I want to look at this as scientifically as possible, setting up both a null hypothesis (ie that this person is falsely accused, much like the Boston bomber) and an alt (that the account is likely Ghislane, unless new info becomes available). Controversial truths tend to be suppressed by shills and other in-organic actors trying to control the conversation. That said, crowd/mob sourced speculation too trigger-happy for a conclusion can jump to a completely wrong conclusion as well.
As a reference to my credibility in arguing with the "muh science authority" folks, while making hyperbolic-appearing arguments, let me cite my argument over a now infamous, now retracted Lancet study trashing hydroxychloroquine: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67362031174-0/fulltext
I had an extensive argument with some shill over a month ago on the Trump forum (I don't post there often, my only commentary has been on HCL) as he cited the Lancet study, while I attacked it as retarded pseudo-science, and proceeded to deconstruct it's methodology. The single worst thing about their study which stood out to me was the isolation of HCL complications to cases involving Covid.
This conversation was in late May 2020, where I made some fanatical-appearing claims which would easily get me branded a "conspiracy nut":
and here were the responses I dealt with
lancet article from 5 days ago. Read the article and tell me why I’m concerned with its use.
Preliminary edit: lancet is a high impact journal
Edit: getting downvoted for facts who woulda thought. Shout out to all my haters
...As for the credibility of the lancet, I guess that’s just an opinion at this point. You pointing out a bad article doesn’t necessarily ruin the entire credibility of an organization. Science changes and so do associated viewpoints.
In retrospect I was correct to attack the study, despite "looking like an idiot" by a purely establishment trusting point of view. I am human, I do make mistakes obviously, but I'm pretty restrained and calculated with the issues that I choose to invest my time in.
I'm not citing this for the sake of arguing my own speculation is beyond question, I'm citing it because I understand big claims should be followed with a reasonable attempt at providing proof, any lunatic can make insane reality-detached but true appearing statements on the internet, but only a reasonably intelligent lunatic saying useful things will hold himself accountable for his own speculation.
It is likely Maxwell had at least one reddit account considered she was a social butterfly who knew the reddit CEO Pao, as shown by their (albeit limited/brief) interaction at a private party. Pao would not have been invited if Epstein and friends thought reddit was silly.
Given her social status, she also likely would have ended up in a position of influence on the site, and would quite possibly be networked with some other redditors aware of her identity.
Anyone involved with intelligence is aware of how "opsec" works. Put out a few token statements claiming to be someone else. Her interview where she claims to be a man in his 40's is contradicted by some mod chats. Public and media-given self-descriptions from a profile aren't useful evidence. The writing style and behavior are much more relevant.
Here's evidence I see:
1- MaxwellHill uses quite a bit of UK-influenced language, something congruent with the real life Maxwell. Her bizarre and intense knowledge of age of consent laws in various states is something that would be relevant to Jeffrey Epstein (this was one of his early legal defenses before he was arrested the first time).
2- MaxwellHill stopped posting entirely (in public) after the arrest, as well as at other suspicious times, screencaps of posts with links here:
3- The relationship with Huffingtonpost. Huffpost is a known neoliberal shill group with ties to UK/Israeli intelligence, and pushes Russiagate shit on their behalf. MaxwellHill was also an extreme Russiagater, one who even published on Huffpost before, something pretty rare for the population at large and noteworthy
4- The claim to be a man seems like clear opsec. That was a claim often pushed by the media portrayals (let's remember that gendering someone without asking, or without getting details is considered rude, so calling her a man without providing a general background of her profile is strange), yet according to modlog leaks other mods speak as if she's a woman, because her account was controversial well before being identified:
A single Reddit user is influencing the news consumed by 22 million people(self.conspiracy)
..."The leaked chats implied they are a female reddit admin."
The lack of anyone providing counter-evidence is noteworthy. Freaks go on reddit all the time, a serial killer Brendt Christensen had an account "bacbac".
...The prosecution moves on to Christensen’s Reddit account. He says Christensen’s account name was “bacbac”. The witness is asked if he prepared a summary of Christensen’s Reddit account. He says yes.
Yet I'm seeing mentally retarded people trying to hush this all up without even the laziest attempt at adding evidence of user activity. People will claim she's been active in modding, with no screenshots.
Earlier critiques of her account brought in screenshots of modding, why can't her defenders?
Meet the Reddit power user who helped bring down r/technology
Maxwellhill, one of Reddit’s first and most important users, has now become the site’s own worst enemy.
Modlog screenshot at bottom: https://imgur.com/a/aCIBtLN
That would be all it takes to shut up a lot of the critics, yet the retarded defenders won't post that for some reason
When I first started writing this, I was 50/50 on the identity of this reddit user, and I was restraining myself from jumping to conclusions. Now that I've finished, it seems overwhelmingly likely that this reddit user was Maxwell.
I didn't care enough to look into this thread until I saw people reposting it met with extremely low-value criticism.
"High value criticism" doesn't necessarily make someone correct with their view, there are cases of "high value criticism" that I still disagree with, like much of Michael Tracey's input on the Tara Reade case for example. The complete absence of any high value criticism in a case is usually a red flag for me. I recall the complete lack of high value criticism as teh Syrian chlorine gas attack came out, and various shills flooded early threads about it pushing stupid shit about how "Assad would clearly want to teach the rebels a lesson", and what not. Then when the leaks came out, the conversation shifted to mocking and other discredit attempts.
This pattern showed up in a stupidpol thread I came across here: http://archive.is/enc33