4D Chess Explained: The Three Explanations of The Situation
We previously reported on Mercury's '4D chess playbook' and how many of the actions taken by Mercury against Hydra-22 were due to coercion from Singapore's Internal Security Department (ISD). We understand that there are three 'explanations' to the legal circumstances surrounding Harvey and Mercury, and that the '4D chess playbook' is considered one of them.
To jump to the relevant sections:
- Explanation A: Mercury's Malice
- Explanation B: The Harvey Setup
- Explanation C: It was the Butler All Along
Explanation A : Mercury's Malice
Explanation A is the case theory based on victims' reporting on Mercury’s offences, which we have extensively covered on our blog.
Explanation B: The Harvey Setup
Explanation B, or the 'Harvey Setup' or '4D Chess' playbook, is based on Mercury trying to escape consequences by pinning Harvey as the mastermind behind the various troubles that Mercury faces. As such, the specific details on this have changed greatly over time, depending on what Mercury needs to pin Harvey for. As we have previously covered, the Singapore state has also enabled and pushed this narrative.
We understand that Mercury has articulated seven general points that constitute the idea of the 'Harvey Setup'; these are the 'reasons' why Mercury asserts that Harvey is to be blamed for the crimes Mercury herself has committed.
Arrests
Mercury has repeatedly claimed that Harvey has framed Mercury up for multiple crimes in order to get Mercury arrested. She has attributed her arrest for loansharking in May of 2018, her case regarding her Expedited Order (EO) breach in January 2021 and the anthrax hoax in August 2021 to Harvey allegedly framing her up for these incidents. We note that Harvey had only met Mercury in 2019 and was not acquainted with Mercury in 2018. We also note that Harvey had personally written to the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) to ask them to discontinue proceedings and not prefer any charge for the EO breach, which was successful. Finally, Mercury herself has admitted to committing the anthrax hoax under "the forcible influence of another negatively-inclined alter".
Details can be found in Carissa's 25-page letter to the AGC, with particular reference to paragraphs 67 and 84 for the appeal and the anthrax hoax respectively.
Manipulation
Another claim by Mercury is that Harvey manipulated her into believing third-parties (such as Mercury's step-father and mother, Adnan and others) were responsible for Harvey's own acts against her. Mercury has claimed that threatening messages made through multiple anonymous burner accounts were actually sent by Harvey, whom Mercury accuses of operating the burner accounts.
We understand that Mercury has consistently shifted the narrative on who the owner of these accounts are based on who she has the most grievances with at the time, while being the originator of these accounts and the messages made. Further details can be read on Carissa's 25-page letter, with particular reference to paragraphs 60 to 92.
Deception
Mercury has also accused Harvey of being a serial liar with a dubious past, and thus not a trustworthy person. She has accused Harvey of having lied about a litany of things including her inability to drink, not having sex, purposefully hiding shady acts from people, the forged court correspondence letter, her 2014 rape at the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) and her being trans. Mercury simply did not believe that Harvey was genuinely unable to drink and did not have sex while acquainted with Mercury. The acts that Mercury claimed Harvey did were completely fabricated, and the court correspondence letter was not forged by Harvey but rather by Mercury. Mercury is also known to have warped definitions of consent and thus would not believe Harvey's rape. Finally, Mercury perceives Harvey as not putting in enough effort to pass as her gender therefore thinks she is 'faking it'.
Dependence
Harvey has also been accused by Mercury of having engineered situations to control her and keep her dependent on Harvey. Mercury has said Harvey was being “too stingy” with the finances that Harvey provides her, that Harvey has repeatedly gotten Mercury arrested in order to cause her to purchase new devices after they were seized, and that Mercury is “dependent on Harvey's appeals" to get out of her criminal cases. In reality, Harvey had no obligation to financially support Mercury but did so anyway, and helped Mercury apply for her child maintenance claim and ComCare. Additionally, Harvey paid out of pocket to replace Mercury's devices, and successfully appealed to the AGC to drop the case regarding Mercury’s Expedited Order (EO) breach as previously stated.
Distraction
Mercury also pins her cases failing on Harvey, as Mercury claims that Harvey is too occupied with her own cases and is not as invested in Mercury's cases. She has cited Harvey's civil suit against the National Healthcare Group (NHG) and the marble table incident, claiming that Harvey broke the table on purpose so she can focus on her own case. Additionally, Mercury has blamed Harvey for Mercury's maintenance claim against her own parents being struck out on 5 Nov 2020. Mercury also blames Justice4Harvey (J4H) for diverting Harvey's focus to her own case instead of Mercury's ongoing legal matters, and faults Harvey for refusing to assist her with her anthrax hoax and causing Mercury to be caught for it red-handed. In reality, Harvey had unintentionally and unknowingly broke the marble table because she was spiked with phencyclidine. Mercury's maintenance claim was struck out because she gave Harvey a bag with Mercury's own knife in it. J4H actually helped both Mercury and Harvey initially, and Harvey is not obliged to help Mercury with avoiding consequences for an anthrax hoax Mercury herself committed.
For additional details on Mercury's maintenance claim, refer to Carissa's 25-page letter with particular reference to paragraph 75.
Capabilities
The intelligence, technical skillsets, and logistical acumen displayed by Harvey are also viewed by Mercury as indications of Harvey being the more suspicious character compared to Mercury. In her eyes, Harvey's membership in Mensa, proficiency with hardware and engineering and use of tactical equipment for outdoor expeditions 'make her the likelier culprit'. We would like to point out that none of these things on their own translate to any relevant inference of either mens rea (i.e. criminal intent) or actus reus (i.e. criminal act). Mercury cites this to depict Harvey as the more formidable party between the two, to make it sound more plausible for Harvey to have the know-how to execute these acts rather than Mercury.
Tendencies
Mercury has also claimed that Harvey has a long history of violent tendencies, and is extremely sexually possessive. Ironically, instances of this cited by Mercury are rooted in misrepresentations, totally fabricated accusations, or extrapolated projections of Mercury’s own character traits. Mercury cites this to draw inferences regarding Harvey’s supposed motives against Mercury, but these are easily refutable by those who personally know Harvey and can attest otherwise.
Explanation C: It was the Butler All Along
Explanation C is a broader category of reasonings based on the idea that a third party or parties are responsible, rather than Mercury or Harvey. Take note that in all these instances, the common baseline is that Mercury discloses Explanation B to everyone and listeners can either disbelieve Explanation B, remain undecided, or believe Explanation B (i.e. sympathizers).
Explanation C1: Explanation Cs Mercury and hostile actors are likely to cite
Explanation C1 points to specific individuals Mercury and hostile actors might name as alternate culprits if B fails.
We note that Mercury and hostile actors have already 'tested the waters' in claiming that one or more other individuals in Hydra-22 other than Harvey could have either acted alone or acted in concert to frame Mercury up for offences supposedly done by these individuals instead. Additionally, there have been actors who were cited in the past as responsible, or are likely to be thrown under the bus in future. This includes actors such as Adnan, Mercury's parents, Elise, Syafik & Nordin, and Rena & Heather. There are also other actors that may be cited, either standalone, in conjunction with Explanation B or in conjunction with actors that are already being cited currently.
Explanation C2: Other Archetypes
Other actors may also cite a third party as an explanation for the Situation. These are not specific names (unlike C1s), but archetypal profiles.
C2a: It was a Mercury sympathizer
This explanation posits that Mercury disclosed information to a sympathizer who then decides to act against Harvey.
One version of this explanation is that Mercury presents to sympathizers that Mercury is fully innocent and has no involvement whatsoever in getting back at Harvey due to having no energy to do so. This prompts one or more sympathizers to act on Mercury's behalf. This resolves the non-involvement problem because Mercury would not be involved in any of the sympathizers' plans, but if the sympathizers were acting independently and claiming to be Mercury, that would only get Mercury into more trouble, presenting the recoil problem.
Alternatively, Mercury presents to sympathizers that she is acting against Harvey and is justified in doing so after all the wrongs that Harvey has supposedly done to Mercury. This resolves the disclosure problem because Mercury would tell sympathizers this information, which is how they come to learn of it. This prompts one or more sympathizers to decide to 'get back' at Harvey either independently or in tandem with Mercury, presenting the dual-culprit problem as Mercury and the sympathizer would still both be responsible for the harms done to Harvey and others.
C2b: It was a related third-party
This explanation posits that a third-party related to both Mercury and Harvey with a motive against both of them is responsible, making both Mercury and Harvey victims in this instance. This resolves the dual-victim problem as both Mercury and Harvey could reasonably be victims, but then runs into the disclosure problem because Mercury would disclose information to sympathizers, but not to third-parties especially with motive against Mercury. Additionally, we note that the highly specific nature of the information disclosed and obtained by the culprit would not be sufficiently knowable even (or especially) by a third-party with motives against both Mercury and Harvey.
However, what if this third-party can obtain information on both Mercury and Harvey and their respective associates without the need for voluntary disclosures of such information? What if motives against both Mercury and Harvey and their respective associates were not as straightforward as being either strictly against or strictly for? Is there more to this explanation than meets the eye?
C2c: It was an unrelated third-party
There is another explanation that cites an unrelated third-party is trying to bring both Harvey and Mercury down, but there would then be no explanation for what motives this unrelated party would have to cause so much damage to both Harvey and Mercury.