Damien McMullen,

I am writing this publicly because I am being criminally prosecuted on a false account of my relationship with Oliver Babington Wilson, and you are one of the people who can prove that account false. You have known me for twelve years, have known Oli for roughly as long, and witnessed our relationship from its beginning in early 2024 through the week after 12 April 2026, when Oli and I came to you for a second opinion in a group conversation you personally received. The full contemporary record is preserved in the April group chats and our DMs.

The prosecution’s case is that my relationship with Oli ended some uncertain time ago, that in the recent period I have been at most a difficult ex-boyfriend, and that he finally cut contact with me after I demanded his medical data, as his ex-boyfriend, apropos of nothing, and then struck him; after that, it is suggested that I stalked Oli and menaced his new partner Sam Cherny because I could not accept the end of our relationship or the existence of the new one. That account is evident in the prosecution case file.

I admit the assault. On 12 April, I struck Oli once on the head while holding my telephone. It cut him. I apologised immediately, told the police what I had done, signed a statement, supplied evidence, and pled guilty to that charge.

But it is not the case that I have 'stalked' an unwilling Oli since February, when I was first introduced to Mrs Cherny as Oli's "stalker". You have known and spoken to us as a couple much later than that. You messaged me in March, saying that you were "so happy to see you hit [sic, recte 'get'?] that sorted out, you're both made for each other, it's very sweet". You were in our Facebook group chats from the week of 12-18 April. You can check them by opening the app or website, but for convenience and others, here are some excerpts:

After Oli adopted his formal 'no contact' posture, immediately after my first visit to Upper Mall on April 18th at 8:30pm, you continued to relay messages from him, making it clear that he did not want the relationship to end, but that he was "pissed off" at group chats involving others and wanted me to stop doing that:

I refused that bargain. I went to Upper Mall to tell Sam Cherny what I believed he had the right to know. (I am not pretending to be a saint. Of course I also hoped that this would put an end to Oli's lying and the stress it caused me.)

In other words, it was not a mystery why I went, and it was not to attack anyone or to plead for Oli's affection. I went to tell Sam Cherny what I felt he deserved to know: that the man living with him as a partner had also been dating me.

Oli’s response was to report to the police a false account of history in which he had broken up with me, in which Sam Cherny was the innocent new partner he had subsequently (his timeline is beyond incoherent in this regard) met and become involved with, and, instead of the reality that I had rejected your relayed offer of intimacy in exchange for non-disclosure, I was portrayed as having come and said these things primarily in order to somehow thereby reconcile with Oli.

You, knowing this was untrue, regarding as risible the idea that I was a stalker, regarding as risible the idea that I was violent, dangerous, or abusive, refused to correct Oli's falsehoods. You said nothing. You abandoned me. You still won't say anything to the Chernys that might undermine Oli's false account.

You, Damien, did not say: "Sam and Oli were still calling each other boyfriends after 12 April. I saw the messages. I myself understood and communicated to Sam that the rupture was only temporary, and that it was the result of his disclosures to others rather than vice versa."

Instead, you nitpicked my every reaction, called me paranoid and obsessive, and tried to make me doubt my sanity. You said, for shame, that I "need to be sectioned or remanded". You said I was "spinning nonsense". I was not. I was desperately trying to understand what was happening to me and why. Meanwhile you, knowing the truth, withheld it both from and about me. I will never forgive you as long as I live.

I am not complaining that you were 'biased' or insufficiently supportive of my side. I am alleging that you knew Oli had constructed an elaborately false account of our relationship, one that would not withstand your testimony, and that he seemed to have known, correctly, that you would not contradict it - and you didn't.

You have nevertheless spoken about me with remarkable confidence.

When I raised your deleted communications with Oli and the possibility that they might be examined in court, you replied "you’re delusional, you really think I’m going to court lol". Why did you say that, Damien?

In one recorded call you formulated the mechanism yourself: "Why did you tell Sam that you were sex trafficking and make him worry and make him freak out and make him act like a weirdo?" You knew Oli had supplied the frightening false story. You knew my reaction followed quite reasonably from what he had said. I had told you this when I was making the report, and we had discussed it. Despite that, you repeatedly returned to it (in performances whose dishonesty was plain to us both but which were clearly addressed to some audience that was not me) as an illustration of my supposed delusions, deceit, or similar.

I have now put the issue to you directly and in front of the Chernys. I asked whether, if the history I set out was true, what you and Oli had done would be disgraceful. You answered "yes totally". I then asked whether the history was true. You refused to answer that question in writing.

Your position is untenable. You accept the moral conclusion if my account is true, but refuse to answer the factual premise even though it consists largely of conversations you personally received. If you deny the account, the documents contradict you. If you admit it, you condemn your own conduct. You have therefore tried to remain suspended between truth and falsehood: categorical when insulting me, suddenly uncertain when asked what happened; certain that I am paranoid, unable to identify the supposed delusion; certain that your messages contain nothing relevant, unable or unwilling to produce them; swearing "hand on heart" that Oli and Sam Cherny were not together, then retreating under scrutiny to "the fuck do I know?".

I am ending that ambiguity.

I accuse you of knowingly allowing a materially false account to stand while I am prosecuted on that basis. I accuse you of pretending ignorance about facts you know first-hand, protecting Oliver Babington Wilson’s false chronology, withholding the truth from the Chernys, attacking my sanity and credibility, and attempting to silence the person whose freedom is imperilled by the resulting account.

If any part of that is false, identify it. Tell the Chernys that Oli and I were not boyfriends after 12 April. Deny that you received those messages. Deny that you told me we were made for each other. Deny that you said we had a unique bond. Deny that you relayed the message that Oli was not breaking up with me, and just wanted me to stop the group chats. Adduce your evidence. Produce the email in which Oli allegedly corrected the police description of Sam Cherny as his partner. In short, bring receipts.

Do not answer by saying that I am angry. Too right I am angry. Do not answer by complaining that I have sent too many messages. I have sent far too many. I shouldn't have needed more than one. Do not invite me for a drink, approach my mother, demand a private call, or prevail on the length of our friendship (at least not unless you want to hear all my best and most bitter "MCMULLEN believes he is still in a friendship with ADAMS"-themed jokes).

If you maintain that this accusation defames you, sue me. Plead the words you say are false. Disclose your messages. Give evidence. Let a court examine the April group conversations, your May advice, your communications with Oli, the deleted material and the supposed police correction. Prove that I invented your knowledge or misrepresented your conduct.

An innocent man accused of such a thing would call it a lie, show the evidence, and demand retraction. He would not let it stand under his full name on the internet. But you are not an innocent man, are you, Damien?

You therefore have three choices: tell the Chernys the truth; rebut my account in particulars with evidence; or bring a libel claim and prove it false.

Until you do one of those things, I will let this documented accusation stand, and I will state that I consider it proved beyond serious doubt.

Yours,

Sam Robinson-Adams
your friend of twelve years