Jigsaw identification literally isn't a charge in law, he was in conempt of court. It's not that jigsaw identification isn't a term that exists, it's that, as w

Jigsaw identification literally isn't a charge in law, he was in conempt of court. It's not that jigsaw identification isn't a term that exists, it's that, as with all gish galloping you've taken some random item and gone off on a weird tangent. The judgement says he posted the accuser's job and the time she held it which was uniquely identifiable information "tantamount to naming the accuser". That doesn't sound like a very complex jigsaw to me. You also don't need to peice things together because his readers also posted the names of the accusers in the comments section of the article. Making it pretty difficult to argue he didn't know he was identifying the accusers. What also makes it pretty difficult to argue he didn't know he was identifying the women is that he said he wanted to identify the women without breaking the court order - which is literally impossible, because that's what the court order said. So all this "Oh this is a unique situation never happened before since..." is completely irrelevant - which is why it's gish galloping- throwing up irrelevant rubbish to try and distract from the really quite simple facts of the case.