Rape investigation dropped: Will Fowles & ALP transgender deception
Reprinted with permission from Daniel Pocock.
19:00 Fri, 23 Jan 2026
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the stance of Techrights, which explained its stance on diversity of voices and why they ought not be impeded (or authors obstructed when it is convenient)
On 30 January 2024, news reports told us that the investigation into Will Fowles had been discontinued. The police did not find evidence of a crime.
After the police report, the Australian Labor Party commissioned a report from a lawyer, Fiona Forsyth KC, paid by the party, who told the party that the accusations are substantiated "on the balance of probabilities", despite the fact nobody saw anything. As the lawyer was paid by the political party, people should be very cautious to accept this. Somebody then leaked the report to newspapers and the discredited accusations were repeated in April 2025.
In mathematics, the "balance of probabilities" means anything in excess of fifty percent. However, lawyers don't have any system for measuring this type of accusation quantitatively. Nobody was in the room with these two people, the police haven't even confirmed if they were both in the same room and nobody else knows if they were in the same room either. When lawyers use this phrase, "balance of probabilities", in these circumstances, they are saying they can't be sure but they decided to favour one side over the other. In the world of engineering, when we construct a bridge or an airplane, it is not good enough to be fifty-one percent sure that the public are safe. We have to be 99.99999 percent sure that a bridge or airplane is safe before the public can use it.
In August 2024, news reports told us a 41-year-old "woman", asking for her true identity to be protected, had "broken her silence".
After the ALP's paid lawyer report was leaked, the "woman" making the accusation decided to reveal her identity. We now know it is Lucy Gunner who is both transgender (like the Zizians), the sister of former Northern Territory Chief Minister Michael Gunner and a prominent LGBT activist. Michael Gunner is also a member of the same political party. Lucy apparently left her job in the parliament and went to stay with her brother.
When Lucy Gunner decided to waive her privacy, the story was only reported in one newspaper, Rupert Murdoch's Herald Sun. This is a newspaper well known for paying people money for highly emotive stories. If you want to sell a story about anyone, you can contact them here and name your price.
I'm publishing this blog today at the same time as publishing the evidence that Nicolas Dandrimont's "girlfriend", the one who wanted to be paid some Outreachy money, appears to a transgender / Zizian too and he/she/they changed their name again and tried to wipe their history at exactly the same time the Debianists attacked my family and I in November 2021.
This is one of those cases where the anonymity of victims raises the risk of injustice. When outsiders realize the extent to which all these people are connected to each other it suddenly becomes a lot easier to see there are multiple explanations for this crisis.
A news report from the Herald Sun tells us:
The pair became drunk at a Drink Victorian event hosted in the parliamentary precinct.
The Drink Victorian web site tells us:
This program is aimed at helping Victorians discover the world-class drinks talent to be found in their own backyard.
One of the most interesting comments Ms Gunner makes in her 2024 interview, while her identity and real biological gender were both hidden from the public:
The former staffer wants the government to provide an alternative pathway – separate to the criminal justice system – to deal with sexual assault complaints.
“I wish that there was another option,” she said.
She proposes a mediation system be set up through the public health system giving alleged victims and perpetrators an opportunity to meet and discuss their case without risk of incarceration.
“Obviously not all sexual assault victims would want to take this pathway, but when victims and perpetrators are known to each other, funnelling victims into the criminal justice system can create greater pain for both parties and less opportunity to heal.”
When I saw those comments, it reminded me of the emails sent by Enrico Zini, Wouter Verhelst, Didier Raboud (Odyx, Liip SA) and others discussing the falsified accusations against Dr Jacob Appelbaum. Specifically, Raboud had told us:
Subject: Re: Jacob Appelbaum and harrassement Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2016 20:30:36 +0200 From: Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org> To: Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> CC: debian-private@lists.debian.org
Le samedi, 18 juin 2016, 18.41:22 Wouter Verhelst a écrit :
[ ... snip ... ]
Our current expulsion procedure doesn't really open the door for "suspending" an account. Taking a temporary decision "pending the result of the official investigation" implies putting things on hold either way, likely forever, as it doesn't currently seem likely that there will be an investigation, even less a result.
Our current expulsion procedure has a concept of timeframes though: > Possible timeframes include one or more years and, in truly extreme > cases, a lifetime expulsion, depending on the impact that the actions > leading to this process may have had to the project. > > If we set a time limit people are free to attempt to get back into the > project after that time passed. They will need to go through full NM.
I trust DAM to do the right thing here, and don't expect them to decide for a lifetime expulsion. I've come to think that a clear-cut expulsion for $n years, leaving a possibility for later re-entry through our normal mechanisms (NM) is vastly better for all involved parties than a never-decided temporary suspension. In other words; I don't think "suspending until there's an official decision on all allegations we've heard" is doing Debian or Jacob a service, as this will stay pending forever. Exclusion isn't (and shouldn't be) a light measure for us (through DAM) to decide for; but we can also make it not indefinite, and that's also a way for all of us to move on.
In that part of the thread, they acknowledge, like in the case of Will Fowles, there is nothing for a real police investigation but they want to make up a punishment anyway. In the end, they decided to punish him and now they had to make up a false narrative that sounds bad enough to retrospectively justify the punishment.
The thing that reveals the most about the lie are the words "leaving a possibility for later re-entry through our normal mechanisms (NM) is vastly better for all involved parties".
If Dr Appelbaum had really raped somebody, we wouldn't be planning his "re-entry" at the same time as trying to get him out. A real rape victim would never want to see the perpetrator again. The people who wrote these emails all seem to know they are not talking about a real rape, they are simply trying to create the illusion of rape with their underhanded conspiracy and Chinese whispers. The anti-Appelbaum defamation conspiracy was a social engineering attack on the entire open source ecosystem.
The stated aspirations of Lucy Gunner are eerily similar. She appears to be saying that instead of having a crime investigation, she would like to have some process where an LGBT person making an accusation can receive some validation and then continue interacting with the person they are accusing.
Being able to retrospectively change your mind about consent, after engaging in the act, after making a police report, is not the same as being able to forgive somebody. In the case of Alex Matters, text messages and voice messages sent by the woman revealed the whole thing was in her head. She gave consent and then after reading rumors on social media, she tried to retrospectively unconsent to everything they had already done together as a couple. Sky News interviewed Mr Matters and broadcast details of the text messages.
In the case of Will Fowles and the ALP, all we can confirm is that these people had drinks together.
Exclusive: Andreas Tille did not trust accusations against Dr Jacob Appelbaum
Andreas Tille wrote the message in 2016 and it received numerous replies from people who felt that Dr Appelbaum had been a victim of false accusations and bullying. There is a snobby set at large in Debian who like to make dramas and pretend they are experts on everything and everybody.
We saw the same phenomena with the Zizian murders. These people live in a bubble and they are preoccupied with the idea that LGBT is right and everybody else is wrong.
Human rights law says otherwise: everybody is innocent until proven guilty, whether we have a healthy lifestyle or not. █
Subject: Re: What is true and what is false in accusations against Jacob Appelbaum Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2016 23:30:08 +0200 From: Patrick Matthäi <pmatthaei@debian.org> To: Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu>, Debian Private List <debian-private@lists.debian.org>
Am 13.08.2016 um 23:07 schrieb Andreas Tille: > Hi folks,
Hi Andreas > > I just read this article > > http://www.zeit.de/kultur/2016-08/jacob-appelbaum-rape-sexual-abuse-allegations > > I think that people who decided to expel Jacob had solid information > from first person insight. I have met Jakob at DebConf 15 in Heidelberg > and I was quite sad to see him in a different light when we excluded him > from Debian. This article confused me even more since on one hand I > personally do not subscribe to several things in this article but on the > other hand I consider the "In doubt for the accused" principle violated. > > What do we in Debian really know about all this for sure? Its not that > I trust an article since its just in the news, but I never read any > detailed information that has backed up our decision.
I already read the past e-mails about Jacob on private and did not reacted on them, with a good reason.. WHO from our Debian community knows the truth except of Jacob (and/or the maybe involved persons)? If most persons from here knew him as a good person, is this relevant for the justice? Or is it relevant if he was a troll.. We can watch the people only before their had! I do not know what "discussing" this topic here will help to get new information, it will just end in coursing. I want to follow the german law, which says "not guilty till proven otherwise". You are also german and I think this is a good law. Please follow it also on this list.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect the stance of Techrights, which explained its stance on diversity of voices and why they ought not be impeded (or authors obstructed when it is convenient)