On January 29th, the ‘paranormal investigator’ Richard D Hall was taken to court by Martin Hibbert at the High Court of Justice. I was one of the fortunate few to be allowed in, with most of the three dozen or so of the public being shooed out of the court on the grounds that they could not get any chairs and standing wasn’t allowed. People objected on the sound basis that they were there to witness whatever justice was to be administered.
As it transpired the arguments were rather oblique and the purpose of the court hearing was most unclear. In a nutshell, one could say that Hibbert claims to have been right next to ‘the terrorist’ when his bomb went off on 22.5.17 at 10.30 pm at the Manchester Arena and he was penetrated by 22 pieces of shrapnel; whereas RDH does not accept that Mr Hibbert was even at the concert. There is a big difference of opinion here BUT that was not, ostensibly what this court hearing was about.
The case is supposedly being brought by Martin Hibbert and his daughter Eve: the latter has not been seen by anyone – reportedly – since ‘the night of the bomb’ ie no-one seems to have a picture of her or will say they have seen her. The poor child had a piece of ‘shrapnel’ go right through her head, in one aside and out the other, but don’t worry she’s back at school now reading and writing, or so the Court heard. Is Britain’s High court of Justice allowed to hear a case brought by someone who is appearing as somewhat non-existent?
“The claimants commenced proceedings against the defendant for harassment, misuse of private information and data protection breaches.” The harassment charge is quite clear, that five years ago in 2019 Richard D. Hall did indeed go up to the home where Eve was living with her mother, and ring the doorbell. Oh no, he rang the doorbell! Well there was no answer so he went away. BUT he also left a film running in his car parked opposite for a couple of hours. Was that a data-protection breach? I don’t think so.
Ordinary folk are enraged (I find) when told about these charges: we all know what harassment means and this isn’t it. As a professional journalist RDH has only used open-source publicly-available data. He has not violated anyone’s privacy. He merely disagrees about what happened at a public event, which is no crime.
At the hearing last week, I heard no word about alleged harassment or private-information misuse. I’m not at all clear that there is any private information here involved – Mr Hibbert is a very public person, a bit of a media star in fact. Obviously harassment has taken place in this case but it was by the BBC, who sent a team to RDH’s stall in Merthyr Tidvel in South Wales unannounced, interfering with his sales, filming him, then soon after getting the local council to close down his market-stall, then getting his Youtube channel closed down and sponsoring various media hit-pieces. Yes that is harassment.
The judgement found against him, was that “” I find that the defendant has not discharged the evidential burden which rests on him. He has no real prospect, indeed no prospect at all, of success on the Issues and I will resolve them in the claimants’ favour.” What was the ‘evidential burden’ which rested upon him? The case was NOT ABOUT what happened on the ‘Night of the Bang’ – or should not have been. This is where the duplicity of this court hearing becomes evident: had the charge been libel or defamation, then everything in the court hearing would have made sense. The whole hearing was in fact about whether DRH’s ‘alternate version’ of events that night was credible or not. Surely, RDH has defamed people, by saying they were mere crisis actors enacting a fictional drama. So why don’t they sue him for that? They don’t BECAUSE such a hearing – which could easily last a week – would allow RDH to present all his version of events to a jury . and where might that lead?
RDH has produced a four-hundred page book which got about fifty five-star reviews before being banned by Amazon, plus quite a few highly-informative videos, plus an in-depth analysis of ALL of the CCTV released, so how has he not ‘discharged’ the ‘evidential burden’? He has analysed the event more thoroughly than anyone else in the world. What is the ‘success’ of which RDH has in the judge’s view ‘no prospect’? For their evidence showing that Hibbert was present at the concert, the Judges report alleged that some fellow had viewed secret, un-released CCTV – too graphic for us, the public to see – which showed that Hibbert was present. Most people get quite angry when told that such a story is ‘evidence.’ At the court hearing, RDH called for ALL CCTV up to the moment of the bang, to be released.
As regards the alleged suicide ‘terrorist’ Salman Abedi, the judge found “It is fanciful to propose that Salman Abedi did not die.” Fanciful? THERE IS NO BODY – Manchester police cannot produce a corpse of the alleged suicide bomber. No inquest, no death certificate: nor for that matter can they produce bodies for any of the 22 allegedly dead victims. ‘Habeus corpus’ is a basic principle of British justice and can be loosely translated as, have you got the body? In the absence of a body, the burden of proof does not rest upon RDH to show that an alleged ‘suicide bomber’ did really commit suicide (for no known reason). We should be grateful for RDH’s careful and excellent analysis of all the CCTV – months of work – indicating how Albedi arrived, parked his car, then escaped later in the same car, after seemingly placing his bag in the Atrium where it later went bang.
So we finally come to the point of the convoluted logic of this court hearing – as to why there would be no point in allowing the Defendant (RDH) to present evidence as to what happened in the forthcoming court-hearing: “… whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that further evidence or investigation would affect the outcome of the case (or, in this case, the Issues). There are no such reasonable grounds.” His case is soooo unreasonable that there would be no point in allowing him to present it! Note that this final judgement has no connection whatsoever with what the case was supposedly about ,viz. harassment and misuse of private data.
RDH represented himself in court and gave an excellent account of his case over fifty minutes. I personally would have advised him not to do that, which was in a way too much information, and to make ONLY one point about what happened on that night: that the Atrium by the main concert-arena has a glass roof, huge glass windows and doors, and NO they were not cracked by any blast that night. Nor were there any pock-marks in the walls from shrapnel. therefore THERE WAS NO SHRAPNEL. End of story. It’s very simple.
Journalists need to grill Mr Hibbert about the number 22. On the 22nd at 22 hours after 22 songs had been sung a 22 year old terrorist killed 22 people and Hibbert received 22 shrapnel wounds. Then Manchester police arrested 22 suspects .. and so it goes on. No wonder Hibbert has got the number 22 tattooed on his back. He didn’t say a word at the trial, he didn’t have to.
https://checktheevidencecom.ipage.com/checktheevidence.com/pdf/KB-2023-002102_Hibbert%20v%20Richard%20Hall.pdf
