Neil Gaiman Is Innocent: Caroline Wallner
Leverage in a real estate deal, litigation, arbitration.
Several years before Master, ceramicist Caroline Wallner had a consensual relationship with Neil Gaiman following her breakup with husband Philipp Marshall. She lived on Neil’s property in Hudson Valley, New York State. However, for various reasons, her relationship with others at the time was souring, and she was asked to leave. She’d been staying there rent free and was given a further 7 months to find a new place.
During this time she began to accuse Neil Gaiman of exploitation and sexual abuse, which eventually culminated in her contracting Gloria Allred’s legal firm, which secured her a $300,000 settlement and made all parties; Wallner, her former-husband and Neil Gaiman, sign an NDA, promising not to publicly discuss the relationship, issues surrounding real estate that had arisen, or litigating against anyone involved.
Later, after Scarlett Pavlovich made allegations in Master, Wallner heard about it, and decided to get in touch with the program. She’s presented herself as ‘another victim’ but like Scarlett also is on record saying that the relationship with Neil and the sex was consensual.
So, what is the full story here?
WHO IS WALLNER?
Caroline Wallner is not an ordinary person, but seems to have a lot of connections with famous people, most notably, besides Gaiman and Palmer, she’s best friends with Michael Stipe, the lead singer of REM.
Here’s a picture of Wallner featured in Stipe’s autobiography, although many years ago as her kids are all college aged now.
Stipe says of her:
‘‘I also approached Caroline Wallner, a ceramicist who is one of my oldest friends and the mother of my goddaughter. We went to art school and she’s an incredible artist who has a business upstate in Bearsville, New York, called Tivoli Tile. She makes beautiful pottery and plates and mugs. Everything in my kitchen is by Caroline.’’
Stipe also does a lot to promote Wallner’s work through his photography. Her ceramics don’t come cheap - $66 for a plate, for instance.
Interestingly, Michael Stipe is good friends with Tilda Swinton, who Scarlett Pavlovich says personally gave her a scholarship to her school in Scotland. I’m not altogether convinced that there was no prior contact between the accusers, so these degrees of separation are interesting.
Why do I mention her celebrity connections?
Mostly because she is described like this:
It’s rather downplaying the fact that she’s a high-profile ceramicist whose work is to be found in many celebrity homes throughout New York state. ‘‘Potter’' is a choice of word that makes her seem more down-home, and her ex-husband Phillip Marshall, while being a keen constructor of buildings is also a musician whose band played alongside Amanda Palmer.
When it comes to the caretaker arrangement, it doesn’t look like there was a formal contract, but more like an informal agreement to pitch in with work and maintain the property in exchange for living there.
As with Scarlett being a ‘babysitter’ or ‘nanny’, typifying her as a ‘caretaker’ somewhat obscures the personal and informal nature of these relationships. Just as Scarlett was primarily someone who’d known Amanda Palmer as a friend for several years, rather than someone who had a purely economic relationship with them, so Wallner and her family are more like members of a community enmeshed with Gaiman and Palmer.
Also, part of this is that she wasn’t doing much work, holding up her end of the practical bargain, and this was causing issues.
A trusted source states that the whole argument between Gaiman and Wallner has nothing to do with sexual impropriety, and everything to do with real estate. That essentially Wallner was not holding up her end of the bargain in terms of pitching in, was getting on the wrong side of other’s involved in the property, and that Amanda wanted her to move out.
The essence of the problem is this, states the source, Wallner and her family were already getting a good deal by not having to pay rent in an extremely expensive part of the country, the Hudson Valley.
There was originally a promise that they’d get some of the land, but that would no doubt involve Phillip Marshall’s construction skills. He divorced Wallner in 2017, so couldn’t follow through. Meanwhile, Wallner slipped into depression and didn’t contribute much to work on the property. She did continue to make and sell her ceramics to celebrities and upscale art galleries.
This led to greater and greater frustration and Amanda Palmer wanted her to leave. Amanda had never liked the house, and wanted to sell it, and was meanwhile divorcing Neil Gaiman.
Neil had formed a relationship, at least a sexual one with Wallner. It was affectionate, but he had been clear that it was not romantic.
This is from Shapiro’s article:
Clearly, for whatever reason, she had believed there was more to this relationship than sex. But he had been up front with her, telling her it wasn’t like that. She may even have believed she would be the next ‘‘Mrs Gaiman’’ after Amanda.
In Wallner’s account on Master, it’s clear she felt or hoped it might be something more:
She will also say that after he breakup ‘‘it just felt nice to have affection,’’ and ‘‘At first, I think I, uh… I think when I thought, maybe, that it was genuine, I think I did text him that – it felt nice or something.’’
But several years later, and after some deterioration of the relationship:
And then:
Even then, there is 7 months rent free for her to get a new place sorted.
Things had been going downhill for a long time. Her husband had left her for another woman. She’d been rebuffed romantically by Gaiman, though he was still open to an affectionate and sexual relationship. There were increasing calls for her to do her fair share, and Amanda wanted her gone.
December 2021 was the time she’d been told to move out by. But it seems she still hadn’t gone. At this time, she hires Gloria Allred.
HIRING GLORIA ALLRED
In Shapiro’s article there is a part that is strikingly out of touch without reality. We are going to see in a second in another podcast in the Wall Street Journal, because Terry Bird did not present Wallner with an NDA - it was Wallner’s own lawyers that came up with an NDA.
According to a trusted source, Lila Shapiro was aware of this when she wrote the article and put this section in anyway.
And we’re starting to see that these allegations are acting as ‘leverage’ for Wallner, a way to get more time or financial concessions. Garizia in Master:
There was later, an NDA involved. However, it was not proposed by Terry Bird, or by Neil Gaiman, instead it was Wallner’s own super-lawyer Gloria Allred.
What it looks like is that two separate events have been melded into one in this account. Being offered money to move out at the time she’d already been told she needed to go by, with 7 months prior warning. And then her own choice to litigate.
It is also a matter of public record in this WSJ podcast:
In Shapiro’s article, she says that Terry Bird reached out in December 2021. There’s no mention in the WSJ podcast of having been given an offer of $5000. So either that did not happen at all, or it happened after Wallner got Allred in. In any case, Terry Bird was not a lawyer and wouldn’t have had a 16 page NDA to hand without lawyers involved.
What is clear from this, is that it was Wallner who took it to a legal level, there was no move from Gaiman to pursue a ‘'secret settlement contract’’.
She will later make out that hat she was exploited by Gloria Allred’s legal firm and is now litigating against them as well. Rachel Johnson and Lila Shapiro should watch out too.
And then there’s this:
So it’s interesting because in both cases Wallner reneged on the contract, both the NDA part with Gaiman, and the forced arbitration clause as she is now taking Allred to court.
Does anyone else feel a little frustrated by this?
She signed a document with big ramifications, with a huge amount of money about to change to her hands. She was told to read it, but didn’t because it was long and complicated. She had every right to say ‘‘I won’t sign this until explains it to me.’’ And now she blames others. I don’t think Allred’s team acted honorably here, but one can almost feel their irritation at being taken to court, when Wallner reneged on every aspect of the deal. It was her who approached them, her who sought litigation, and her who wanted money from someone who had housed her for 6 years.
This would be a lot more understandable if the talk of ‘‘sexual abuse’’ was clear-cut, but we will see later that it is not.
She then goes on to say she was under duress because she needed a place to live. This will be strikingly similar to Scarlett’s case later, who also claims economic duress.
And here it does sound like she knew what she was agreeing to, just that she changed her mind later.
After 7 months she could have found a new place. This might have been somewhat complicated by wanting somewhere with an accessible ceramics studio, but that’s not a survival situation. Also her three girls, then entering college age, could have stayed with their father Philipp Marshall.
In Master, she completely skips over the fact that in December 2021 she hired a law firm. Instead, she makes it look like she’s dealing with Neil’s lawyers directly.
So what are these real estate issues? In Shapiro’s article, she doesn’t mention them, instead saying:
But in Summer of 2024, when she spoke in Master, she did know exactly that half of the settlement was about real estate. It was about land that she believed had been promised to her, but was not forthcoming because she and her husband weren’t able to keep up their end of the bargain. This is from someone whose lived rent free on the property for 6 years.
Michael Stipe perhaps? If Caroline has such rich friends that they can get her on expensive therapy programs, was she as desperate as all that?
However, there were texts, photos and videos that showed that her relationship with Neil Gaiman was consensual, as there similar media, WhatsApp messages with Scarlett.
These are the texts, photos and videos, that she is now taking Gaiman to arbitration over. Though she says they don’t exist.
But elsewhere, she does say that she was sexting Gaiman.
How could he break the terms of the NDA with this material if it doesn’t exist?
WHAT TO MAKE OF THIS
One thing is very clear, it was Gloria Allred’s firm that pressured both Wallner and Gaiman to sign the NDA and that Gaiman produced a financial payout for Wallner.
He readily agreed. But it is unlikely that she would have had a case against him, as the promise of land was informal and he had extensive digital evidence of their relationship, showing it was consensual, voluntary and mutual.
Buried deep in the interviews is the ‘real estate issue’ which she tries to suppress. This may the main thrust of her complaint, and she is also likely quite sore from a perceived romantic rejection from Gaiman. There are distinct phrases which give away that the accusations of sexual abuse are merely leverage in the real estate element, and also a way to buy more time, long after she should have left the property.
CASES NOW
Caroline Wallner is now suing Gloria Allred’s firm - Allred, Maroko & Goldberg - along with others. The plaintiffs allege that they were pressured into signing NDAs.
The question with Wallner is, how can the NDA be both Gaiman’s ‘secret settlement contract’ and Allred’s nasty piece of paper?
The blame must lie with one or the other. Instead, Wallner is essentially saying that her own lawyers pressured her, but somehow it was Gaiman’s fault.
Consider that Wallner said she contracted Allred, not Gaiman. And in a very short space of time, Allred’s firm pressured Wallner to sign the NDA, but also Gaiman - who can hardly have been thrilled about shelling out 300,000 dollars to escape a drawn out, lengthy court battle with someone who he’d gone out of his way to shelter for many years.
Nobody had approached her to ask her to ‘'keep quiet’’ about anything until she brought in Allred. And settlements is generally what they seek, and advertise as being capable of getting for their clients. It’s also worth noting they take a very hefty cut of these settlements.
Gaiman likely saw it as a swift conclusion to a nasty bit of business, and that Wallner with enough money to see her through would be out of his life and off his property.
And indeed, shortly after the payout, she was onto a new studio and what looks like a new home:
Although interestingly, she appeared able to move into the new studio even before the payout. It does beg the question could she have stayed here? And if she had the money for a studio, no cheap thing in the Hudson valley, why not for a home. How could she be as desperate as she says she was?
And she was able to take a ‘'month long regroup’’ just before all of this:
After she made her allegations in Master and There Is No Safe Word, he’s suing for breach of the NDA. Whether she understood it as such or not, she essentially extorted him, saying she’d mar his reputation if he didn’t pay out.
And then despite getting paid, proceeded to do exactly what she had said she wouldn’t do. So, now at the very least, he likely feels he should get his money back with interest.
THE ARBITRATION
What Gaiman is calling Wallner to is not a court case, but an ‘arbitration’. This is more of a private legal ruling. Also, it appears that Wallner is filing claims (correction: filed them first), saying that Gaiman’s team kept photos and videos of her that were to be destroyed as part of the agreement, though why she believes this to be the case comes down to threats by Allred’s team, rather than anything Gaiman has indicated.
Elsewhere she says that she never sent photos and videos of this nature. She’s is clearly concerned that what they show is that the relationship was of a consensual nature, and only went on Master to smear Gaiman because she thought that this evidence was destroyed.
But still, it’s absolutely not proven that Gaiman or his team, or Allred’s kept the material. This could easily have been a bluff on Allred’s part.
Unlike a court case, arbitration is private and confidential. The arbitration body issues a ‘written award’, that confirms that the payment should be made. If Wallner still refuses to pay at this point, it can go to court, where it almost always wins - and then it’s the same recovery process you’d usually see in these circumstances.
Wallner’s new lawyer said:
This is a strange thing to say, because whether or not there is any substantial truth to the allegations, of course at this stage Gaiman cannot silence Wallner. The horse has bolted so to speak. Could it be that he acts different from the abusive men because he is not in fact an abusive man?
Also, what’s often skimmed over is that Wallner wanted arbitration first. This may have been the final straw.
Again, how does she know that his team has in fact held onto these media?
SEXUAL ABUSE
After all this, what has Wallner actually accused Neil Gaiman of? Not much, at least not consistently. She agrees that their relationship was consensual, that at times it ‘felt nice’, that it was good to have ‘affection’.
Is any of this true?
In addition to expensive boots she’s also taking holidays to Iceland.
Had her jobs been taken away?
Really, it looks like things were ticking along quite nicely.
By the time of the pandemic it looks like Michel Stipe was commissioning work with her throughout the pandemic. We’ve already seen she was able to line up a new studio before she got the payout. That’s probably around $500 pm in the Hudson Valley.
When she asks ‘'why would I do that?’’ She’s already given the answer, it felt nice, she wanted the affection, he was a comfort to her.
She blames him for not getting better, but isn’t it the fact that she wanted a romantic relationship but couldn’t get it that is causing her pain here? Something that Gaiman can’t be expected to provide just to make her feel better.
She will also say elsewhere that she was ‘‘coerced’’ as part of an exchange. However, these things do not go together. She had plenty of intrinsic reason to form an affectionate and sexual relationship with Neil Gaiman, which she admits to. One cannot say at one at the same time that you liked and desired something, that you would have in fact liked something more, and that you were forced into it.
What she accuses him of is not based on anything Gaiman said explicitly, but a perceived link between the relationship and maintaining her spot on the property. Something that she had no reason to believe she could wrangle indefinitely.
She also says elsewhere that it feels ‘‘nice’’ and she likes the ‘‘affection’’. She’s also miserable for reasons that have nothing to do with Neil Gaiman.
When he says ‘‘I like our trade’’, she wants us to understand that he means a trade of sex for housing.
But would that be the obvious interpretation if it were not for her framing?
What of trading care for care? Not a romantic relationship, but just one where they look after each others emotions - help each other out.
She also attempts to get Gaiman’s son involved:
Quite sordid, but did that actually happen? Because funnily enough, when she’s describing the same incident:
Where is the son?
You would think this would be notable.
And if such an important detail has been inserted or removed, how can we trust the rest of it?
The exact same pattern is seen with Scarlett. In her original allegations in Master she describes kinky scenes in an Auckland Hotel room. There is no mention of Gaiman’s son. Later in Shapiro’s article, describing the same event, suddenly a child appears.
MOTIVATIONS
That Caroline Wallner is an unhappy person going through a very difficult period in life is not in question. Before she started a relationship with Neil Gaiman and after her separation and divorce from Phillip Marshall, she stayed in bed drinking for many days. She would frequently break down in tears. She describes being at the lowest point she ever had.
This is very sad, and I for one sympathise with her state of mind, her suffering, but not her actions. None of this is Neil Gaiman’s fault, and it seemed he tried to comfort her. She said it was ‘'nice’’ to have ‘‘affection’’. He also let her live on the property rent free for 6 years, and for a long time even after she was unable or unwilling to do the caretaking jobs fully.
She hoped, or believed that this was a romance. And he had to make it clear that it wasn’t, which must have been a blow to her already shattered sense of self esteem. But that’s not his fault. It was just how he felt.
This is what Caroline Wallner posted a few months after getting her payout.
The original quote is from the 1697 play The Mourning Bride by William Congreave (not Shakespeare as is commonly believed). It’s a tragic-drama of jealousy, mistaken passions, political scheming and violent revenge. And this is the line, in reference to Zara, whose green-eyes drive much of the action:
"Heavan has no rage like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."
And the modern rendition of the proverb is of course:
But this is probably not how Wallner meant it, as today, the company selling the T-shirt, somewhat misappropriates (or reappropriates, or ironically repurposes though without a somewhat necessary explanation) the phrase into a feminist slogan.
The conflation between these ideas seems to lie at the heart of Wallner’s attacks on Gaiman. The confusion between being ‘scorned’ as in romantically rebuffed plus not getting what she felt she was owed in the real estate department on the one hand, and being sexually abused on the other.
The two are not the same.
Her claims that she wouldn’t have engaged in sexual or affectionate exchanges with Gaiman if it were not for a sense of ‘'exchange’’ of getting something, security, in return, fall down - because she had every reason to pursue affection due to feelings of loneliness, need for comfort, a desire for affection, and this she admits in various interviews.
I welcome constructive feedback to strengthen this work:
Please keep comments under 200 words so I can feature as many as possible.
If wording is unclear or could be misinterpreted, I’ll revise for clarity.
If you spot a factual or logical inconsistency, I’ll gladly correct or refine it.
Abuse or bad-faith commentary will not be tolerated.
📩 Send contributions to: neil_gaiman_is_innocent@mail.com
💬 Feel free to chat — whether it’s thoughts, questions, or just reflections, we’d love to hear from you at r/NeilGaimanIsInnocent
Click here to make a one-off financial contribution to the research project.
✦ Next Up
Critical Feminist Jurisprudence and Antisemitism.