thewarrzone.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-3-c...ation-collusion.html

I can certainly think of someone who apparently had a "go-between" role during Operation Yewtree, and perhaps in other cases too, and am sure I'm not alone.

Another thought-provoking part of the blog:
Of course, there are some who set themselves up as trawlers who may well have much darker motives. There are doubtless a number of individuals who find stories of sexual molestation – real or imaginary – stimulating and exciting. These voyeurs – for that is what they are in reality – enjoy listening to every salacious detail of what they are being told. Yet they would deny vehemently any such suggestion from puzzled observers, who might enquire why they are so fascinated by the sexual degradation and abuse of children. It would not be unfair to describe such obsessive characters as aural scopophiliacs… deriving their sexual pleasure from listening to other’s accounts of sexual abuse. Many of these perverts are very accomplished at hiding in plain sight.

"The police have asked me to inform you all that they are still open for statements. You can DM me.' etc etc."

Gee Whizz!!! Why wouldn't the police inform them themselves?
Maybe the concept of hiding in pain sight is not as far fetched as I thought, if people are daft enough to send their abuse stories to some pervert on the internet?

Since private individuals – whether they be vigilantes or sexual abuse obsessives – who engage in these trawling operations are not bound by legal safeguards and rules which are designed to protect suspects from the contamination of evidence or collusion between accusers, any police investigation that has been launched as a result of information emerging from this type of trawling may well be compromised from the very beginning, especially if the role played by the trawler is actively concealed by detectives from the defence and the jury in criminal trials. There is a very real risk of miscarriages of justice and innocent people being wrongly convicted, due to the manipulation and even creation of bogus ‘evidence’, especially when prosecutors often rely on similar fact evidence to convince juries of a defendant’s guilt.

This was a particularly important point, in my opinion. If a quantity of similar stories is thought to be mutually corroborative, secret practices with no oversight that manufacture similarities and hide inconsistent evidence corrupt the trial system.

Of course, similar stories don't corroborate each other at all because we don't know in the first place whether any of them is true. The logical fallacy is begging the question: assuming the truth of the very proposition to be tested.