Shiloh/Damages
June 25, 2011: Shiloh Says Onision Made Her Experience Better and Thanks Him for His Support
On June 25, 2011, Shiloh published a post on her Draculoh blog titled “Bad Memories.”
She described emotionally painful memories returning to her:
- “Unfortunately every memory coming back to me is painful, things from before being with Greg and and fights with him.”
Shiloh wrote that she was slowly slipping into depression and struggling with “heartbreaking and mind shattering” memories.
Her description expressly included painful experiences that existed before her relationship with Onision. She did not attribute her distress to him.
Shiloh Identifies Onision as a Source of Support
After describing her emotional condition, Shiloh wrote:
- “If it wasn’t for Greg this whole experience would be so much worse... Thank you Greg <3 I love you.”
She also thanked her friends, family, and fans for supporting her.
This contemporaneous post presents Onision as someone who improved Shiloh’s condition during a period of depression and distress. Even while acknowledging that they had experienced arguments, she distinguished those conflicts from the broader painful memories affecting her and credited Onision with making the experience easier.
What the Evidence Establishes
Shiloh’s own 2011 account records that:
- she experienced painful memories connected to events predating Onision
- her emotional distress was not presented as originating from their relationship
- she was struggling with depression and recurring memories while still with Onision
- she said her experience would have been substantially worse without him
- she thanked Onision directly
- she publicly told him that she loved him
This is important when evaluating Shiloh’s later portrayal of the relationship. Her later media narrative often presented Onision as the source of her harm. Her contemporaneous writing instead records preexisting distress and expressly credits Onision with helping her through it.
The post also strengthens Onision’s position concerning causation and damages. Shiloh’s own account shows that serious emotional difficulties and painful memories existed independently of him, while his presence was described as making her situation better rather than worse.
Source
- Shiloh’s Draculoh blog.
- Post titled “Bad Memories.”
- Dated June 25, 2011.
- Draculoh blog
Related: The Shiloh Record · Damage to Onision and Lucas
February 19–20, 2012: Shiloh Repeatedly Contacts Onision After He Ends the Relationship
On February 19, 2012, Shiloh emailed Onision:
- “Can we talk. Please.”
Onision responded one minute later:
- “I don’t think so.”
The following morning, Shiloh continued:
- “Well when everything has cooled down, I would like to just have a civil one on one conversation okay? If possible.”
Onision again refused:
- “Nothing will ever cool down, I will never stop hating you for what you did to us.”
Shiloh Acknowledges Onision’s Feelings of Betrayal
Shiloh replied that she wanted to explain what happened so Onision would no longer believe he had been inadequate:
- “I just want to discuss what went wrong so you can stop feeling like you weren’t ‘good enough’”
Onision then directly identified the reason for ending contact:
- “Stop contacting me, you cheating scum.”
Shiloh continued messaging despite that instruction. She stated:
- “I want you to know everything that’s happened, from the min. I got here until now.”
- “I want you to know the truth, you deserve that.”
Onision answered:
- “DON’T TALK TO ME!!! I DON’T WANT TO KNOW!!! STOP TALKING TO ME!!!”
What the Evidence Establishes
The exchange documents a clear sequence:
- Shiloh repeatedly initiated contact.
- Onision immediately rejected the first request to speak.
- Shiloh continued requesting a private conversation.
- Onision identified cheating and betrayal as the reason for his anger.
- Shiloh recognized that Onision felt he had not been “good enough.”
- Shiloh indicated that there were additional facts or a fuller “truth” she still wanted to disclose.
- Onision repeatedly and unequivocally directed Shiloh to stop contacting him.
The messages support Onision’s longstanding account that he ended the relationship after discovering Shiloh’s infidelity and dishonesty. They show him attempting to terminate communication while Shiloh pursued further access and explanation.
Shiloh’s statement that Onision deserved “the truth” is also significant. It indicates that the account previously available to him was incomplete and that she still possessed information about what had occurred.
This contemporaneous record conflicts with later portrayals of Onision as the person refusing to release Shiloh or pursuing her after the relationship. In this exchange, the roles are unmistakable: Shiloh repeatedly seeks contact, and Onision repeatedly refuses it.
Source
Email exchange between Shiloh and Onision dated February 19–20, 2012.
The published screenshot redacts portions of the email addresses.
Related: The Shiloh Record · Damage to Onision and Lucas
February 29–March 3, 2012: Shiloh Caught Lying Again, Admits Owing Onision $4,000 and Knowingly Supplies an Fraudulent Repayment Number
On February 29, 2012, Shiloh contacted Onision and expressly acknowledged that she owed him money:
- “Hey, I have the means to pay you back your money.”
She identified the amount and what it covered:
- “I will be sending you a total of $4,000 that covers, pregnancy costs... the flight here, and the money you sent me.”
This was a contemporaneous admission against her own financial interest. Shiloh acknowledged that Onision had paid substantial expenses for her and represented that she intended to reimburse him.
The Promised Repayment
Onision initially instructed Shiloh to mail a check. She said that she had no checks and would need one or two weeks to obtain them.
Onision then proposed Western Union. Shiloh agreed:
- “Okay I will have to do this tomorrow.”
- “I will send you the confirmation number when I have it”
She also asked Onision not to block her email until she could send the transfer information.
Attempts to Reopen Personal Contact
While arranging the supposed repayment, Shiloh began asking for personal information and attempting to expand the conversation beyond the debt.
She asked about Onision’s health:
- “I heard you were physically sick... Are you okay? Health wise?”
After discussing his telephone number, she attempted to ask another personal question and stated:
- “I just always trusted your opinion.”
The exchange shows that Shiloh was still attempting to maintain personal access to Onision after he had ended the relationship. Onision remained focused on the repayment and did not engage with her attempts to reopen a personal relationship.
The Invalid Western Union Number
On March 3, 2012, Onision wrote:
- “You lied yet again... that number was fake.”
Shiloh responded:
- “Real, but okay”
Onision replied:
- “Nope, they confirmed it was fake. You may want to follow it up.”
Later that evening, he blocked her again.
The promised $4,000 repayment was never completed.
What the Evidence Establishes
The exchange documents that:
- Shiloh admitted owing Onision $4,000.
- She identified pregnancy expenses, travel, and money previously sent by Onision as components of that debt.
- She promised to repay him through Western Union.
- She used the repayment exchange to seek renewed personal communication.
- She stated that she trusted Onision’s opinion.
- The transfer number she supplied was reported as invalid after verification with Western Union.
- The money was not repaid.
- Onision again terminated contact after identifying the false transfer information.
This is direct evidence of financial deception within the relationship’s aftermath. Shiloh acknowledged receiving thousands of dollars from Onision, promised repayment, and then supplied information that Onision contemporaneously reported Western Union had confirmed was fake.
The record also contradicts later portrayals of Shiloh as the financially exploited party. Her own email establishes that Onision had funded major expenses for her and that she recognized an obligation to return $4,000.
Source
Email exchange between Shiloh and Onision dated February 29 through March 3, 2012.
Email addresses, telephone information, and other identifying details have been redacted from the publication copy.
Related: The Shiloh Record · Claimed Harm and Damages · Damage to Onision and Lucas
February 28, 2020: Shiloh Compares an Online Commentator to Onision While Implying Imminent Self-Harm
On February 28, 2020, RealStreamNews publicly attributed a series of direct messages to Shiloh.
After Nicholas DeOrio requested a screen recording, refresh, and profile selection, RealStreamNews replied:
- “Scroll through with the messages I blacked out the other dms though just to show hers.”
The messages attributed to Shiloh state:
- “Are you completely okay with the fact that I’m 93 lbs and on suicide watch because of all of you?”
- “You seem to be waiting for me to bleed out on camera before you’re satisfied”
- “Is that what you want? Because you’re pushing more than just me to that level”
- “.... you midaswell be Greg himself.”
- “I hope you feel accomplished”
- “You’ll finally get what you want today”
What the Messages Establish
The messages place responsibility for Shiloh’s physical condition and potential self-harm on an online commentator and an undefined group described as “all of you.”
The final statement—“You’ll finally get what you want today”—follows references to suicide watch and bleeding out. In context, it communicates an apparent threat of imminent self-harm while accusing the recipient of wanting that outcome.
The comparison to Onision is especially significant. Shiloh told an online commentator that he “might as well be Greg himself,” despite the recipient having no relationship with her comparable to her former relationship with Onision.
This shows that Shiloh used Onision’s identity as a generalized label for people she believed were criticizing, antagonizing, or emotionally harming her online. The comparison collapses fundamentally different people, relationships, and conduct into the same accusation.
That pattern matters when evaluating later claims about Onision. A comparison to Onision cannot automatically be treated as a precise description of conduct unique to their former relationship when Shiloh also applied the same comparison to an online commentator based on public commentary.
The messages further document a pattern in which criticism was answered with:
- claims that the recipient caused her suicidal condition
- accusations that the recipient wanted to see her die
- responsibility for the well-being of unnamed additional people
- an apparent imminent self-harm threat
- comparison of the recipient to Onision
This is evidence of emotionally coercive communication directed at someone outside the former relationship and provides important context for evaluating Shiloh’s later descriptions of conflict, responsibility, and psychological harm.
Source
- RealStreamNews tweet dated February 28, 2020.
- Original tweet: RealStreamNews status 1233549151994032129
- Preserved through a February 29, 2020 Wayback Machine capture.
- Messages publicly attributed to Shiloh by RealStreamNews.
Related: The Shiloh Record · Damage to Onision and Lucas
December 14–23, 2020: Leaked Blackfin Record Appears to Show Shiloh Was Paid $20,580 for the Onision Documentary
A document circulated as a leaked Blackfin payment record bears Shiloh Hoganson’s name and identifies the billed item as:
- “Onision Documentary”
The invoice lists:
- rate: $20,000
- tax: $580
- total: $20,580
- amount paid: $20,580
- balance due: $0.00
The invoice is directed to Collin Emley. Separate employment results identify Emley as a Blackfin video editor, connecting the name on the payment record to the documentary company.
What the Evidence Means
If authentic, the invoice destroys the portrayal of Shiloh as merely an uncompensated witness reluctantly sharing her experiences.
Blackfin did not simply provide her with a microphone. The record indicates that the company paid her more than $20,000 for work or participation connected to a documentary built around attacking Onision and Lucas.
That creates a direct financial interest in:
- participating in the production
- providing commercially valuable accusations
- sustaining the most dramatic possible narrative
- helping Blackfin market the documentary
- keeping public outrage focused on Onision and Lucas
The documentary therefore cannot be treated as neutral corroboration of Shiloh’s claims. It was a commercial production in which a featured accuser appears to have received substantial compensation.
Connection to Sarah’s Financial Motive
This record is also important to Sarah’s compensation history.
Onision’s contemporaneous call notes record Sarah stating that:
- documentary participants were paid
- confidentiality terms prevented her from disclosing the amount
- she had enough money to make a down payment on a house
The Shiloh invoice does not establish Sarah’s exact payment amount. It does, however, corroborate the existence of substantial participant compensation within the same production.
Sarah’s refusal to reveal whether or how much she received therefore cannot be dismissed as baseless suspicion. The production appears to have paid at least one major accuser more than $20,000 while presenting the finished program as evidence against Onision and Lucas.
Commercial Testimony Presented as Independent Evidence
The conflict is straightforward:
- Blackfin produced a documentary accusing Onision and Lucas
- Blackfin appears to have paid a featured accuser $20,580
- the accuser’s allegations supplied valuable content for the production
- the production then presented those paid allegations to an international audience as corroboration
- the resulting publicity caused severe reputational and financial damage to Onision and Lucas
The payment does not make every statement automatically false. It establishes bias, financial incentive, and a commercial relationship that audiences should have been told about when evaluating the documentary’s credibility.
Any payment terms, contracts, editorial instructions, confidentiality provisions, bonuses, reimbursements, and communications between Shiloh and Blackfin are therefore material evidence.
Authentication Evidence Still Needed
The employment screenshot strengthens the invoice’s internal consistency because the named recipient appears connected to Blackfin.
The decisive authentication evidence would be:
- the original invoice file and metadata
- Blackfin’s accounts-payable ledger
- Shiloh’s appearance agreement
- payment confirmation or bank-transfer record
- tax documents or 1099 records
- communications discussing the amount and purpose of payment
Those records would establish whether the circulated invoice is genuine and exactly what Blackfin purchased for $20,580.
Source
Circulated Blackfin invoice dated December 14, 2020.
Employment search results concerning Collin Emley dated or captured December 23, 2020.
The documents were reportedly circulated online by a person described as a Blackfin whistleblower.
Related evidence: