Quick note: this post summarises what Gerbert says in his own video. The claims discussed (the Gerbert allegations) are allegations unless proven. I’m not offering legal advice—just documenting his account.
If you’ve been anywhere near TikTok lately, you’ve probably seen the circulating “document” about Gerbert and a flurry of videos pulling out screenshots, DMs, and school rumours. After an initial response that didn’t land, he’s come back with a longer, more granular breakdown. The tone is simple and combative: show me real evidence.
https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-4474055489327117 (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});Below is the gist of his case, in his words, stitched into a single, readable timeline.
“Let’s go through all of it.” (The Gerbert allegations)
Gerbert opens by promising to address “every single claim”. The first item on the docket is the “oddball” account. A creator allegedly posted a phone call where Gerbert “confirms” ownership. He flatly denies that: says there’s no moment in the audio where he actually states “that account is mine.” He pushes for receipts: if anyone has a direct admission, produce it.
He does admit something adjacent: he owned an Instagram called “oddball” in 2023. But the screenshots doing the rounds are stamped 2022, so, by his logic, the timeline doesn’t match.
On lying about his identity
One thing he doesn’t fight: as a 17-year-old, he lied about his name and personal details online. The reason, he says, was privacy, not manipulation—he didn’t want his real-world info tied to a growing online presence. He also claims the “document” now includes his full name and school, which he calls doxxing.
The “Angel” allegation
A chunk of the document hinges on a serious accusation from Angel: an incident in a Walmart bathroom, with talk of counsellors and police. Gerbert’s response is blunt—there’s no evidence.
https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-4474055489327117 (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});He says there are photos proving they knew each other, but no messages or recordings that show an assault, and he shares (in his video) a clip where Angel, he says, acknowledges she has no proof.
His stance: there’s nothing substantive to address beyond her word.
The “Cam” chapter
Next up is Cam. He admits there was a messy teenage situation—he was 14, had a girlfriend, and got into an affair with Cam. He says he ended it, felt guilty, and in a later confrontation Cam physically hit him. He includes footage to show he walked the other way and didn’t retaliate, positioning this as evidence against any claim that he tried to assault or “kill” her.
As for the strangest DMs and IG messages attributed to an “oddball”/similar handle, he calls them edited or not his, circling back to the timeline gap between 2022 screenshots and his 2023 “oddball” Instagram.
Enter “SadBeats”: what he owns and what he doesn’t
Gerbert concedes he did run a SadBeats account. Some embarrassing posts? Also him. The “bricked up” selfie; a mopey comment about being posted around school—he owns those.
But several viral captures allegedly show the same name/profile using a racial slur and boasting about assault.
https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-4474055489327117 (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});That, he says, isn’t him. He can’t “prove a negative”, and he knows that’s unsatisfying, but he argues there’s no clean chain linking those specific screenshots to his device or identity.
An incident form from school surfaces in the document; he argues those forms are easy to obtain and fill, and without verification they’re just handwritten claims—words on paper rather than proof.
An incident form from school surfaces in the document; he argues those forms are easy to obtain and fill, and without verification they’re just handwritten claims—words on paper rather than proof.
He also addresses an apology message.
His version: after being grounded and getting his phone back, he texted in panic, apologising if he made someone uncomfortable.
He says that single line was posted out of context as an admission of something bigger. There was no police report, he insists, no school action tied to assault.
Why he actually left school
This part he spells out: he was removed not for assault allegations, but after he floated posting a threat to get a day off—inside a private friends’ group chat. He says he turned himself in, did time in juvenile detention, and later had the felony removed after fulfilling requirements. Bad decision, he admits; not the same as what’s in the rumours.
The “12-year-old” and Roblox claims
There’s a recurring theme in his rebuttal: missing proofs. He says one accuser claims their phone was stolen (so no screenshots), another says they copied messages into a friend’s chat (again, no direct capture of his account). He keeps hammering the same point—allegation without attribution isn’t evidence. Knowing him in real life and having car-selfies from the mall, he says, doesn’t link him to every screen-grab on the internet.
The “Stereo” claims and a supposed recant
Gerbert points to a clip where, he says, a key accuser walks back earlier statements—another plank in his “no evidence” platform. Whether you find that clip convincing is, of course, up to you.
Group chat names, preferences, and the unflattering bits
He addresses a screenshot showing a shocking group chat name. His line: he didn’t set it; friends did.
https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-4474055489327117 (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});A separate set of messages where he says he likes “chubby women”—he shrugs and owns it. Preference, not a crime.
The 22-year-old cosplayer
He admits he lied about being 18 and made a crude “clown JOI” joke. Once she expressed discomfort, he says he dropped it, and since they lived in different states, there was never a plan to meet. He bristles at language like “highly suspected”—to him, that signals there’s no act to point to.
Politics, labels, and a walk-back
Gerbert also touches politics—people calling him a Zionist because of an older video where he dismissed conflict talk as “political nonsense.” He now says he’s pro-Palestine, and stresses that original clip was really about a different creator dispute.
This aside is less about policy and more about labels sticking during pile-ons.
Wrestling clips and classroom photos
That viral chokehold video? He says it’s sparring from when he was new to wrestling. The classroom photos of him?
https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-4474055489327117 (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});He frames them as part of being bullied—some taken without consent—pushing back on the idea he was the bully.
DT2Fly: a mini-vindication
One creator, DT2Fly, posted a critical video, then (per Gerbert) took it down after concluding clips were fake or unsupported. Gerbert treats this as corroboration that the pile-on relies on shaky sourcing.
Cease-and-desists and next steps
Finally, he gets legal-ish. He says the allegations have cost him thousands of followers and tanked his comments, so he’s sending cease-and-desist letters to four main posters (and a few others).
If videos stay up after notice, he says he’ll pursue court action.
The through-line
If you strip away the noise, his defence rests on four pillars:
- Timeline gaps (2022 screenshots vs. 2023 account ownership).
- Attribution problems (handles anyone can clone, edits he can’t verify).
- Context (a panicked apology ≠ confession; school forms ≠ proof).
- Admitted teenage stupidity (fake name at 17, an affair at 14, a bone-headed group-chat “threat”) that he argues shouldn’t be conflated with the most serious accusations.
Whether that convinces you probably depends on what you consider “enough” evidence online. For Gerbert, the bar is simple: unaltered, attributable, time-consistent receipts—or take it down.
https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-4474055489327117 (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});Have thoughts or receipts either way? Keep it civil. If you’re reaching out with material, remove personal info and share only what you have direct rights to share.
More from the controversy category
If you still need more content from this page, make sure to check out what we have to offer you below from this category.
