Paul Mulholland’s latest public clarification creates a new problem for the credibility of his self-described investigative journalism.
This time, the problem does not come from one of his critics.
It comes from Mulholland’s own words.
In a Reddit comment attached to a discussion of his Medium article concerning allegations involving a New Jersey adult-entertainment business, Mulholland publicly distanced himself from the original poster and the intelligence-related theories being associated with his work.
Mulholland stated that there was no evidence the studio owner worked, or had ever worked, in government intelligence. He added that he knew who the original poster was and that the person was not employed in intelligence.
Then came the blunt dismissal:
“He is LARPing.”
Mulholland further stated that the poster was not a journalist, was not a law-enforcement officer, had no insider information about investigations, and had a “bad habit” of associating unsupported theories with Mulholland’s work to give himself credibility.
Yet Mulholland also acknowledged that he believed the person was “trying to help.”
That combination raises an unavoidable question:
If this person’s public theories were a form of LARPing, how much of the information he previously supplied may also have been part of the performance?
Not Merely an Unknown Stranger
Mulholland’s own wording suggests that the original poster was not simply a random person who happened to stumble across his Medium article.
Mulholland says he knows who the person is.
He says the person was trying to help.
He says the person repeatedly associated his theories with Mulholland’s work.
That sounds like someone operating within Mulholland’s broader information and advocacy environment, whether as a source, informal researcher, correspondent, collaborator, ally, promoter, or persistent hanger-on.
The screenshot does not prove that the individual was formally employed as Mulholland’s research partner. That distinction should be stated clearly.
But it also does not answer how much contact the two had, what information was exchanged, or whether the person ever contributed material that influenced Mulholland’s reporting.
Those questions now matter because Mulholland himself has publicly challenged the person’s judgment, claimed expertise, and reliability.
How Much Research Came From the “LARPer”?
Mulholland linked the Reddit discussion directly to his Medium investigation.
That makes the origin of the article’s research a legitimate issue.
Did the person Mulholland now calls a LARPer supply names, screenshots, archived pages, social-media material, timelines, witness claims, allegations, background information, or suggested connections?
Did he introduce Mulholland to other sources?
Did he help organize the accusations into a narrative?
Did any of his leads influence the direction or tone of the Medium article?
Did Mulholland repeat information that originated with this person after attempting to verify it elsewhere?
Most importantly, what verification process was used to distinguish genuine evidence from speculation?
Perhaps the answer is that none of the person’s information entered the article.
Perhaps Mulholland independently verified every significant claim and used the individual’s material only as unconfirmed leads—or not at all.
But Mulholland’s public statement does not establish that.
Instead, readers are left to wonder whether someone Mulholland now portrays as an uninformed fantasist previously operated close enough to his work to influence it.
Was the Research LARPing Too?
The word “LARPing” is not a minor criticism.
Mulholland is accusing the person of presenting himself as something he was not, implying access he did not possess, and attaching unsupported theories to someone else’s work in order to appear credible.
That is a fundamental credibility problem.
If the person exaggerated supposed intelligence connections, what else might he have exaggerated?
If he presented speculation as insider knowledge on Reddit, did he use similar methods when sharing information privately?
If he repeatedly attached unsupported theories to Mulholland’s reporting, how carefully did Mulholland separate the man’s factual contributions from his imaginative conclusions?
Which claims were supported by original documents?
Which came from anonymous online accounts?
Which were independently corroborated?
Which were simply interpretations repeated often enough to begin sounding like evidence?
And how much of the research may have been another layer of the same LARP Mulholland is now publicly condemning?
A Disavowal Is Not an Audit
Mulholland was right to reject intelligence claims he believed were unsupported.
Journalists should correct misinformation, including misinformation circulated by people who support their work.
But publicly disavowing a person is not the same as auditing the research trail.
A complete response would explain whether the person ever supplied information to Mulholland, whether any of it appeared in publication, and how each contribution was independently verified.
If the individual contributed nothing, Mulholland can state that clearly.
If he supplied leads that were independently confirmed, Mulholland can explain the corroboration process.
If any unsupported claims entered the reporting, Mulholland should identify and correct them.
What he cannot reasonably do is declare that someone around his work was an unreliable LARPer while refusing to explain whether that same person contributed to the work he continues promoting.
Helpful While Supporting the Narrative?
Mulholland’s phrase “trying to help” deserves additional scrutiny.
Help with what?
Promoting the Medium article?
Finding information?
Contacting potential sources?
Expanding the allegations?
Building public attention around the story?
The comment creates the appearance of someone whose assistance may have been tolerated while it supported Mulholland’s wider narrative, only for that person to be publicly separated from the reporting once his theories became too extreme to defend.
That interpretation is not conclusively proven by the screenshot. But it is an obvious question created by Mulholland’s own description of the relationship.
If Mulholland already knew the person had a bad habit of attaching unsupported theories to his work, when did he first recognize the problem?
Did he warn readers immediately?
Did he stop accepting information from the person?
Did he review earlier reporting for claims connected to the same source?
Or did the disavowal arrive only after the association became publicly embarrassing?
Another Blow to the Journalism Claim
This incident adds another credibility problem to Mulholland’s claim that he should be treated as a serious investigative journalist.
Professional reporting depends upon source evaluation, documentation, corroboration, editorial judgment, and transparent corrections.
It requires more than gathering accusations from an online network and distancing oneself from the most embarrassing participant when the speculation becomes impossible to ignore.
A journalist is responsible not only for what appears under his own name, but also for understanding the reliability of the people supplying information behind the scenes.
If someone in Mulholland’s orbit was repeatedly inventing connections, implying nonexistent access, and associating unsupported theories with his articles, then readers have every right to question the safeguards surrounding Mulholland’s wider research process.
How were unreliable contributors identified?
How were their claims tested?
How many sources were genuinely independent?
How much documentation was reviewed?
And would the published article remain intact if every contribution connected to the disavowed individual were removed?
The King of Contradictions Returns
This is another example of why critics describe Paul Mulholland as the King of Contradictions.
He asks readers to trust his research while providing little transparency about who helped produce it.
He scrutinizes other people’s associations while leaving his own research relationships unclear.
He presents himself as a careful investigator while publicly acknowledging that someone he knew repeatedly attached unsupported theories to his work.
He says the man was trying to help, then describes him as a credibility-seeking LARPer once his theories become a liability.
He disavows the person’s conclusions but provides no accounting of whether the person’s earlier information influenced his reporting.
That is the central contradiction.
Mulholland wants the authority associated with investigative journalism without offering the transparency readers need to evaluate the investigation itself.
Readers Deserve the Research Trail
The screenshot does not prove that the original poster formally served as Mulholland’s research partner.
It does not prove that any information supplied by that person appeared in the Medium article.
But Mulholland’s own statement makes those questions reasonable and necessary.
Was the person ever a source, researcher, collaborator, or regular provider of leads?
Did Mulholland use any information originating with him?
How was that information verified?
Has Mulholland reviewed his article now that he has publicly questioned the person’s reliability and claimed expertise?
Until Mulholland answers those questions, readers cannot know how much of the investigation was built upon independently verified evidence—and how much may have originated with someone Mulholland now describes as merely playing a role.
Paul Mulholland says the man was trying to help. The public deserves to know how much of that help entered his journalism before the helper became someone he needed to disavow.