Update about the RDH court case

[David1819]

Conspiratrad Richard D Hall has lost the case brought against him.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Hibbert-v-Hall-Judgment.pdf

[Roch]

Conspiratrad Richard D Hall has lost the case brought against him.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Hibbert-v-Hall-Judgment.pdf

He was never going to be allowed to win his case. He was blocked from presenting evidence.

[David1819]

He was never going to be allowed to win his case. He was blocked from presenting evidence.

He hasn't got any evidence in the first place. Reading the judgement, all his books and DVDs on the event were featured in the trial.

[Roch]

He hasn't got any evidence in the first place. Reading the judgement, all his books and DVDs on the event were featured in the trial.

There were two trials. The first trial was to decide whether he could use his evidence. The judge ruled he couldn't.

[Roch]

He hasn't got any evidence in the first place.

This is a particularly stupid remark David.

[David1819]

There were two trials. The first trial was to decide whether he could use his evidence. The judge ruled he couldn't.

No there was one trial. The first hearing considered Halls "Evidence" and concluded that Halls intended defence was a "ridiculous absurdity" and had to prospect of succeeding. Hence the trial will come down to whether he harassed the claimants or not. They actually done Hall a favour.

"I have also been provided with 36 media files, 32 of which are video or audio files, and
the remaining four are articles by Iain Davis, who describes himself as “The Disillusioned
Blogger”, all of which I have viewed, listened to and/or read (as appropriate). Most
notably, these include the 2018 Video, the 2019 Video, the Film, the Statement Analysis
Video and the 2020 Video. I have also been provided with a transcript of the 32 video or
audio files. In addition, I have a quantity of documentary evidence, including the Book,
all of which I have also read."

“There was, as required by law, an inquest into Salman Abedi’s
death, the findings of which are publicly available. Those parts
relating to the fact, date and cause of death are admissible in
evidence: see Daniel and another v St George’s Healthcare NHS
Trust and another [2016] EWHC 23 (QB) [2016] 4 WLR 32 at
paragraphs 39 & 40. Salman Abedi was found to have died on
22 May 2017. The cause of death was ‘blast injuries’. Hashem
Abedi’s convictions for murder rest on evidence that his brother
was the bomber and died in the attack. It is fanciful to propose
that Salman Abedi did not die. It is still more fanciful to propose
that he escaped, was apprehended and then ‘cleared’ (on the
basis, as the defendant explained, that he was an intelligence
asset).”

"I have referred above to the various descriptions of the “ridiculous absurdity” of, and
“far-fetched”, “absurd” “preposterous” and “fantastical” nature of, the narrative
maintained by the defendant in this case, which have been given by the judges who
considered his Defence earlier in these proceedings."

[Roch]

No there was one trial. The first hearing considered Halls "Evidence" and concluded that Halls intended defence was a "ridiculous absurdity" and had to prospect of succeeding. Hence the trial will come down to whether he harassed the claimants or not. They actually done Hall a favour.

"I have also been provided with 36 media files, 32 of which are video or audio files, and
the remaining four are articles by Iain Davis, who describes himself as “The Disillusioned
Blogger”, all of which I have viewed, listened to and/or read (as appropriate). Most
notably, these include the 2018 Video, the 2019 Video, the Film, the Statement Analysis
Video and the 2020 Video. I have also been provided with a transcript of the 32 video or
audio files. In addition, I have a quantity of documentary evidence, including the Book,
all of which I have also read."

“There was, as required by law, an inquest into Salman Abedi’s
death, the findings of which are publicly available. Those parts
relating to the fact, date and cause of death are admissible in
evidence: see Daniel and another v St George’s Healthcare NHS
Trust and another [2016] EWHC 23 (QB) [2016] 4 WLR 32 at
paragraphs 39 & 40. Salman Abedi was found to have died on
22 May 2017. The cause of death was ‘blast injuries’. Hashem
Abedi’s convictions for murder rest on evidence that his brother
was the bomber and died in the attack. It is fanciful to propose
that Salman Abedi did not die. It is still more fanciful to propose
that he escaped, was apprehended and then ‘cleared’ (on the
basis, as the defendant explained, that he was an intelligence
asset).”

"I have referred above to the various descriptions of the “ridiculous absurdity” of, and
“far-fetched”, “absurd” “preposterous” and “fantastical” nature of, the narrative
maintained by the defendant in this case, which have been given by the judges who
considered his Defence earlier in these proceedings."

That's what I meant. One trial but two hearings. None of the evidence provided by Hall is dealt with in any meaningful way. It is simply dismissed out of hand.

[David1819]

That's what I meant. One trial but two hearings. None of the evidence provided by Hall is dealt with in any meaningful way. It is simply dismissed out of hand.

It was dealt with and deemed a "ridiculous absurdity" “far-fetched”, “absurd” “preposterous” and “fantastical”.

[Roch]

It was dealt with and deemed a "ridiculous absurdity" “far-fetched”, “absurd” “preposterous” and “fantastical”.

What choice has the judge got? 

Hibbert has been presented to the world as an official victim of the incident. If the judge allows proper exploration of evidence which undermines claims of Hibbert's presence at the incident; and his subsequent testimony, what do you think is going to happen next?

[David1819]

What choice has the judge got? 

Hibbert has been presented to the world as an official victim of the incident. If the judge allows proper exploration of evidence which undermines claims of Hibbert's presence at the incident; and his subsequent testimony, what do you think is going to happen next?

No right minded person is going to entertain Halls ridiculous theories. Made up theories of a crank is not evidence.

Hall insists all the coffins at the funerals were empty, allowing him to defend himself with such lunacy would pave the way for letting him exhume the graves of the victims only for him to then say the skeletons are planted.

Moreover if you read the judgement, CCTV footage shows Hibbert at the concert able and walking before the explosion.

[Roch]

No right minded person is going to entertain Halls ridiculous theories. Made up theories of a crank is not evidence.

Hall insists all the coffins at the funerals were empty, allowing him to defend himself with such lunacy would pave the way for letting him exhume the graves of the victims only for him to then say the skeletons are planted.

Moreover if you read the judgement, CCTV footage shows Hibbert at the concert able and walking before the explosion.

Hall doesn't believe anyone died as a direct result of the incident. He believes a very small number of people died by causes not in any way linked to the incident.  Therefore, it follows that he would question the funerals. 

How do we view the footage of Hibbert at the scene?

[David1819]

Hall has been ordered to pay £45,000 in damages and 90% of the Hibberts' legal costs.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/manchester-arena-survivors-bombing-awarded-harassment-case-richard-hall/

[Roch]

Hall has been ordered to pay £45,000 in damages and 90% of the Hibberts' legal costs.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/manchester-arena-survivors-bombing-awarded-harassment-case-richard-hall/

Bit of pocket money for the brazened Hibbert.

[Curiosity]

Hall has been ordered to pay £45,000 in damages and 90% of the Hibberts' legal costs.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/manchester-arena-survivors-bombing-awarded-harassment-case-richard-hall/

Not  enough!  He should have been sued for everything he's got, and put out of his ludicrous conspiracy-mongering business.

[Roch]

Not  enough!  He should have been sued for everything he's got, and put out of his ludicrous conspiracy-mongering business.

Should be given an award for investigative journalism in my opinion.