Angela confirms: Members of Hoaxtead ‘core group’ viewed CSA images

Here’s an important piece of advice for anyone planning an internet-based Satanic ritual abuse hoax: under no circumstances should you invite Angela Power-Disney to become a member of your core group.

Angie has been demonstrating this in spades since the police raided her home on 17 August, removing a PC, her phone, laptops, and (rather inexplicably) two cars.

In a video she made with Jason Goodman on his “Crowdsourcing the Truth” channel, Angela revealed that at the inception of the Hampstead SRA hoax, a group of about 30 people had been involved in “research” (read: scouring the web in search of anything which would confirm what they already believed):

I worked as part of a team of about 30 people that were in it for the long haul, and set up a blog called Hampstead Research. And professionals all over the world, semi-professionals, all pooled their knowledge for nothing…

We’re certain that the “original Dirty 30” therein named must be only too thrilled to know that Angela has been bleating about their little consortium all over the internet, and even more pleased to know that the Gardaí are now in possession of the cold, hard evidence.

Confirmation of wrong-doing

In a video released yesterday, titled “MKULTRA & drugging for abuse and amnesia” Angela set aside a few minutes from fantasising about her own alleged “MK Ultra experience” to confirm that some members of the original Dirty 30 had gone even further than harassing the innocent in Hampstead:

So I’m going to talk about the other thing just from the present or you know, the current, before I go back to my memories from my earliest memories of drugging anomalies, is that when I was in a research team connected to the Hampstead case, Hampstead Research it was called, it was about 30 of us active, and some amazing work going on in there.

One contributor, braver than myself, erm, infiltrated the dark web in an effort to, you know, uncover the truth, and was horrified to report that there were whole chatrooms and groups of paedophiles that would discuss drugging for memory wiping, and drugging for child abuse, and which drug was the latest, and which was the most effective, and so on and so forth. It was like listening to junkies describing their drugs. It was…just the report given by this person, she didn’t lift whole portions of the chatroom but she or he reported back saying that it was profoundly disturbing.

What’s that you say, Angela? Paedophile chats on the dark web? And someone from the Hampstead Research core group sought them out and observed them? Gosh, we wonder who that could have been?

Two suspects leap immediately to mind: Charlotte Alton Ward and Scott Pattinson.

We didn’t just pull these names out of a hat: both Charlotte and Scott have admitted to undertaking extremely illegal “research” into online child sex abuse images, despite warnings from the authorities.

Charlotte, as readers will know, was the person responsible for the Hampstead Research blog, a vile piece of work intended to help publicise the Hampstead SRA hoax. Scott Pattinson was an enthusiastic supporter of the Hollie Greig hoax, who jumped aboard the Hampstead hoax during its early days.

How we know what we know

As long ago as May 2015, this blog was reporting that Charlotte Ward (then known as “Jacqui Farmer”) was posting images of naked children on her blog, Hampstead Research. We reported this to police at the time. Where these images were obtained, we do not know.

In August 2015, we reported that Charlotte had posted the following on her blog, confirming not only that she had repeatedly visited a child sex abuse site called “Little Orgies”, but that she had thoroughly trawled it (note reference to thousands of images) and that she had included footage from that site in one of her videos intended to smear the people of Hampstead: We found this shocking at the time, and our sense of revulsion has not waned.

The day before Charlotte’s report on the “Little Orgies” site, she had been moaning that a “Hampstead researcher” had received a very curt letter from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP):

You could potentially commit a range of offences, including, but not limited to, those found in: section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 (taking, making, distributing and publishing of indecent images of children), section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (possession of indecent images of children), and section 62 of the Coroner’s and Justice Act (possession of prohibited images of children). The limited defences under these statutes do not cover members of the public seeking out paedophiles on the internet, regardless of a stated intention to assist law enforcement. It is often claimed by those caught with indecent images that they were obtained whilst seeking out offenders. However, this is not a defence and UK law does not allow the police or the CPS to sanction the type of activity you are undertaking. 

Any ‘evidence’ that you provide could be excluded from a prosecution as it may be regarded as having been illegally obtained. Law enforcement officers who undertake online activities are specially trained to do so and work within a strict legislative framework. This process ensures that any evidence which is collected can be safely used in bringing offenders to justice. 

At first we assumed that CEOP had been directing this reprimand at Charlotte herself, but a couple of weeks later we discovered that it had been directed at another presumed member of the “original Dirty 30”, Scott Pattinson, sometimes known as Muley Mulester or Superearther.

He responded as follows:

Dear sir/madam,
this is a follow up letter from the one which i was sent in your most recent email.
There are a number of facts that i wish to be considered due to their inacuracy.
These comments are as follows
-The claim that i used TOR
-My accusations not being met with a factual nature
-Claiming there are other investigations pending with no proof
-Claims of a investigation against mr dearman
-the afforementioned children in this case are infact in care of the state
-Accusations of sharing or possesing indecent images of children
-Accusations of illegally obtaining these images
-Accusations of trying to entrap people
These comments have to be retracted as i am not guilty of any of the above. I here by remove your right to slander my character in this fashion. If you had taken time and looked at my factual evidence then you could CLEARY see my screenshots are via tablet using the software (which i did buy from google play) called IP info Detective PRO. In making unfounded accusations in the way i used this software you also bring into disprepute Google and also the company which has made this software. This must stop now.
The screenshots that i have provided are software based and 100% factual. Stating anything else as i have previously stated puts the companies involved in disrepute. It has been stated in the high court in london that the case against mr dearman was never taken seriously or investigated by barnet police or the met. He was additionally portrayed as a victim of one big hoax. So no investigation has ever taken place until i obtained this evidence.
The two children at the heart of this case have been taken into care and thus the government has complete control of the situation. Are you thus implying they are not
capable of undertaking the safety of these children? The software i have used does not in any way take pictures as you have claimed. A simple fact finding mission before making these wild and untrue accusations would of stated that. Furthermore i find your unsigned threats outrageous and completely uncomfirmed. Having no signature on these threats shows me that your claims have absolutely no merit behind them. If this letter i was sent
was produced in a court of law it would be thrown out.
Your actions as law enforcement officers completely ashame myself and put your very actions into disrepute. How can a supposed law enforcement agency behave in a slanderous
manner towards myself as i am a vulnerable adult, with autism and also with physical disabilities. In my opinion you should be ashamed of your actions. As for reporting to my nearest police station (which is 8 miles away) I point black refuse to do so due to the pain
i go through whilst being mobile, as i suffer from arthritis. In saying this CS Sam salmond
apologized on my behalf when in a previous call to the met in london i was told to travel to my nearest station only to be met by two unhappy officers who stated “we have no jurisdiction to help you” Realistically i could of been charged with wasting police time and now find myself in this situation having to explain myself again. You have not taken my wellbeing into consideration.
I hereby give you 14 days to reply and for the second time of asking i still need a signed copy
of the letter i was sent
Regards
Scott Pattinson

So not only was Scott potentially placing himself in trouble with the law by looking for child sexual abuse images online, but it seems he was the tech genius responsible for the false allegations that RD was linked to child sex abuse sites online.

Anybody remember ‘IP info Detective Pro’?

In June or July 2015, Charlotte Ward described how she’d been approached in March that year by someone she called “John Smith”, but we will call “Scott Pattinson”.

Scott told her about the amazing piece of software he had purchased from Google Play called IP Info Detective Pro, and demonstrated to the ever-gullible Charlotte how it could be used to deduce that RD was running child sexual abuse sites online.

We’ll spare you her full post, but you can find a copy here. The gist of it went like this:

Every internet user is familiar with predictive analysis. Predictive software analyses your behaviour patterns online and works out what kind of a person you are. For example, if you buy lots of shoes on ebay the software will pick up your shopping patterns, analyse them and advertise shoe shops and ebay at you. YouTube uses it to recommend videos based on the other videos you have watched and so on. Ecommerce is now such big business that online retailers have invested millions into developing increasingly accurate predictive software.

Back in March 2015 a fellow researcher – let’s call him [Scott Pattinson] – left a message on our Hampstead Research blog. [Scott] stressed that he was not accusing anyone of being guilty but RD seemed to be delting (sic) all traces of himself from the internet.

[Scott] drew our attention to one particular website that RD had deleted. The IP address of this website was very important, he said.

Ns2.2heartsdelight.com

We were unable to verify whether 2 hearts delight belonged to RD so we took [Scott’s] word for it. [Scott] explained that 2hearts delight’s IP address is not a normal IP address, it is a step up from that: 2heartsdelight is a domain name server, or DNS. A DNS is used as a look up table to reference other websites. According to [Scott], if you add a DNS address to your computer you can access websites that other people can’t access, not unless they know the IP addresses of those websites.

So, we wondered, would a DNS give someone who knew what they were doing access to illegal sites, sites that were hidden, sites that contained, say, child pornography? Could a DNS be used to search Deep Net? Is this how paedophiles and other criminals operate online? We don’t know but from what [Scott] said, it sounds as if this could be the case.

So…there was no evidence to show that that DNS in question was linked to RD, but maybe a DNS could be used to search “Deep Net”, because this might or might not be how paedophiles operate online.

Are you with us so far? (All you techies out there, stop smirking.)

Still following [Scott’s] lead on 23 March 2015 we accessed this website, which shows us all the websites that are hosted at RD’s IP address.

On the surface it all looks perfectly innocent – a selection of health related sites. But when we checked the predictive analysis software, which can see what’s going on behind the scenes, we were directed to a list of hardcore and child pornography websites.

We decided to look into these websites for the purpose of fact checking. After all, they look and sound like child pornography but are they really? What we found is that most of these links were inactive. One, however, was active. This link was offering pornography of children as young as one year old. In the cause of fact checking, because we did not want to accuse an innocent man, we followed some of the links and found pronographic (sic) images of young girls. We did not want to investigate further but we did this to demonstrate to our viewers that this is fact.

So the predictive software had worked out that was going on behind the scenes on RD’s computer was nothing to do with health and fitness – the predictive software told us that these websites might be a front for child pornography. …

The child porn site you were looking at may not have been registered by RD and the material we examined may not originate from him either. It is, however, quite possible that this is the case. The software strongly suggests that he and the other users of his websites have at least accessed this IP address. When we look up who registered littleorgies we find someone at an address in the Ukraine calling themself (sic) V Smirnoff, which may well, of course, be a fake name.

Once again, Charlotte admits to having “looked into” a child sexual abuse site “for the purpose of fact-checking”. She did actually publish a link to the site on her blog (yet another reason why it’s a good thing that blog was consigned to the dustbin of history), so that all her readers could break the law along with her and Scott. We don’t know how many of them did so.

And despite all her claims that the site belonged to RD, Charlotte admitted that it was registered to a person in the Ukraine and had links to the Ukraine and Russia.

As we pointed out at the time (and several times afterward) Charlotte and Scott’s brilliant plan was doomed from the start, by a combination of ignorance, wishful thinking, and gullibility.

Why Scott’s cunning plan didn’t work

1. Would a DNS give someone who knew what they were doing access to illegal sites?

Yes, in a way it would, if by “a DNS” they mean “adding entries to the host’s file”. The porn site was never inaccessible to begin with, but doing it that way is one (very clumsy) way to trick your browser into making the request you need.

2. Could a DNS be used to search Deep Net?

To access certain sites, yes. To search, no. Not unless one of the sites you access is an index of said net. (DNS has no search capabilities at all.)

3. Is this how paedophiles and other criminals operate online?

Maybe. It’s a plausible, if very low-tech, way to sort-of hide a website. They would have to be pretty inept criminals, without much technical expertise.

4. Can you really use predictive analysis software to find out what someone else’s “sites of interest” might be?

Nope. Never, not at all. It will only show you what it thinks your own interests might be, based on where your browser has been recently.

They don’t call him Muley Mulester for nothing

In March this year, via yet another bizarre email from John ‘The Schnozz’ Paterson, we learned that CEOP Command had reprimanded Scott yet again, and in even stronger terms, for failing to cease and desist in his child sex abuse image detective work.

It’s sad to think that Scott is continuing to break the law in his quest to prove that we are all Satanic paedophiles who work for GCHQ and run child sex abuse sites in our spare time. He does sound as though he has a number of health and mental health issues, and we cannot help but wonder how much those have been exacerbated by his contact with the Hoaxtead mob and their friends.

What’s on Angela’s PC?

It’s been very clear for some time that at least two members of the early “Hampstead Research” group (which had a home on Facebook under the name “HRes”) were engaged in searching the dark web for child sexual abuse images, describing what they found there, and sharing the links with other group members.

We suspect, though, that those people won’t be terribly happy to discover that Angela has brought all that back into the public sphere.

Will the police find evidence of this illegal activity on Angela’s seized computers? If so, some of her erstwhile friends might have reason to seriously regret their association with her. As the countdown continues to the police laying charges, things could get very interesting indeed.