#Weinergate: Notes on My 6/19 Jenny George Call

A few people have asked for written info about the call I got from Jenny George on Sunday, June 19th. I’ve discussed this call several times on my BlogTalkRadio shows but haven’t written out the conversation.  Listen to July 20th show for my immediate thoughts as I was trying to sort stuff out. I didn’t take written notes during the call. These notes are what I recollect.

I’ve noted things that Ms. George said that were lies in red.

  • Her name was Jenny George
  • She had gotten two threatening messages
  • She was scared and worried and had no idea what was going on
  • She lived in Los Angeles
  • She was attending the UCLA Creative Writing Program
  • The program was small – only about 50 people
  • The callers had gotten her number from the UCLA directory
  • She had made her info on the UCLA directory private
  • She had started the Starchild111 account in 2009
  • She had used the account to contact celebrities
  • She had contacted Kim Kardashian to see what kind of makeup case she used
  • She had used the name Jenay, which is a nickname for Jenny
  • She had no idea about recent use of the account
  • She had never written for Reason magazine
  • She was no longer on Twitter because none of her friends used Twitter
  • She gave no indication that she had tried to log onto the Starchild111 account
  • She had no interest or knowledge of politics. She made this point several times
  • She enjoyed reality TV
  • She only knew about the “Weenie” story from watching Inside Edition & Access Hollywood
  • She was originally from Massachusetts
  • She moved to California when she was 9 or 10
  • She said several times what a good, responsible person I was



  1. Red lies could have sub-bullets with evidence saying why they are proven lies 0r at least contended/contradicted by a source with direct knowledge.

    Do you have notes on call(s) with Prof Lew and Detective to support why some of above are demonstrably lies as opposed to perceived lies?

  2. I indicated what I’m saying are lies. I’m not going to source each one, for a number of reasons.

  3. How are you sure 2009 is incorrect? You can’t tell from the starchild111 1/1/2011 webcache (name: Jenay). You can only tell the earliest date in starchild111’s tweet stream at that point in time. Some prior tweets may have been deleted.

  4. Lee. Missing from this is the whole “Call the professor, he can vouch” so it’s unclear if Prof confirmed the JG in MA (see Sarah’s questions)

  5. You were talking to the person who is socking for Nikki and probably others and even all of the characters, including Patriot.

    This is perfectly clear.

  6. Just want that last nail in the JG coffin. Prof’s JG not only exists, but is SHE, not just someone who has been pretending to be her.

  7. Prof name came via JP who talked to JG after Lee received call. Both JP & Lee called prof.

  8. Koam, I know that last part. 1:41pm. I want to establish with certainty, that the person who called Lee (and talked to Preston) is one and the same as the person the professor and his wife know and described, not someone pretending to be that person.

  9. “The callers had gotten her number from the UCLA directory”
    “She had made her info on the UCLA directory private”

    These two seem to be in conflict.

    So her information is public on the UCLA directory? Which means that someone could have actually gotten her number from the UCLA directory. It’s not out of the realm of possibilities that a leftie tracked down her number at the UCLA directory and made threats using your name. In an attempt to discredit you.

    Or are you saying that since there were no threats made against her then they didn’t get the number from the directory because no one actually called her.

    I kind of wonder if we’re at a point in this story where until someone can write the definitive story on it we’re just spinning our wheels. Perhaps waiting for the police investigation to run it’s course? I don’t know. There seems to be a lot of unmentionable stuff going on in the background that just hinting about isn’t helping the story.

  10. @ SarahW

    That’s an interesting question and probably should be clarified. How does anyone know that the person who called Lee was JP in MA? I guess we do know that a JP in MA filed charges alleging harassment from Lee or one of his followers. That would provide an avenue for confirmation.

  11. Just want a match-up between professor’s description and detective’s/charging documents’.

    A determined faker might even resort to not only false report, but falsifying own identity.
    Unlikely – simplest thing is the OBVIOUS conclusions that JG in MA exists and is Lee’s caller. ….BUT this is a fat faker who forges IDs. and creates false identities, and misdirects in attempts to conceal her own identity.

  12. I read a fairly recent article (Jan. of this year) about the UCLA online campus directory, relating to security and the current “defaults” for release of student information.

    All students are included unless they actively opt out. However, they can take steps to have that information redacted from the online directory.


    Although it doesn’t say this explicitly, I think removal of a name from the online directory would be nearly instantaneous with a log-on and change of privacy settings.

  13. * oops I meant JG not JP.

  14. To clarify — I asked her how she thought the threateners got her name — she said UCLA directory.

    Then she said she had made her info private — after the threat, before she called me.

  15. @ Lee

    So her story is before you knew her, her phone number was available on the UCLA site even though you didn’t know who she was until she called you. Meaning you wouldn’t have been able to use the directory since you didn’t know her name. To make it even more confusing she’s also saying that you threatened her before her initial phone call to you where she admits to who she is and her connection to the Starchild account? So she thinks you threatened her and then calls up to chat?

    WOW that’s some deep crazy right there. I see why the police weren’t in a hurry to get a hold of you.

  16. She didn’t accuse me of threatening her on the phone.

    It’s on the initial police report, which she later said was written down wrong.

  17. He’s back.


    ronbryn @patterico I can confirm Boston woman got death threats, but never said it was from @stranahan …stay tuned for much more on #weinergate

  18. I would be shocked if an extension student was in the UCLA *Campus* directory. Or in the UCLA directory at all.


Leave a Reply