Scarlett Was Not Estranged - DOCUMENT EVIDENCE
It's long been suspected that Scarlett's claims to be estranged from her family were untrue. Now emails have emerged that show she maintained a connection with her CEO father.
By now it’s a familiar refrain, ‘‘Neil Gaiman had sex with a homeless, broke, vulnerable woman who was estranged from her family, dependent on him for shelter and money - she had no other choice.’’
One by one these claims have disintegrated. Last year you may remember I revealed that Scarlett, who had claimed to be estranged from her family, was seen on her father’s yacht in the Mediterranean. That father is the CEO Bernard Pavlovich. That ruled out the possibility of her being ‘‘estranged’’ in 2025.
But it did leave a loose end, what if she had been estranged from her family in 2022, the time when she was with Gaiman, and later reconciled with them?
In Master episode 1 we’re told:
Rachel Johnson 00:35:41: It's worth pointing out that at this stage, Scarlett has nowhere else to go. She's estranged from her parents. She's no money, apart from what Neil Gaiman gives her. She's dependent on him for bed, board and income.
In Lila Shapiro’s There Is No Safe Word, we’re told:
For Pavlovich, who was estranged from her family and without a safety net, Palmer filled a deeper need.
And Pavlovich refers to being ‘divorced’ from her parents:
She [Amanda Palmer] proposed they get together when Pavlovich got out, promising to help her get back on her feet, and suggested in the meantime she go home to her parents. This infuriated Pavlovich. “There is a reason I have divorced my parents,” she wrote. “I’m starting to feel very much on my own and like I hate everyone.”
The piece of information that reveals that she was not estranged from her father at the time comes in the form of favour she asks Neil.
Soon after she asks Neil if she can borrow his car. We can see that in the WhatsApp messages here:
It’s dated the 24th of April, so two months after Neil has left for Scotland. And then she asks for the car again on the the 9th of May.
And on June 20th, among Neil’s assistants there is mention of loaning the car. He’s clearly asked them to arrange it and the wheels are in motion.
One does wonder why exactly Neil felt the need to establish that he was not permanently gifting the car, there does seem to be a widescale pattern of people taking advantage of his generosity.
There is some back and forth about getting Scarlett’s drivers license and by July 14th she still does not have the car.
The car changeover hasn’t happened because she’s left the country indefinitely:
This is the part that’s extremely relevant to our question:
Scarlett offered for me to leave it at her father’s place in Mt Eden/Auckland but I still have it at the moment.
And:
I may need to leave at her father’s…
So, Scarlett’s first instinct was to leave a loaned car on her estranged father’s driveway?
The public has been led to believe that Scarlett was so without support network that she was unable to turn to her mother or father for shelter, for financial assistance, to simply reach out and say if she was in trouble…
And yet she can readily volunteer the use of her father’s driveway?
If she could ask to use a driveway, why could she not ask for shelter or financial assistance?
Add this to everything else that we’ve discovered and it begins to look like nothing more than a poor, hastily made excuse. ‘‘Estrangement’’ becomes a simple rhetorical device to explain away otherwise unexplainable behaviour.
Scarlett here was on her father’s yacht Lord Of Life in Summer 2025. See more of these videos and images here.
Many claims, such as her parents being unhappy that she left NZ at a young age also seem contradicted by social media posts.
This one shows Scarlett at 16, about to leave NZ, apparently with her father’s full blessing.
Why These Claims?
Each of the major claims regarding Scarlett’s circumstances has been proven false. What do they have in common with each other?
They all explain away the obvious question. ‘‘Why be there at all?’’
She claims their first sexual encounter was rape. But then a week later, so her account goes, she accepted a live-in nannying role where she would be around Neil and dependent on him. The dependency part isn’t true, she had a flat - but still the story presented doesn’t check out on its own.
It was important then to craft a narrative where she ‘‘had no other choice.’’
She was facing homelessness - proven false she had a flat.
She was jobless - proven false she was manager of a perfumery.
She was broke - proven false she bought her own ferry and plane tickets.
And now it’s shown to be false that she was cut off from her wealthy parents. She could ask a favour involving a driveway, so she could ask for shelter or money if necessary.
Her entire case hinged on the notion that she was under duress, that extensive messages showing a consensual, affectionate relationship were just an elaborate survival strategy to secure shelter and safety.
But the obvious truth is that she had a wealth of options, and she chose to be in a sexual relationship with Neil Gaiman.
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.