Friday, November 13th, 2026, 4:41 am
Why I Never Called the Serial Strangler From Microsoft a “Criminal”
Filed under: 
bout 5+ years ago I began writing about the Serial Strangler From Microsoft. The strangulation is a documented fact (told by victims), as are the arrest and charges. He was brought to Court. He was not acquitted. He was never acquitted.
And yet, formally speaking he is not a criminal.
3 years ago I wrote to informed authorities about another individual, whom I suspected was a criminal. I didn’t have all the relevant documents at the time. I didn’t publish it but instead sought legal advice. “On page 4,” they told me, “you write “the criminal (openly admits being arrested)”.”
My aim was to ensure precision in publication. I was then told, based on British law: “In fact, being arrested doesn’t make somebody a criminal. A person only becomes a criminal after a jury declares them to be guilty or if they admit they are guilty. Look at the Extinction Rebellion case (Shell HQ London) where the jury decided they were innocent. Police frequently arrest innocent people for questioning. Arrest does not imply criminality. Therefore, stating that somebody is a criminal after a mere arrest is a defamation.”
That’s why the Serial Strangler From Microsoft isn’t being referred to as a criminal. The strangling, based on information that I received, was a repeat action/behaviour. More than one woman experienced this and it’s not unbelievable given the person’s other bizarre fetishes.
I wanted to clarify that I am pedantic with words. When I call someone a felon or a criminal it typically means strictly that.
You can call someone a “thug” or “bully” without using a word like “criminal”.
People generally know what that means.
The Royal Courts of Justice can recognise that I am at least trying my best, as a Litigant in Person (LIP), to get the facts right and share the relevant evidence.
Thus far what I published about it hasn’t been disproven. It has been over 5 years.
