“ ‘Landry’s funeral was covered as lavishly as any celebrity wedding in the tawdry magazines who feed on the famous, and whose publishers will surely mourn her demise longer than most. We were permitted glimpses of various celebrities in tears, but her family were given the tiniest picture of all; they were a surprisingly unphotogenic lot, you see.
“ ‘Yet the account of one mourner genuinely touched me. In response to the inquiry of a man who she may not have realized was a reporter, she revealed that she had met Landry at a treatment facility, and that they had become friends.
(The Cuckoo’s Calling, by Robert Galbraith)
In the boldface relative clause, there’s a gap after ‘realized.’ However, the correspondent relative word is not seen. I guess this would be ‘whom’ and omitted; and ‘who, which is seen in the clause, is shifted/raised from before ‘was.’ So there seems to be two relative clauses that modify the same antecedent, a man. Is this what the clause denotes?
(Finishing my typing, this thought comes into my mind that ‘who she may not have realized was a reporter’ is not a relative clause but just a noun modifier. And ‘who was a reporter’ is a post-posed relative (CGEL,p.1066); ‘who’ is raised.)