Hall reads from witness statements in the E from B videos. The Anglo Saxon idea has been abused for centuries. There was no genuine presumption of innocence for Mair. He was set up to take the fall either willingly or unwillingly, either before or after the fact, either paid or unpaid. You can make a mock up of virtually anything. Making a mock up trial is as doable as throwing a boxing match.
Does Richard Hall publish these statements or any primary documents? The problem is that a lot depends on interpretation, and it seems to me that's especially the case with Mr Hall who likes to sex things up, if I may put it that way. He does it for entertainment purposes. You have to understand what he is really up to and why before you go down this road of taking his ideas seriously. He isn't meant to be taken seriously. That's not the idea. His motivation is to earn money by providing an entertainment service. Some people watch rugby league on the TV. Some people watch porn. Some people watch Richard Hall videos.
I appreciate that the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition is less-than-perfect in practice, but it is a noble idea and my point stands: the system is, at least in the formal sense, based on the presumption of innocence, contested trials and tested evidence. Anything else I can't take seriously, especially some geezer on YouTube coming up with wild and contradictory theories. It's always a red flag when you get somebody who jumps off the deep end. Instead of saying: 'Oh, it might be a case of mistaken identity', we have the allegation that Jo Cox is still alive.
However, I've raised a question above about the case: the absence of blood on Thomas Mair's clothes and arms. That may lead us down useful avenues.
I also await a reply from Thomas Mair.