When Stephen Gianelli’s emails land in my inbox, mostly out of the blue and
unsolicited, they are so overflowing with repetitive accusations,
misinformation, threats, self-aggrandizing boasts, undiluted rage, and general
nastiness that it's next to impossible to read to the end of one of them. My
impulse is always to ignore them and tell him to stop sending them. That he
seems to have unlimited energy and
endless time to go over all these details with someone he does not know in an
attempt to win me over, while at the same time he constantly accuses me of
having an ancient axe to grind with Cohen (i.e. I'm a hopeless case, as far as
he's concerned, so he's barking furiously up the wrong tree), would under
normal circumstances be a sign of mental imbalance.
He always throws in plenty of insults, false statements and fanciful
deductions. His tone is that of a pitbull straining at the leash and gives me
flashbacks of a courtroom where I’m being cross-examined by a vicious criminal
lawyer whose whole strategy is to exhaust and terrorize the witness. Gianelli’s
game is to complicate and obfuscate, mixing legal arguments with irrelevant
nonsense. He seems to assume his opponent is stupid and weak and can be
overwhelmed by a word-salad. I think some of this could be caused by his
overuse of "copy and paste" --
he's in a hurry and not really writing "to me" or trying to
make a persuasive argument. He doesnt reread his emails to see what kind of
message they actually convey: that the writer is standing on some soapbox in his
mind, shouting at the world, like certain mental patients you see walking the
streets who seem to be mad at the air, the cars, the sidewalk.
He's obviously not interested in holding a discussion, getting to the
truth, or looking beyond the various documents he "downloaded at his own
expense" -- and as anyone with
common sense knows, legal documents don't prove what really happened in
2004-5. They convey some of the
evidence, all of it coming from one side.
Gianelli's explanation as to why he's been out to get Kelley Lynch since
2008, does not make sense either. He claims she slandered him and called him
names on the internet, and in revenge he has totally immersed himself in her
legal case. To the point of contacting her relatives and friends, spreading
false stories about her, making up quotes, “writing her in jail”, posting
photos of her residence and roommates on his blog – for the past seven years.
Nobody in their right mind, let alone a 'successful trial lawyer' -- who has no
material interest in this case, and is not a paid shill -- behaves like this.
It's not just extremely unprofessional, it would land him on 'stress leave' or
in serious trouble with his colleagues and peers if he were still practicing.
Hiding behind the handle Blogonaut would not conceal his identity for long,
especially not on the porous internet. His badly written and often illogical,
emotional rants would embarrass and bring him close to professional suicide.
But apparently since he's retired, and apparently well-off, and lives in a
comfortable tax haven on Crete, he doesn't seem to care and just indulges his
childish fantasies and catty remarks with his tiny circle of cronies. It’s fairly obvious he uses
alternate accounts and different IDs, e.g. “Mongochili,” to make it appear
others read his blog and share his ‘obcession’ with Lynch. His sheer extremism
indicates he is either a “rogue criminal lawyer” gone slightly postal, or a
paid agent of Leonard Cohen and/or his legal team. I think the latter.
I think his over-the-top campaign will have the opposite effect than the
one intended: it can only make people suspicious of the case against Kelley
Lynch. Otherwise, why not let justice take its course? Why subject her to
endless attacks over the internet if she has already been declared guilty? This
kind of harassment resembles 'gang stalking' -- except that Gianelli seems to
be both the leader and most of the membership of his own gang.
Gianelli is like no other email correspondent I have ever had. A
single-paragraph response from my end always leads to a flood from his. Each
exchange is like a trip down a rabbithole of
irrational rage. Here and there he mixes in details and facts which
might be worth discussing, if they weren’t drowned by high-volume invective. Of
course this could be a tactic: if he
really was ever a successful trial lawyer, it may have been by being an
insufferable bully. Or maybe most of his cases involved low-life criminals or
people with little or no education.
He claims to have accurately predicted the outcome of every Lynch hearing
-- but then so could I. As we all know, cases are won on technicalities. That's
one of the reasons, including the 10-year series of precedents, that I am not
surprised the judge dismissed Kelley's motion.
If Gianelli were truly a respectable lawyer, he would restrict his comments
to these legal matters, and not engage in bizarre slander and speculation. He
would have no need to bring up my "past" - or a wacked version of it
that sounds like it came from someone on Cohen's disinfo team. He draws from a
psychological profile that is easily recognizable because I have heard it from
other Cohen groupies. As someone who saw a bit too much when I knew Cohen, I’m
no stranger to slander, I've written out my story on a public blog etc. where
anyone can read what I have to say. Much of what I have written on Cohen was
initially to defend myself against gossip and rumours that were circulated (and
believed) by some of his friends. My side is completely different, much more
detailed and accurate. It's also quite revealing of the life of a clever pop
idol in our celebrity-worshiping culture. There's no point in my arguing with
people who base their opinions on ridiculous myths, like the 'restraining
order' that never was. Cohen's deceptive tactics have not really evolved in the
past twenty years, since he used them on me.
I really don't care if Gianelli thinks I am a star-struck 'scorned woman'
who never got over her passing encounter with greatness. This Mafia-style
lawyer's fixed opinions, based on trashy clichés say much more about him than
they do about me or my writing, or why I became interested in what really
happened to Kelley Lynch.
And of course, no one would ever suspect Leonard Cohen of encouraging
Gianelli. But in my experience, Gianelli is exactly the kind of human megaphone
Cohen places in charge of his 'secret business.' Like other clowns from Cohen's
private entourage that I have met over the years, he may not even realize he's
being used because he is ridiculous and therefore disposable. It's a
fascinating system that owes much to the criminal underworld that Leonard Cohen
skirts with all the skill of someone born into it. I'm sure Gianelli feels at
home, and knows his place, in that world where he acts the part of a useful idiot
whose job is to create a circus atmosphere and put the audience into a deeper
state of trance.
I am by now firmly convinced Lynch is a patsy/victim of a weird consortium
of Cohen associates, clueless supporters, and Cohen himself. If I hadn't lived
next door to Leonard Cohen, and witnessed similar dynamics twenty years ago, I
might believe differently. But the essence of what happened to Kelley also
happened to me, two decades ago, on a lesser scale with lower stakes. It was
relatively easy for me to walk away from it back then – my reputation was
damaged but my life was not utterly destroyed by my association with Leonard
Cohen, as Kelley's was.
I empathize with her situation, and see it as just one more story of the
corruption that is sinking the whole world. I know Leonard Cohen would agree
with that. He would only disagree with the idea that we all have an obligation
to oppose injustice, rather than 'let it go by' and even profit from it.
Ann D.
