Every once in a while I look up Sarah Ruth Ashcraft to see if there are any updates with her.
As a reminder, she is Tom Hanks' main accuser, saying he assaulted her when she was 13. She says her father, who had a position in the Michigan Democratic Party at the time, actually sold her to Hanks.
Well, the first thing I found was a woman named Danielle who has been posting about Sarah extensively just recently. She expresses concerns regarding Sarah's well-being due to recent Twitter posts.
https://drdannielleblumenthal.wordpress.com/2020/10/13/wellness-check-sarah-ruth-ashcraft-10-12-2020/
https://drdannielleblumenthal.wordpress.com/2020/10/11/concern-for-sarah-ruth-ashcraft-10-11-2020/
Next, I checked Sarah's Twitter, and there is in-fact a lot going on there.
https://mobile.twitter.com/SaRaAshcraft
She expresses disapproval of this Danielle woman and expresses that her life has been in danger and that the authorities are working against her. She also states that Chris, who this whole time has been her supportive partner, was actually in on the lies and even trafficking her.
I don't know what to make of all this, but it is certainly a big development in this case related to Tom Hanks' most or only public accuser. Importantly, Sarah Ruth Ashcraft also accused Hillary Clinton of abusing her as a child.
view the rest of the comments →
Vindicator ago
I read some of this on Twitter. I'm not sure what to make of "Sarah". On the one hand, she has outted her father, posting pics and I assume fully doxing herself. She has been kind to everyone outside of her family, Hanks and Hillary. On the other, she has said a lot of super weird crap. The kind of crap that feeds right into the "crazy conspiritard cult" narrative that shills from Shareblue have been advancing ever since 2016.
For example: she posts Q stuff and claims it's about her like this Rachel Chandler Insta photo that Q posted: https://mobile.twitter.com/SaRaAshcraft/status/1108778071891591168. That thread -- to me -- reads very similarly to some of the stuff posted by the bot fixated on Racine. Same co-opting of other people's work to support their own narrative. Same lack of verifiability. Same effect on reader of jacking up emotions.
She, on the other hand, has always respected the submission rules here and shared our work, which is very un-shillish.
I honestly don't know what to think of her.
Joe10jo ago
Wait what? You’re telling me that the Racine thing is a bot? I mean that def explains it but wow.
ababcb ago
It's obvious the Racine poster can not possibly be a bot. Look at how he replies to people on Twitter: https://twitter.com/DenyTheMark2020
Those are obviously not automated replies. You should be asking yourself why there is such a strong effort to convince people that he is a bot when it couldn't be more obvious that he isn't.
Vindicator ago
@Joe10jo, post about Racine and see what happens. Never contributes; only shows up to spam posts on certain topics, always in an attempt to sow discord and distrust. Definitely automation going on to one degree or another.
ababcb ago
@Joe10jo I encourage you to post about Racine. Here, I made a post for you. Let's see what happens.
You really believe a bot is sophisticated enough to create a new account named "NoBots" in reply to your post calling him a bot?
If you actually believe that, then you must agree with his repeated claims about 5G+ AI. If he is actually a bot then ironically everything he is saying about advances in AI must be true. I've never seen a bot anywhere else on the internet that could pull off such a sophisticated response, going even as far as to make the username of his brand new account relevant to the post talking about him.
Vindicator ago
He's had multiple usernames claiming he's not a bot. In fact, he generates new usernames all the time, whether they get banned or not. He does it to avoid downvotes, which is directly against the Voat User Agreement rule against vote manipulation. He doesn't give a crap about the community standards at all. Just like a bot.
Do I think humans occasionally add real text to his replies? Sure.
ababcb, this would not prove anything, if you control the bot, now, would it?