
Charlottesville by an unknown person after concluding a brief television
interview“. Mr. Gilmore impliedly associates me with this criminal offense
by putting it under the banner of “continu[ing] . . . threats and harassment”
that are, according to him, the “direct and foreseeable result” of Defendants’
actions. He also impliedly associates me with this criminal offense by placing
it on the same page as his first false statements about me, with no section break.
Later, in ¶ 88, Mr. Gilmore directly associates me with this criminal offense.
For the record, I have no knowledge of or connection with this encounter, and

11 Mr. Gilmore alternately describes the “threats and harassment” listed in this section,
including my Tweets and YouTube videos, as “hatred and violence”. See Complaint ¶ 59.
12 Complaint ¶ 59 (emphasis added).
13 Complaint ¶¶ 60-61.
14 Complaint ¶¶ 62, 65.
15 Complaint ¶ 63-64.

4
I do not know the person who allegedly engaged in this behavior. Any
statement, suggestion, or insinuation that I have any knowledge of or
connection with this incident is false and defamatory.
 In ¶ 68, one paragraph before he begins making false statements directly
about me, Mr. Gilmore says that he “received a letter at his parents address”
that was filled “with a suspicious powdery residue”. Mr. Gilmore impliedly
associates me with this criminal offense by putting it under the banner of
“continu[ing] . . . threats and harassment” that are, according to him, the
“direct and foreseeable result” of Defendants’ actions. He also impliedly
associates me with this criminal offense by placing it on the same page as his
first false statements about me, with no section break. Later, in ¶ 88, Mr.
Gilmore directly associates me with this criminal offense. For the record, I
have no knowledge of or connection with this incident, and I do not know the
person who allegedly did this to Mr. Gilmore. Any statement, suggestion, or
insinuation that I have any knowledge of or connection with this incident is
false and defamatory.
 In ¶ 69-70, Mr. Gilmore abruptly shifts focus to me when he says that “[t]he
threats and harassment have continued”, referencing the previously listed
“threats and harassment” by implication, and then cites two of my Twitter
posts from Feb. 14, 2018.
o Mr. Gilmore refers to, but does not directly cite, the Twitter post that I
was replying to. For the record, I was replying to a Feb. 13 Twitter
post by Virginia gubernatorial candidate Tom Perriello in which he
promoted “the debut show” of Mr. Gilmore’s “genre-defying New
Appalachian band Wild Common”.16
o The debut show of Mr. Gilmore’s “genre-defying” band, Wild
Common, was scheduled for Feb. 17 in Charlottesville, Virginia.
o On Feb. 14, I retweeted Tom Perriello and made a joke about the
concert and Brennan Gilmore’s impossible Charlottesville testimony:
“Will Brennan Gilmore play his tunes from the middle of 4th Street?”.17

16 @tomperriello Twitter Post (8:45 PM, Feb. 13, 2018)


< https://twitter.com/tomperriello/status/963590109655437313 > (“Very excited for the debut
show of @brennanmgilmore’s genre-defying New Appalachian band Wild Common in
Charlottesville this weekend, featuring my old bus-ride seat mate Davina Jackson on lead
vocals! Check them out Cville! http://www.wildcommon.com”).
17 @SonofNewo Twitter post (6:32 AM, Feb. 14, 2018)
< https://twitter.com/SonofNewo/status/963737755657400320 >, cited in Complaint ¶ 69.

5
o Two minutes later I replied to my original post and said “I dunno,
should I go check out this concert? Leave your thoughts below!”18
 Mr. Gilmore baselessly characterizes the Feb. 14 tweets as “threats and
harassment”. Furthermore, by introducing my tweets in the same section as
the other “threats and harassment” – and, moreover, on the same page as the
criminal acts described in ¶ 67 and ¶ 68 – and by describing these “threats
and harassment” as “continu[ing]”, Mr. Gilmore has unfairly and falsely
defamed me by association and by implication. For the record, my Feb. 14
Twitter posts were not “threats and harassment”, and my Twitter posts are
not connected with any of the criminal offenses mentioned in the Complaint.
Any statement, suggestion or insinuation to the contrary is false and
defamatory.
 Mr. Gilmore knows that my Feb. 14 Twitter posts were not threatening and
were meant as a joke. It is objectively funny that Brennan Gilmore, who
worked for the State Department as a Foreign Service Officer for fifteen years,
is moonlighting as a folk rock star. It is also objectively funny that a Virginia
gubernatorial candidate, Tom Perriello, would promote his band’s show by
describing it as a “genre-defying New Appalachian band”.

 Mr. Gilmore also knows that my Feb. 14 Twitter posts – in particular, the
reference to him “play[ing] his tunes from the middle of 4th Street” – were a
joke about his impossible Charlottesville testimony. The same day as the
Twitter posts, I published a YouTube video in which I said the following
about Mr. Gilmore’s Charlottesville testimony:19

“You re-read all of Brennan Gilmore’s statements in the days and


weeks after the August 12 car attack. He never once, to my
knowledge, mentions the car arriving a minute 15 seconds early.
He never once mentions the Dodge Challenger reversing back up
4th Street before accelerating at the crowd.

“And he puts himself ‘in the [very] middle of the street’, he says he
was ‘filming [the protesters]’ from the middle of the street, and that
he ‘heard [the car] from behind [him]’ and had to dodge out of the
way.

18 @SonofNewo Twitter post (6:34 AM, Feb. 14, 2018)


< https://twitter.com/SonofNewo/status/963738293392244737 >, cited in Complaint ¶ 70.
19 “Charlottesville Car Attack: Ten Curious Facts” (published Feb. 14, 2018)
< https://youtu.be/Q0kdA7Ce9to > (quoted portion is taken from 9:28 to 10:37).

6
“Well if that’s where he was . . . he would have had to have seen
the car arrive early, and he would have had to have seen the car
reverse back up 4th Street prior to accelerating at the crowd. . . .
But he doesn’t mention that anywhere. . . .

“We have to deduce that he was deliberately omitting the pre-


attack arrival and reversal of the car, and we have to ask, Why did
he do that? . . . I don’t have an answer for you on that[.]”

 These and similar statements in other videos20 provide the context for my Feb.
14 joke on Twitter. Mr. Gilmore was aware of this context at the time, and
certainly by Mar. 13, the time of the filing of the Complaint.

 Not only does Mr. Gilmore know that my Feb. 14 tweets were jokes (about his
nascent folk rock career, and about his impossible Charlottesville testimony),
so do his friends and associates. The day after I published the Feb. 14 tweets,
one of Mr. Gilmore’s friends, Hillori Walsh (@Henyhi), contacted me on
Twitter and encouraged me to attend his band’s concert, tweeting “You
should [attend the concert]. Brennan and this band are great.”21

20 See Analysis of Brennan Gilmore’s Charlottesville Testimony” (attached).


21 @Henyhi Twitter post (12:22 PM, Feb. 15, 2018)
< https://twitter.com/Henyhi/status/964233397362155521 >

7
 Mr. Gilmore read this tweet, as evidenced by his direct reply to my reply to it.
After I replied to Hillori Walsh by asking her “[Do] you know Mr.
Gilmore?”22, Brennan Gilmore replied to me, saying “I do.”23 He thereby
tacitly endorsed Hillori Walsh encouraging me to attend his concert.

 Brennan Gilmore’s reply to me on Twitter was voluntary and unprompted.


He appeared offended that I had made videos about his impossible
Charlottesville testimony without asking him to comment, tweeting “if you’re
going to spread conspiracy theories about me, the least you could do is @
me.”24

22 @SonofNewo Twitter post (7:12 PM, Feb. 15, 2018)


< https://twitter.com/SonofNewo/status/964291407669231616 >. For the record, Hillori
Walsh replied to this question in the affirmative, saying “sure do!”. @Henyhi Twitter post
(10:22 PM, Feb. 15, 2018) < https://twitter.com/Henyhi/status/964339248961916934 >
23 @brennanmgilmore Twitter post (10:01 PM, Feb. 15, 2018)
< https://twitter.com/brennanmgilmore/status/964333796366708736 >
24 @brennanmgilmore Twitter post (10:08 PM, Feb. 15, 2018)
< https://twitter.com/brennanmgilmore/status/964335556749676546 >

8
 After Brennan Gilmore engaged me in this manner, the two of us had an
extended Twitter conversation about his impossible Charlottesville testimony
for 3.5 hours in the evening and early morning of February 15-16.25 Never
once during that conversation did Mr. Gilmore say or insinuate that he felt
threatened or harassed by my joke about his concert, or by the suggestion that
I might attend it.
 On February 20, four days after my Twitter conversation with Brennan
Gilmore, I published a YouTube video about the conversation in which I
detailed certain discrepancies in his Charlottesville testimony. In that video I
describe my tweet about “Brennan Gilmore play[ing] his tunes from the
middle of 4th Street” as a joke about the impossibility of Mr. Gilmore’s
Charlottesville testimony:26
“Gilmore puts himself ‘in the middle of the street’ – and that’s the
middle of 4th Street, the direct path the Dodge Challenger traversed
multiple times, both in forward and reverse, on August 12th. The
Challenger was going up and down that street multiple times –

25 The first Twitter post in this conversation was published by Brennan Gilmore at 10:08 PM.
@brennanmgilmore Twitter post (10:08 PM, Feb. 15, 2018)
< https://twitter.com/brennanmgilmore/status/964335556749676546 > (“[I]f you’re going to
spread conspiracy theories about me, the least you could do is @ me”). The last Twitter post
was published by me at 1:36 AM the following day. @SonofNewo Twitter post (1:36 AM,
Feb. 16, 2018) < https://twitter.com/SonofNewo/status/964387985884983298 > (“So my
understanding of your testimony is accurate, then?”). During the 3.5 hour Twitter
conversation, Brennan Gilmore sent me eleven tweets, and I sent him fifteen tweets.
26 “Charlottesville EXCLUSIVE: Brennan Gilmore's BREAKING NEWS to SonofNewo”
(published Feb. 20, 2018) < https://youtu.be/4J3PCru63zE > (quoted portion is taken from
9:07 to 10:52).

9
four separate times – in that two minute window. And Gilmore
says he’s ‘in the middle’ of that street, right where Main Street
intersects with 4th Street. How did he not witness this car moving,
was my question. . . . Knowing all that, I made this joke: ‘Will
Brennan Gilmore be playing his tunes from the middle of 4 th
Street?’ I thought it was funny.”
 On information and belief, Mr. Gilmore has viewed both my Feb. 14 and my
Feb. 20 YouTube videos and was therefore aware of the following when he
filed the Complaint on March 13:
o That the reference to the “middle of 4th Street” was a reference to Mr.
Gilmore’s impossible Charlottesville testimony, in which he says that
he was “in the middle of [4th] Street . . . filming [the protesters]” prior
to the car attack, but claims that he did not see the Challenger moving
up and down that very street in the two minutes prior to the car attack;
and
o That my Twitter post about Mr. Gilmore “play[ing] his tunes from the
middle of 4th Street” was a joke (about his nascent folk rock career, and
about the impossibility of his Charlottesville testimony).
 Despite knowing these things, the Complaint falsely frames the joking
Twitter post as a threat to Mr. Gilmore. It not only refers to the tweets as
“threats and harassment”, but also insinuates in ¶ 69, note 56, that my
reference to the “middle of 4th Street” is a reference to James Fields mowing
people down with his car, and therefore implies that it is a threat to Mr.
Gilmore. This is a false and defamatory statement because as Mr. Gilmore
knows, the “middle of 4th Street” language in the tweet is a verbatim quote of
where he has said he was on August 12 in the minutes before the car attack.
 In ¶ 71, the Complaint falsely states that, “Given the extent to which
SonofNewo had previously endorsed Defendants’ lies about Mr. Gilmore, the
clear implication and tone of these tweets was to threaten Mr. Gilmore”. This
statement is false and defamatory in two ways:
o First and most obviously, it is not true that “the clear implication and
tone of these tweets was to threaten Mr. Gilmore”. Indeed, my Feb. 14
Twitter posts were clearly not threatening.
o Second, I have not “previously endorsed Defendants’ lies about Mr.
Gilmore.” Nor could I have done so, because I was not even aware of
what the Defendants had said about Mr. Gilmore prior to the filing of
the Complaint.

10
 Later in ¶ 71, Brennan Gilmore falsely states that “[u]pon learning of these
tweets, Mr. Gilmore feared for his safety and for the safety of his band mates
and concert-goers.” If Mr. Gilmore had been truly afraid, as he claims, he
would not have voluntarily contacted me on Twitter the day after the tweets
to complain about my videos,27 nor would he have continued to engage with
me for 3.5 hours without mentioning the joking tweets or saying that he felt
threatened by them. And if he felt threatened, as he now claims, he would
have objected when his friend, Hillori Walsh, replied to the purportedly
threatening tweets by encouraging me to attend the concert.28
 Mr. Gilmore alleges in ¶ 71 that, because he “feared for his safety”, he
“contacted the concert venue and alerted them to the threats, and the venue
security team in turn contacted the police.” If true, this is curious, because
Mr. Gilmore’s friend Hillori Walsh not only encouraged me to attend the
show a day after I made the joke tweets, but also said that he “asked” people
there to “treat [me] with kindness”.29 Was this an attempt to lure me down
there to entrap me, or to get the police to arrest me under false pretenses?

27 See @brennanmgilmore Twitter post (10:08 PM, Feb. 15, 2018)


< https://twitter.com/brennanmgilmore/status/964335556749676546 > (“if you’re going to
spread conspiracy theories about me, the least you could do is @ me.”).
28 @Henyhi Twitter post (12:22 PM, Feb. 15, 2018)
< https://twitter.com/Henyhi/status/964233397362155521 > (“You should [attend the
concert]. Brennan and this band are great.”).
29 @Henyhi Twitter post (12:22 PM, Feb. 15, 2018)
< https://twitter.com/Henyhi/status/964233397362155521 >

11
 Again, Mr. Gilmore read Hillori Walsh’s tweet, as evidenced by his direct
reply to my reply to it.30 He thereby tacitly endorsed Ms. Walsh’s statement
that “He . . . asked that if anyone see you there they treat you with kindness.”
Why did Mr. Gilmore remain silent after reading Ms. Walsh’s statement if, as
he now claims, he felt threatened by my Feb. 14 tweets and “contacted the
concert venue” because he “feared for his safety”?
 Indeed, the fact that Mr. Gilmore informed the concert venue of my tweets
might be a post hoc attempt to justify his earlier defamation of me in our
Twitter conversation on Feb. 15-16.
o This defamation occurred after I asked about a quote of Mr. Gilmore’s
in The Breeze, a student newspaper of James Madison University.31
o In response to my inquiry, Brennan Gilmore refused to answer my
question, baselessly claimed that I am a “conspiracy theorist”, and
falsely stated that my “recklessness” has “endangered [his] family”.32

30 After I asked Hillori Walsh “[Do] you know Mr. Gilmore?”, Brennan Gilmore replied to me,
saying “I do.” @brennanmgilmore Twitter post (10:01 PM, Feb. 15, 2018)
< https://twitter.com/brennanmgilmore/status/964333796366708736 >
31 See @SonofNewo Twitter post (12:13 AM, Feb. 16, 2018)
< https://twitter.com/SonofNewo/status/964367231483195393 > (“[D]id you tell those
students about the car stopping and reversing before it accelerated at the crowd? If you
did, it's not quoted in the article.”).
32 @brennanmgilmore Twitter post (12:42 AM, Feb. 16, 2018)
< https://twitter.com/brennanmgilmore/status/964374354409615360 > (“I . . . will not
dishonor the victims by engaging conspiracy theorists whose recklessness has endangered my
family.”) (emphasis added).

12
o After I called out his false accusation, Mr. Gilmore tried to change the
subject to what he says other people did to him. When I pressed him
again on whether he had any proof of his baseless accusation that I had
“recklessly endangered [his] family”,33 he did not respond.

o If, as Mr. Gilmore says in ¶ 71, he “contacted the concert venue and
alerted them to the threats”, it would be interesting to learn whether
he did this before or after our Twitter conversation on Feb. 15-16, 2018.
 If Mr. Gilmore contacted the venue before the Twitter
conversation, why did he not mention the joking tweets during
our 3.5 hour exchange, and why did he not object when his
friend Hillori Walsh encouraged me to attend the concert?
 If Mr. Gilmore contacted the venue after the Twitter
conversation, what prompted him to view the Feb. 14 tweets as
“threats and harassment” at that point? Did he contact the

33 See @SonofNewo Twitter post (1:16 AM, Feb. 16, 2018)


< https://twitter.com/SonofNewo/status/964382989353283586 > (“I didn't mention your name
until about two weeks ago. Do you have any police reports from the last two weeks that
mention my name or YouTube account?”).

13
concert venue in a malicious attempt to justify, post hoc, his false
claim that my “recklessness” had “endangered [his] family”?
 In ¶ 72, Brennan Gilmore says that “[a]fter SonofNewo’s tweets and videos,
Mr. Gilmore noticed an uptick in online threats and harassment.” I am not in
a position to judge the veracity of this claim. But for the record, I have no
knowledge of or connection with these “online threats and harassment”, nor
do I know the any of the people involved. Any statement, suggestion, or
insinuation that I have any knowledge of or connection with these “online
threats and harassment” is false and defamatory.
 I will also note, for the record, that after Mr. Gilmore defamed me in the
Complaint, I noticed an uptick in online threats and harassment against me.
Consider the following comment that I received on March 14, 2018, the day
after the Complaint was filed, and the day that Mr. Gilmore spread the
defamatory statements in the Complaint to a national audience, by a user
who has not previously commented on my videos:

 Later in ¶ 72, Mr. Gilmore discusses a “post threatening Mr. Gilmore’s life”
from a Facebook user going by “Henry Fowler”, who posted the following
under one of Mr. Gilmore’s Facebook posts: “Brennan Gilmore’s Body Found
in Rivanna River”. Mr. Gilmore falsely states in ¶ 72 that this apparently
threatening post is connected to my “tweets and videos”. For the record, I do
not know “Henry Fowler”, have never interacted with him to my knowledge,
and there is no record of any user going by that name having ever
commented on any of my YouTube videos or Twitter messages. This
statement to the contrary is false and defamatory.
 It is not even clear that “Henry Fowler” is a real person. The Facebook
account by that name contains no pictures of any people. If Mr. Gilmore
contacted the police about the “Henry Fowler” Facebook post, it is not
mentioned in the Complaint.
 In ¶ 88, Mr. Gilmore directly associates my Feb. 14 Twitter posts with “the
sudden approach of a hostile stranger on the street” and “the unknown
chemical substance mailed to his home”, previously mentioned in ¶ 67 and
¶ 68, respectively. Again, for the record, I have no knowledge of either of
14
these alleged events, and I have no association with the perpetrators (if
indeed these events were perpetrated). This statement to the contrary is false
and defamatory.
o After referring once again to these criminal acts, Mr. Gilmore says that
these crimes “foreshadow the connection to some of the deeper threats
lurking online, many of which materialize into physical danger.”
o Mr. Gilmore then brings up “the threats he received in February” as
evidence of “continu[ing] . . . threats of physical harm” to him. This is
necessarily a reference to my Feb. 14 Twitter posts, because it
references “threats”, plural, and besides my Feb. 14 tweets, the only
other “threat” in February that is discussed in the Complaint is the
“Henry Fowler” Facebook post.
These false and defamatory statements, insinuations and associations about me
in the Complaint are not relevant or connected to the claims Mr. Gilmore makes against
the Defendants. They appear to be included in order to injure my reputation. Another
motive may be to encourage YouTube and/or Twitter to censor my speech on their
platforms by baselessly and maliciously associating me with the Defendants, doxxers
on 8chan, the person who sent the “suspicious powdery residue”, the “hostile stranger”,
and the threat made by the “Henry Fowler” Facebook account. Or they may be
designed to indimidate me into a self-imposed silence.
Brennan Gilmore has a motive to defame me. The false statements, insinuations
and associations in the Complaint distract from my tweets and videos, which have
revealed the impossibility of his Charlottesville testimony. See “Analysis of Brennan
Gilmore’s Charlottesville Testimony” (attached). Through the defamatory statements,
insinuations and associations, he is trying to “kill the messenger”, so to speak, rather
than confronting what I’ve uncovered. When I told Mr. Gilmore about the impossibility
of his Charlottesville testimony in our Twitter conversation on February 15-16, and then
later in my YouTube video on February 20, he ended the conversation and did not
engage with me any further, as is his prerogative. I have said repeatedly, and will say
again, that if I have misstated or misinterpreted Mr. Gilmore’s Charlottesville testimony
in any way, he should tell me so that I can correct the record. He has not notified me of
any errors in my analysis of his Charlottesville testimony, and no such errors are noted
in the Complaint. I can only conclude that my analysis of his testimony is accurate,
which means that he has not told the public the whole truth. See “Analysis of Brennan
Gilmore’s Charlottesville Testimony” (attached).
Rather than admit that he misled the public in his Charlottesville testimony,
Brennan Gilmore has chosen to attack me with defamatory lies and baselessly associate
me with alleged criminals. The three most serious allegations in the Complaint are not

15
against Defendants, but against the “hostile stranger” in Charlottesville, the sender of
the letter with the “suspicious powdery residue”, and the “Henry Fowler” Facebook
account. These three serious criminal allegations are set forth in ¶ 67, ¶ 68, and ¶ 72,
respectively, in the same section, and immediately before and after, the parts of the
Complaint that directly name me. These parts, and the parts that name me, are together
said to be evidence of “continu[ing] . . . threats of physical harm” to Mr. Gilmore.34
This is not only an underhanded way to avoid discussing the facts, it also opens
Mr. Gilmore up to civil liability. Through the false allegations in the Complaint,
Brennan Gilmore has overtly accused me of a Class 1 Misdemeanor. See Va. Code
§ 18.2-152.7:1 “Harassment by computer.” But a defamatory charge may also “be made
indirectly . . . by inference, implication, or insinuation.” Carwile v. Richmond Newspapers,
196 Va. 1, 7 (1954). If one imputes the actions of the “hostile stranger” in
Charlottesville, the sender of the letter with the “suspicious powdery residue”, and the
“Henry Fowler” Facebook account to me via a conspiracy, as is directly suggested in the
Complaint, then Mr. Gilmore has also accused me of the following:
 A Class 3 Felony, by association with the sender of the letter with the
“suspicious powdery residue”, see Va. Code § 18.2-54.1 “Attempts to
poison”;
 A Class 6 Felony, by association with the “Henry Fowler” Facebook
account, which apparently threatened death or bodily injury to Mr.
Gilmore, see Va. Code § 18.2-60 “Threats of death or bodily injury to a
person or member of his family”; and
 A Class 1 Misdemeanor, by association with the actions of the “hostile
stranger” who allegedly “physically accosted” Mr. Gilmore “on the street,
see Va. Code § 18.2-57 “Assault and battery”.

Mr. Gilmore’s false and defamatory statements, insinuations and associations


qualify as defamation per se because they “impute to a person the commission of some
criminal offense involving moral turpitude, for which the party, if the charge is true,
may be indicted and punished.” Carwile v. Richmond Newspapers, 196 Va. 1, 7 (1954).
His false and defamatory statements, insinuations and associations also qualify
as defamation per se for the independent reason that they “prejudice” me “in my
profession or trade”. Tronfeld v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 272 Va. 709, 713-14
(2006). In my work as an independent journalist and as a lawyer, I rely on my
reputation as an honest, law-abiding citizen. The baseless associations, insinuations,

34 See Complaint ¶ 88.

16
and false statements in Mr. Gilmore’s Complaint “carry the connotation that . . . [I]
lack[ ] the integrity and fitness to practice law.” Id. at 714.
The “judicial privilege” that normally protects defamatory statements made in
association with court proceedings will not protect Mr. Gilmore’s conduct. Perhaps Mr.
Gilmore believed that he could launder his false and defamatory statements,
insinuations and associations in the Complaint with impunity. But for the judicial
privilege to attach, “the communications at issue must be material, relevant or pertinent
to the issues of the judicial proceeding.” See Mansfield v. Bernabei, 284 Va. 116, 122
(2012). Here, the false and defamatory statements, insinuations and associations against
me are unrelated to the causes of action filed by Mr. Gilmore in the Complaint because I
am not associated with the Defendants, nor am I a consumer of the Defendants’ content,
and thus my public statements about Mr. Gilmore are not in any way related to
Defendants’ conduct. Because Mr. Gilmore’s false and defamatory statements about me
are not “material, relevant or pertinent” to the proceeding, they are not protected by
judicial privilege. See D’Alfio v. Theuer, 81 Va. Cir. 237, 242 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2012) (“The
[judicial] privilege is abrogated when the statements are not relevant and pertinent to
the litigation or do not bear some relation thereto.”).
In addition, Mr. Mendrala and Mr. Gilmore have spread the false and
defamatory statements, insinuations and associations beyond the Complaint in
interviews with national media entities,35 in an opinion column,36 and in a televised
interview on CNN.37 The Complaint has been published in a press release on the
website of Georgetown University Law Center,38 which also spread the Complaint’s
false and defamatory statements on social media.39 These communications incorporate

35 See, for example, Sam Levin, Suit claims Infowars' Alex Jones stoked harassment of Charlottesville
witness, The Guardian (Mar. 13, 2018) (news article quoting interviews of Brennan Gilmore
and Andrew Mendrala); Dahlia Lithwick, Fake News Goes to Court: Will Fox News and Alex
Jones have to pay for pushing bogus stories about real people?, Slate (Mar. 16, 2018) (quoting an
email from Brennan Gilmore).
36 Brennan Gilmore, Alex Jones is a menace to society. I’m suing him., Washington Post (Mar. 14,
2018).
37 CNN Reliable Sources, Interview of Brennan Gilmore and Andrew Mendrala (Mar. 18,
2018).
38 See Press Release: Witness to Tragedy, a Victim of Fake News Conspiracies Sues Alex Jones
and Others (Mar. 13, 2018) < https://www.law.georgetown.edu/news/press-
releases/Witness-to-Tragedy-a-Victim-of-Fake-News-Conspiracies-Sues-Alex-Jones-and-
Others.cfm > (accessed Mar. 16, 2018), linking the Complaint at
< http://www.law.georgetown.edu/news/upload/gilmore-complaint.pdf >
39 See, for example, @georgetownlaw Twitter post (9:40 AM, Mar. 13, 2018)
< twitter.com/GeorgetownLaw/status/973554290903212032 > (saying that Brennan Gilmore

17
the false and defamatory statements, insinuations and associations in the Complaint,
and are not protected by any privilege. As explained in Asay v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 594
F.2d 692, 698 (8th Cir. 1979):
“[A] pleading cannot be a predicate for dissemination of the defamatory
matter to the public or third parties not connected with the judicial
proceeding. Otherwise, to cause great harm and mischief a person need
only file false and defamatory statements as judicial pleadings and then
proceed to republish the defamation at will under the cloak of immunity.”
I have been defamed by association in these stories, which quote Mr. Gilmore
and his counsel and provide hyperlinks to the Complaint, and thereby baselessly tie me
to the Defendants, to the sender of the “suspicious powdery substance”, to the “hostile
stranger” in Charlottesville, and to the “Henry Fowler” Facebook account making
threats on Mr. Gilmore’s life. As Brennan Gilmore put it in a March 16 tweet, “Real
people are really harmed when fake media spreads fake news.” 40 That is precisely
what Mr. Gilmore and his counsel have encouraged here.
I do not want to engage in a protracted legal battle against Mr. Gilmore to protect
my reputation. I would much rather have the Complaint amended to remove the
portions that reference me and to see Mr. Gilmore issue a public correction and an
apology. I am therefore offering Mr. Gilmore and his counsel a window of time, until
April 2, 2018, to have Mr. Gilmore issue a public correction and an apology, and to issue
an Amended Complaint that does not mention me or my pseudonym “SonofNewo”. If
this is done as requested, I will not sue Mr. Gilmore and his counsel for baselessly and
maliciously defaming my character.
If not, please be advised that I will consider all legal options at my disposal to to
vindicate my right to not be baselessly and maliciously defamed.
Sincerely,

___________________________________
William N. Evans

is a target of “#fakenews conspiracies” and linking to the Complaint); @georgetownlaw


Twitter post (2:51 PM, Mar. 13, 2018)
< twitter.com/GeorgetownLaw/status/973632655043395584 > (referring to “harassment and
threats” and linking to the complaint). See also The Hoya, Law Center Files Defamation Suit
Against Alex Jones, InfoWars (Mar. 16, 2018) (quoting Andy Mendrala and Brennan Gilmore).
40 @brennanmgilmore Twitter post (8:12 PM, Mar. 16, 2018)
< https://twitter.com/brennanmgilmore/status/974800710347915265 >

18
Analysis of Brennan Gilmore’s Charlottesville Testimony

Brennan Gilmore has said that before the August 12, 2017 car attack he was “in
the middle of [4th] Street filming [the protesters].” In other words, he places himself “in
the middle” of the intersection of 4th Street and Main Street, and facing south towards
the protesters, prior to the car attack. Mr. Gilmore’s statements, some of which are
reproduced after the map below, make it seem as if he was unaware of the Dodge
Challenger until it accelerated past him and towards the crowd of people.

 Brennan Gilmore to Alex Witt of MSNBC (Aug. 13, 2017) (emphasis added)
“I was filming, actually, a peaceful, nonviolent march of anti-racist
protesters who were coming up a very narrow street. I was in the
middle of the street myself filming them, and heard from behind me the
acceleration of a vehicle. [I] spun around, and saw the vehicle in
question barreling down a very narrow street with no traffic on it at
a high rate of speed, clearly intent on doing damage and
destruction to the crowd, passed over a barrier and went down the
street, and accelerated hard as it barreled into the crowd, sending
bodies flying.”

19
 Brennan Gilmore to Willie Geist of NBC (Aug. 13, 2017) (emphasis added)
“At that point, we were over on 4th Street, and saw a group of non-
violent peaceful protesters protesting against racism, coming up the
street. I got into the middle of the street to take pictures of them, and
heard from behind me a car coming down very quickly. [I] jumped out of
the way [and] rolled some video to try and capture what was going
on because it was very apparent that the driver had an intent to do
harm. And sure enough he drove down the street and plowed
straight into a crowd, sending bodies flying everywhere.”

Mr. Gilmore’s public statements are only partially corroborated by the video
footage of the car attack that he released. The footage appears to confirm his stated
location “in the middle of [4th] Street”, near the intersection of 4th Street and Main Street,
and it shows the car attack in graphic detail as Brennan Gilmore described it. But if we
are to believe his public statements, his video footage must be edited: it does not show
the protesters until after the car has already accelerated past Mr. Gilmore, but Mr.
Gilmore has said that he was “filming [the protesters]” before he heard the car
accelerate “from behind” him. Where is the rest of his footage?
More problematic for Mr. Gilmore are the inconsistencies between his public
statements and the sworn testimony of Detective Steven Young of the Charlottesville
Police Department. At James Fields’s preliminary hearing on December 14, 2017,
Detective Young testified to the following facts, which were recorded by a surveillance
camera posted outside a restaurant on the corner of 4th Street and Main Street, near
where Brennan Gilmore placed himself:41

 The Dodge Challenger first arrives at the intersection of 4th Street and Main
Street, heading south, at approximately 1:52:56;42
 The Dodge Challenger “made [its] way to the 100 block of 4th Street”, south of
Main Street and near where the protesters were located, and “stopped”;43

41 See Fields Prelim. Hr’g Tr. 31:6-33:6 (Dec. 14, 2017). Detective Young’s testimony is based on
surveillance footage from a camera outside the Red Pump Kitchen, a restaurant on the
corner of 4th Street and Main Street in downtown Charlottesville. The stated times are time-
stamped on the Red Pump Kitchen video recording, but are “approximately thirteen
minutes fast”, according to Detective Young. See Fields Prelim. Hr’g Tr. 29:4-29:8 (Dec. 14,
2017).
42 Fields Prelim. Hr’g Tr. 31:11-31:15 (Dec. 14, 2017) (“six seconds” after the arrival of the
Toyota Camry at 1:52:50).
43 Fields Prelim. Hr’g Tr. 31:24-32:2 (Dec. 14, 2017).

20
 The Dodge Challenger was out of view of the surveillance camera for
“approximately a minute and ten seconds”, or until roughly 1:54:06;44

 That around 1:54:06, “the Challenger began to back up”, reversing north on
4th Street and past the intersection of 4th and Main, towards Market Street;45

44 Fields Prelim. Hr’g Tr. 32:3-32:5 (Dec. 14, 2017).


45 Fields Prelim. Hr’g Tr. 32:8-32:10 (Dec. 14, 2017).

21
 That by 1:54:49, the Dodge Challenger “drove south at a high rate of speed”
past the intersection of 4th & Main again, and into the crowd of people.46

From Detective Young’s testimony, which is corroborated by media reports


about the videos shown at the preliminary hearing,47 we know that the Dodge
Challenger drove through the intersection of 4th Street and Main Street four separate times
on August 12, 2017. First, when it arrived at 1:52:56; second, when it “began to back
up” around 1:54:06; third, when it accelerated at the crowd around 1:54:49; and fourth,
after the car attack, when it reversed up the street to escape. Only the latter two are
captured in Mr. Gilmore’s footage. Did he edit the earlier parts out, or was he not “in
the middle of [4th] Street . . . filming [the protesters]” yet?
Mr. Gilmore has foreclosed the former possibility. In our Twitter conversation
on Feb. 15-16, I asked Brennan the following question: “Did you see the Dodge
Challenger stop and reverse north up 4th Street prior to accelerating at the crowd?”48

46 Fields Prelim. Hr’g Tr. 32:15-32:22 (Dec. 14, 2017).


47 See, for example, Kaylee Hartung and Darran Simon, Charge upgraded against suspect in
Charlottesville rally killing, CNN (Dec. 15, 2017); Paul Duggan, Charge upgraded to first-degree
murder for driver accused of ramming Charlottesville crowd, Washington Post (Dec. 14, 2017);
Sarah Rankin, Suspect in Virginia car attack faces upgraded charge, Associated Press (Dec. 15,
2017); Ned Oliver, James Fields of Ohio now facing first-degree murder charge in Charlottesville car
attack, Richmond Times-Dispatch (Dec. 14, 2017).
48 @SonofNewo Twitter post (12:56 AM, Feb. 16, 2018)
< https://twitter.com/SonofNewo/status/964378502442115077 >

22
Brennan Gilmore’s answer was definitive: “Nope. If the driver did that then he
did it behind me while I was facing the crowd.”49

Brennan Gilmore’s public statements and Detective Steven Young’s testimony,


taken together, mean one of two things.50 Either (1) Mr. Gilmore saw the Dodge
Challenger arrive and/or reverse north up 4th Street before the car attack, and he misled
the public by omitting this important detail in his public testimony, or (2) Mr. Gilmore
arrived “in the middle of [4th] Street” and began “filming [the protesters]” in the 43
second timespan in between the Dodge Challenger’s reversal (around 1:54:06) and its
acceleration towards the crowd (around 1:54:49). There’s no third option, given his
repeated insistence that he “was in the middle of [4th] Street . . . filming [the protesters]”
before the car attack.
In a YouTube video published on Feb. 20,51 I explained it in the following way:
“There’s two possibilities. Either you were ‘in the middle of [4th] Street
filming [the protesters]’, and the car crept up on where the protesters were

49 @brennanmgilmore Twitter post (1:03 AM, Feb. 16, 2018)


< https://twitter.com/brennanmgilmore/status/964379810381230082 >
50 My analysis assumes that Detective Steven Young would not lie under oath, in open court,
about the times in a time-stamped video recording. I think this is a fair assumption.
51 “Charlottesville EXCLUSIVE: Brennan Gilmore's BREAKING NEWS to SonofNewo”
(published Feb. 20, 2018) < https://youtu.be/4J3PCru63zE > (quoted portion taken from 19:20
to 20:36).

23
and it was in front of you at that point, in the direction of where your camera
would have been pointed, and the car stopped, and reversed back up 4th
Street, and then accelerated at the crowd. And in that circumstance, you
would have probably been aware of it, and it would be on your footage, it would
have been in your field of view, and you would have had to get out of the way if
you were, as you say, ‘in the middle of [4th] Street’. Because the car would
have been traveling up and down 4th Street, and if you’re ‘in the middle’,
you’re in the way and you gotta move. That’s Possibility 1.

“Possibility 2, Mr. Gilmore – which is your only avenue of relief here – is that
you arrived some time after the car reversed. The car reversed back up 4th
Street, past the intersection of 4th Street and Main Street, and you weren’t
there when it reversed. You were somewhere else. And then you happened
to arrive on the scene in the timeframe in between when it reversed, past Main
Street and 4th Street intersection, and when it accelerated past the intersection
again. And you arrived “in the middle of [4th] Street”, and you began ‘filming
[the protesters]’, during that [43 second] window of time. That’s Possibility
2, and that’s your only saving grace, Mr. Gilmore. You have to rely on that
being the truth.”

Further investigation has shown that the 43 second window is too narrow to
allow Mr. Gilmore to have arrived “in the middle of [4th] Street” without witnessing the
Dodge Challenger stop and reverse up the street before the car attack. To explain how I
arrived at this conclusion, I must introduce the public testimony of Brennan Gilmore’s

24
friend and associate Chris Mahony, who was with Mr. Gilmore in the minutes prior to
the car attack.
Like Mr. Gilmore, Chris Mahony gave media interviews in the days after the
August 12 car attack. In these interviews he, like Mr. Gilmore, described what he
witnessed that day. But Mr. Mahony was far more explicit in describing where he and
Mr. Gilmore were, and what they were doing, in the minutes before the car attack.
Importantly, Brennan Gilmore has never disavowed or contradicted Chris Mahony’s
testimony. He is aware of what Mahony has said, because he was in the same place as
Mahony during at least one, and perhaps two, of Mahony’s media interviews.
Here is what Chris Mahony told 7.30 Australia on August 13:52
“We [Brennan and I] actually walked past the car, which was sat at
the top of the hill looking down the street at the protesters. And I
thought to myself ‘It’s strange’, because the car was at an
intersection but wasn’t driving through the intersection. It had a
green light, and it was just sat there. And I didn’t think much more
of it, but then 20 seconds or so later, it came screaming past us and
into the crowd of protesters.
“I had actually walked to the side of the road – we were walking
right down the middle of the road – so fortunately, I walked to the
side to check if a café was open. And my friend [Brennan Gilmore],
we had gone beyond the speed bump, so my friend heard it hit the
speed bump heavily, cause it was going way too fast. And so he
was the one that filmed the footage.”

Breaking this down, Chris Mahony said the following:

1. That in the minute before the car attack, Chris Mahony and Brennan Gilmore
“walked past the car” – i.e., the Dodge Challenger that was involved in the
car attack;
2. That when they “walked past the car”, it was “sat at the top of the hill . . . at
an intersection” – i.e., the intersection of 4th Street and Market Street;
3. That when they “walked past the car”, Mahony saw that “it had a green light,
and it was just sat there.”

52 “Charlottesville LIAR Chris Mahony's Impossible Testimony” (published Feb. 28, 2018)
< https://youtu.be/0E-Vqrk2C-U > (from 18:21 to 19:09). Chris Mahony gave identical
testimony, using similar words, to 7News Australia on Aug. 13, and to CNN on Aug. 13.

25
 The only direction from which the light at that intersection is visible is
from the north. 4th Street is a one-way street (North to South), and thus
does not have any south-facing traffic lights. If we are to believe Chris
Mahony, he and Mr. Gilmore had to be traveling North to South on 4th
Street when they “walked past the car” at the intersection.

4. That “20 seconds or so” after Chris Mahony and Mr. Gilmore “walked past
the car”, the car “came screaming past [them]”;53
5. That when the car “came screaming past [them]”, Mahony was at “the side of
the road . . . to check if a café was open”;
6. That when the car “came screaming past [them]”, Chris Mahony’s “friend”,
Brennan Gilmore, had already made his way “beyond the speed bump” on 4th
Street;
7. That when the car “came screaming past [them]”, Mahony’s “friend”,
Brennan Gilmore, “filmed the footage” that he later released on Twitter.

53 This part of Mahony’s testimony is impossible. 20 seconds is not enough time to make the
trip on foot.

26
Chris Mahony gave a very detailed account of what he and Brennan Gilmore
were doing in the minute prior to the car attack. Most important for this Analysis of
Brennan Gilmore’s Charlottesville Testimony, Mahony describes the direction from
which he and Mr. Gilmore approached on that fateful day. He says that they came
down 4th Street from the North, and he says that they walked past the Dodge
Challenger as it sat at the intersection of Market Street and 4th Street.
I traveled to Charlottesville last month and timed the walk that Chris Mahony
says he and Brennan Gilmore took on August 12, 2017. I started walking at the
intersection of 4th Street and Market Street, and I finished at the second planter at the
intersection of 4th Street and Main Street, just in front of Union Bank, which is near
where Mr. Gilmore was when the car drove past him. At my regular walking speed, it
took me over a minute to walk that route.54 When I jogged the route, it took me 42
seconds.
Therein lies the problem. According to Detective Steven Young’s testimony, only
43 seconds elapsed between when the Dodge Challenger was recorded reversing north
up 4th Street, past the Red Pump Kitchen, and when it was recorded accelerating south
on 4th Street towards the crowd, past the Red Pump Kitchen again.

54 See “SonofNewo in Charlottesville: Testing the Testimony of Brennan Gilmore and Chris
Mahony” (published Mar. 2, 2018) < https://youtu.be/lU4mb1R_QxM >. When I started at
the southern end of the intersection of 4th & Market, it took me one minute and 5 seconds.
When I started at the northern end of the intersection – the only direction in which the
traffic light is visible – it took me one minute and 15 seconds.

27
Chris Mahony says that he and Brennan Gilmore “walked past the car” at the
intersection of 4th Street and Market Street, and says that it was “sat at the top of the
hill” at “a green light”, not moving. This would only be possible if the car had already
reversed up the street by the time they walked past. But the walk from where Mahony
says they “passed the car”, to where Mr. Gilmore was when his video begins, takes far
longer than 43 seconds.55 In fact, from the northern side of the intersection, where the
traffic light is visible, it took me one minute and 15 seconds to walk that route!

55 Furthermore, the 43 second clock begins when the Challenger reversed past the Red Pump
Kitchen. It would have taken a minimum of approximately 10 seconds for the car to reverse
from that point to the “top of the hill”, where Chris Mahony says he and Mr. Gilmore
“walked past the car”. So to be precise, Chris Mahony and Mr. Gilmore had less than 43

28
In other words, Chris Mahony must be wrong when he says he and Brennan
Gilmore “walked past the car” as it was stopped at a green light at the intersection of 4th
Street and Market Street. It is physically impossible for he and Mr. Gilmore to have
“walked past the car” as it was stopped there, and for Mr. Gilmore to have been where
he was when he filmed the car accelerate past him and towards the crowd. We know
the latter is true from Brennan Gilmore’s video; therefore, Mahony must be wrong.
Furthermore, Brennan Gilmore must know that Chris Mahony is wrong. They
were together in the minutes before the car attack. Mr. Gilmore has heard his friend’s
public testimony – indeed, he was present for some of it.56 Yet he has said nothing to
correct Mr. Mahony’s misstatements of fact. Why hasn’t Brennan Gilmore spoken up to
clarify the record?
More important for this Analysis of Brennan Gilmore’s Charlottesville
Testimony, however, is Mahony’s statement that he and Mr. Gilmore were traveling
south on 4th Street. Mahony says that as they approached the intersection of 4th & Main,
“we were walking right down the middle of the road” – i.e., in the direct path of the car.
I believe Mahony when he says this. There is no reason to lie about something like that,
and it is consistent with Brennan Gilmore’s repeated insistance that “I was in the
middle of [4th] street myself filming [the protesters]”.
If Chris Mahony is telling the truth when he says that he and Mr. Gilmore
approached the intersection of 4th and Main from the North, headed North to South on
4th Street, and if he is telling the truth when he says that they “were walking right down
the middle of the road”, and if Detective Young’s testimony about the timing of the
car’s movements is accurate, then we can conclude the following (#1-4 with 100%
certainty, #5 a likely possibility):

1. That Brennan Gilmore and Chris Mahony saw the Dodge Challenger reverse
north up 4th Street before it accelerated at the crowd (because they would
have been in its path, and because the timeline, as verified by Detective
Young’s testimony about the Red Pump Kitchen surveillance footage, does
not allow for the car to have already reversed before their approach);

seconds – probably closer to 25 or 30 seconds – to arrive at the intersection of 4th & Main, if
they “walked past the car” and did not see the car stop and reverse before it accelerated.
56 Brennan Gilmore was standing next to Chris Mahony when the latter was interviewed by
CNN, on-scene in Charlottesville, at 4:30 PM on the day of the car attack. And Brennan
Gilmore was likely in-studio when Chris Mahony was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer of CNN
the following day, because in the interview Chris Mahony says: “I was right next to your
previous guest, Brennan, who was taking the footage at the time.”

29
2. That Brennan Gilmore and Chris Mahony therefore misled by omission when
they failed to disclose, in any of their public statements about the car attack,
that they witnessed the Dodge Challenger reversing north up 4th Street before
it accelerated at the crowd;
3. That Brennan Gilmore further misled the public when he told me on Twitter
that he had not seen the Dodge Challenger stop and reverse before it
accelerated at the crowd;57
4. That Brennan Gilmore additionally misled the public when he made it
appear, in his carefully worded public statements, that he was not aware of
the Dodge Challenger before he heard it accelerate behind him;
5. Finally, if Brennan Gilmore was, as he has publicly stated, “filming [the
protesters]” before he heard the car “from behind [him]”, and if he edited the
footage he released to delete this earlier-filmed footage, he may have misled
the public by deleting this earlier-filmed footage to make it appear consistent
with his carefully worded public statements.

Why did Brennan Gilmore and Chris Mahony mislead the public? Why have
they not disclosed that they saw the Dodge Challenger reversing north up 4th Street
prior to the car attack? Why have they not corrected the record in the many months
since the car attack? I cannot say, and I have been careful not to speculate in my videos
or other public remarks. I am not a “conspiracy theorist” – I deal in verifiable fact. Any
statement, suggestion or insinuation to the contrary is false and defamatory.

57 @brennanmgilmore Twitter post (1:03 AM, Feb. 16, 2018)


< https://twitter.com/brennanmgilmore/status/964379810381230082 > (“Nope. If the driver
did that then he did it behind me while I was facing the crowd.”).

30