If Prof Crawley felt genuinely threatened, she would have been advised by her employers and the police to retain relevant letters and emails, which she should be able to present in support of her accusations.
If she is being subjected to such a concerted persecution in relation to her paid work as described in her various talks she would surely be obliged to report it to her employers. Certainly it is NHS policy for staff to report sny such events (or was when I was still working some seventeen years ago), and presumably Bristol University has a similar policy. So both the relevant NHS and University HR departments should have detailed records, and would have a duty of care to report any serious concerns to the Police. Bristol University's response to the Tymes Trust FIO request suggests this has not happened. Perhaps there should be a freedom of information request to her NHS trust as well.
If incidents had been reported to the Police there should be crime numbers and information available on any resultant cautions or prosecutions. Presumably if there had been Police cautions or prosecutions, she would be making capital of this information.
In relation to her claims of being libelled by David Tuller and the Virology Blog, everything is in the public domain so she could simply list the libellous sections along with the web links, together with an explanation of why they are libellous.
Her accusations against the ME Association being anti-science on BBC Radio 4's Today programme are demonstrably false, as can be demonstrated by a cursory glance at their website, and should have been challenged by the interviewer when they were made.
There are now a significant number of people who feel obliged to monitor all her talks and publications, but she needs to demonstrate that is not a rational response potentially harmful clinical practise and bad research. She can only call it unreasonable persecution if she can demonstrate it involves false critiques and misinformation.
Discussion forums certainly do contain some intemperate comments about Prof Crawley, some of which contain inaccurate information. It may be I am guilty of posting comments that on reflection contained inaccurate information, especially as my memory is not reliable and in the heat of the moment I do not always check sources. If Prof Crawley wished it would easy to compile a collection of such comments that would apparently support her contention of persecution. It is interesting to speculate why she uses such as the bizarre concocted Times mock up of an anonymous letter to Prof Wessely in her talks rather than such comments. However using these would point people to discussion threads such as those on the OMEGA blog or the forums here where the intemperate remarks are usually out numbered by accurate and well argued critiques of her work. Pointing people to such forums would also indicate how widespread the concern about her work is within the patient community and how well informed and well argued many of the 'attacks' on her work really are.
I think Prof Crawley probably genuinely believes she is in the right and can only cope with the level of disagreement with her work by rationalising it to herself as persecution, but to make the accusations she does should require concrete evidence. Failure to produce this evidence should result in both Bristol University and MEGA (sorry I can never remember the name of the group behind it at present) insisting she issue public apologies. At some point the various organisations she represents must realise that they have been mislead.