It's called Occam's Razor; usually the simplest answer is the correct one. Yes we can speculate who sent those tweets and why, but at that point we are sort of putting guilt assumed on the supposed victim (or targeted individual here, as I'd like to put it). At that point we're inviting reasonable grounds to doubt their innocence and are somewhat acting as the defense for the accused party.
My issue here is that when people start coming up with cases of reasonable doubt for the accused, they generally don't ALSO come up with cases of presumed legitimacy for the accusing party, either. It's always one way or the other. If the former should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, that same rule must be held to the latter, as well.
And when you send tweets like that to someone, that's pretty damning a look no matter the reason behind it. So both parties could be presumed innocent here but the person/people behind those tweets look a little less innocent here than Alanah IMHO.
Unless, again, she fabricated those tweets herself. But speculating that with zero proof whatsoever (let alone her having no history of such things at all, to my knowledge), is casting suspicion of guilt on them over no solid grounds.
Okay, these are people not named Alanah Pearce, so it bears zero relevance to her case. How's about we look at Alanah as an individual and not what group she happens to identify into, and see what that reveals.
...Ah, yes that's right. No prior incidents like this from her AFAIK. No history of this type of thing, for surely by now reports of such would have been coming out with evidence. Nothing of the sort, though.
If we're over here accusing game journalists of negatively grouping all dissenting gamers into a monolith, it's no good if we're doing the same to individuals who might be involved in some drama themselves and happen to also be games journalists.
