Lucy Letby's case: Dr. Renée Hoenderkamp & Stinson Hunter flounder on TalkTV & Twitter

A random online insight into the power of Problem Reaction Solution

They say “never meet your heroes.” Paedophile hunter, Stinson Hunter (born Kieron Parsons) was by no means my hero but he once took an active and seemingly effective (enough) stance on something serious and actually provided a form of leadership that demanded effort, thought and various degrees of risk.

Today, I randomly crossed online paths with him. In looking in to the Lucy Letby case I have become rapidly convinced that there is a very high chance, if not certainty, that she has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice. An article outlining will follow, although the substance is from the work of others. Lucy’s case points at something else, not the mechanics of who might be a murderer or institutionally culpable/incompetent/negligent. Her case is utterly massive, and I expect her shot at a revisitation of justice may actually be suppressed by the government via the judicial system now that a verdict has been rendered and captured media narrative has been syndicated to enslave most minds. Multiple massive powers and interest groups have a likely weak fall guy right where they want her and multiple opportunistic agendas can be pursued while people are distracted from the real rotting human meat.

What I instantly saw on Twitter about the case and reaction to the verdict was the same mental mechanism employed as in Covid, Ukraine and almost every major event: what some characterise as Problem Reaction Solution. This time, it was leading to a form of mob rule Solution (see upcoming article on this aspect of opportunism).

Once aware of the shortcomings of the trial and evidence, I set about injecting references to the off-narrative analysis into tweet streams that castigated Lucy in the hope that some difference could be made (crazy, pointless, I know). I also searched for #LucyLetby and #LucyLetbyTrial and began scanning the outpourings. They were largely in line with the media vilification and castigation narrative that had instantly and co-ordinatedly gone into overdrive the moment a verdict was delivered. Randomly, I saw Stinson Hunter (blue check verified, although could be staking fake claim to the name) in the list who’d said the following, drawing 3 posts from me. In hindsight, I do sound like a twat, but I totally stand by my points and prefer to use English, not moronic slang.

https://twitter.com/StinsonHunter/status/1693312289003184344

He quickly replied. I was disappointed and I employed “troll deconstruct” mode. Learning point: I should have used an entirely different linguistic and mental approach but I was moving very quickly through massive amounts of posts and hadn’t bothered to think about language-effect-on-target and deliberate manipulation. My bad.

https://twitter.com/StinsonHunter/status/1693330669710057579

And finally he told me to “Kill Yourself”, thinly veiled. I actually had to look up the meaning of “KYS” as I’ve not been subjected to much online trolling and such vociferous and toxic attack, as I generally don’t use SocMed until very recently. I informed him of my “Trafficking 01: A very British bunch of nonces” article and the praise I had given him in it.

I now await further self-abuse instructions courtesy of Parsons. Perhaps he will proffer specific insight into method and save me from having to do incriminating internet searches for “educational” purposes. That excuse didn’t work for Pete Townshend on matters of noncery. Suicide isn’t quite the same problem but it’s still a red flag and a potential stain on one’s copy book (depending upon one’s method of choice and resulting splatter pattern).

https://twitter.com/StinsonHunter/status/1693347624974196806

Good job Stinson Hunter or Keiron Parsons was never a hero of mine, or I might be very upset. If I was less resilient I might be upset by the nature and content of his vicious and unwarranted attack. Clearly, Parsons is not in the investment arena given the short term duration and inherently negative ROI characteristics of his advice. I’ve scored him low for Customer Service, Know Your Customer and Overall Quality of Customer Experience on www.checkatoilettrader.com

Based on the analysis by Mr Law, Health and Technologyand Mark McDonald, I’m fairly certain that should Lucy mount an appeal that is adequately resourced, a mistrial/retrial may result, or miscarriage of justice be determined. The problem is, this is not just about Lucy Letby and it never, ever was. Even less so now. This is about things far, far bigger:

• The entire NHS as a system, a culture, a service provider with lethal capability and the ability to self-limit or hide its true culpability;

• The NHS as a group of individuals with interlocking self-serving interests;

• Criminal negligence, recklessness, malicious prosecution, unsound processes, unsound practises and scapegoating;

• The actions before, during and notably after the incidents and Lucy’s arrest and trial, of actors who both testified and are now being publicised.

I, in trying to flag this to random people including Parsons, have encountered knee jerk toxic hatred from Stinson Hunter, whom I now guess must be deeply damaged. Or I must have come across as a massive twat, or just the wrong kind of twat. Maybe Parsons and I are just a terrible fit and we could never have made it work, no matter how hard we tried. Not even a shot at being the Odd Couple. So sad.

Parsons wasn’t my hero but my perception of him has changed. But I never knew him anyway, so I could never have had an accurate perception of him. I’ve always seen him as, at best, a sort of anti-hero who spiked the public mind once, doing something which I congratulate him on and somewhat admire him for. I genuinely believe that provided his method remained sound, he was of real service to the public. He did not entrap people. He identified predatory paedophiles, lured them out of the shadows and allowed them to catch themselves in their own net, from which there is literally no judicial escape provided that the police accept the evidence of grooming and subsequent illegal intentions and can be made to pursue prosecution. The predators he caught literally intended to rape, molest and physically and psychologically abuse children who are multiply defenceless. The degree of their actions and the clear intent was all efficiently drawn out by Parsons.

When I saw his Letby tweets, I was surprised to see that he, like so many others, appeared to have simply reacted to just the superficial narrative. I, wrongly, expected him to be willing to question. Although I only became aware of Lucy Letby on the day of her verdict and I wrote a tweet thread around her superficial case to illustrate:

1. why the NHS is always going to cover up Covid and the part it and all its staff played;

2. why the NHS medics in Covid have cut their own throats and that of all British taxpayers by putting the final nails in the NHS coffin;

within hours and without hard work, I found a clear, rich seam of primary source analysis courtesy of

Mr Law, Health and Technology

. Once I’d beavered through it, I chastised myself for shortcutting my own contempt for information and set about appending my tweet stream. What I knew was that this deeper analysis didn’t change my original point about what Lucy’s case showed, it simply amplified it and proved it to an even greater extent. My crime was in having adopted the narrative descriptors of Lucy prescribed by the narrative, and citing the superficial mechanics of the case which are likely untrue. The big picture mechanics that I allude to are still there, valid and actually worse for the NHS and the other actors in her case if Lucy is actually innocent.

I hope Parsons has found a greater and better calling than the pursuit of paedophiles, judging by his lack of activity in the online arena of hunting videos. Such activities are known to be costly and damaging to anyone involved and he may have started from a difficult place to begin with.

Then again, I could have really just fucking annoyed him with my twattish tone.

Who knows?

Kieron, go fuck yourself and thanks for all the fish.

Here below, in video, is just a little of what Parsons and so many others are wilfully ignoring, even though TalkTV presented it in as easy to digest form (and duration) as possible. What is of note is the utter idiocy employed by the male presenter and also Dr. Renée Hoenderkamp. Her colleague literally said “but a jury heard everything and convicted her, so that’s that” (gist) as though that was a valid means to ignore or dismiss the phenomenon and possibility of a miscarriage of justice. This is nothing short of actual physical and mental fuckwittery. One cannot seriously go on a broadcast medium and set up a conversation about law to make points which have zero legal validity while trying to present those points as a valid gotcha or killing move. Utter toilet. Not to mention that the chap’s shirt is a crime not just of fashion but also of background clash. But I digress.

Hoenderkamp doesn’t say much in this clip but she apes her colleague’s puerile and legally irrelevant citing of the Beverly Allitt and Harold Shipman cases as though the existence of those cases are a means by which guilt of any other health care provider can be proven, inferred, bolstered or implied. That a trained doctor would actually say this (or parrot it) on national TV is a career and intellectual low point. This is plain as day to see for even non-legal minds. I’m willing to also class this as actual physical and mental fuckwittery.

Lucy Letby’s case stands (or falls) on its own merits, regardless of others who have killed. Criminal barrister Mark McDonald makes the point that multiple other miscarriage of justice cases that follow the same template and prosecutorial and evidential MO speak to the possibility that Lucy Letby’s case could itself be another miscarriage based on its own merits. Hoenderkamp is literally dumb enough to say words to the effect that if evidence as circumstantial and patchy as that of the Letby case, combined with simple strength and quantity of vociferous but unevidenced accusation all served to mark Shipman as guilty, then it could and should be as “valid” a means of marking out Lucy Letby as guilty. What is lost on Hoenderkamp is the simple fact that she is:

• ignoring McDonald’s clear assessment of the flimsiness of all of the evidential basis for Lucy Letby’s arrest, charges and prosecution; while at the same time

• saying that we should all believe that lots of circumstantial evidence and zero direct evidence is an acceptable basis for multiple murder convictions.

All of which actually means that if that’s the only way Shipman was convicted, even his trial could have been unsound (I haven’t gone into Shipman’s actual case, that’s not the point at stake here). Also, Hoenderkamp knowingly mischaracterises the nature, content and quantity of “note” evidence and phrases therein written by Lucy. If one reads the actual notes, one will see they are far from some kind of admission, let alone a smoking gun. When one takes into account the circumstances under which they were written and other messages sent to third parties, the superficial description of the notes or messages do not constitute admissions of guilt of the actual crimes she’s accused of. I actually injected tweets about Lucy Letby’s case into two of Hoenderkamp’s Letby-based tweet streams yesterday to draw her attention to the off-narrative analysis. She either ignored it or didn’t see it before this appearance and her spouted opinions and chose to humiliate herself at someone else’s expense for personal exposure and gain, despite clear grounds to question the entire basis of Lucy Letby’s convictions. Hoenderkamp could have used Mark McDonald’s professional and challenging observations to be brave and get into serious meat that lies at the true heart of this story and case, but she didn’t. She either lacks the mental ability, the will to tolerate off-narrative analysis, or the strength of character in favour of easy pandering to servile, prefab mob think that isn’t even hers. It was given to her by other media. This is proven by her wilful mischaracterisation of the note evidence. If she had seen that evidence herself and read it, she would never have cited it as she did. Actual physical and mental fuckwittery. In this clip, you are witnessing two fuckwits trying to adversarially gang up on an expert with totally valid and evidenced concerns for no reason other than their capitulation to prefabbed PRS, their own mental capture and their objective of manufactured, conflict-based, self-serving exposure.

For anyone with basic intellect and listening skills, it blows up in their faces. Trouble is, those two things are absent from huge amounts of people under the #LucyLetby hashtag. Blinkers on. Eyes Down. Start neighing (don’t get me started on the literal shill, Allison Pearson, who works peddling The Telegraph’s share of the narrative. Jesus wept).

All this from a woman who otherwise appears to question the Covid narrative and other periphery issues (go look at her Twitter profile).

Take someone who “gets” and “sees” the problem.

Change the problem from That Problem to This Problem.

Feed them This Problem’s Reaction.

Tell them This Problem’s Solution.

Hey presto, they come back onto the narrative trajectory and they start singing from This Problem’s hymn sheet, even if they remain off it for That Problem.

It works on everyone. It will work on you and on me. Somewhere out there is a Problem for which you can be fed a Reaction and told a Solution and you will comply because a workable mix of feelz and facts and pseudofactz gets baked into that PRS iteration and your buttons get successfully pressed. Having hunted paedos or being awake to Covid doesn’t matter. Everyone remains vulnerable to easy thinking, lazy narrative, emotive PRS.

Cognitive Warfare doesn’t stop. The fight is inside you and it is against aspects of yourself.

Fuck you, Kieron Parsons.

“On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.”

Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club