The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Richard D. Hall

Page 2 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall

Post by hogwash on 09.08.16 6:05

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Get'emGonçalo wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Get'emGonçalo wrote:Hoax?

I don't really see how the whole thing could be a hoax. I'm more inclined to believe that the hoax revelation could be a smear campaign on all involved in the hope it'll go away.

I can't say for sure it is all 100% true, but I feel accusations of abuse are real.
If you doubt that the claims of Hollie and Anne Greig are an out-and-out hoax, moreover with the additional purpose of wrongfully claiming £13,500 from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, then very clearly you cannot have studied the detailed evidence provided by the Hollie Greig Hoax group, much of which I've published on the forum.

Anne Greig and Robert Green are out-and-out liars. Maggs Shaw and Jon Stevenson are honest researchers. It really is as simple as that, and there is no medical evidence whatsoever that Hollie Greig was ever abused. All the claims made by Anne Greg and Robert Green are out-and-out fabrications. The Scottish Police Complaints Authority comprehensively investigated a dozen official complaints by Anne Greig and found her claims and complaints to be utterly baseless. I posted its report on the forum. 

One of those accused of abusing and raping Hollie was Anne Greig's former friend, Sylvia Major, who is a member of this forum. Her posts and her videos on the matter are well worth looking at again. You'll recall she had to give up her hairdressing business because of the outrageous lies Green circulated round the streets where she lived - an offence for which he was IMO rightly jailed.


It's not my opinion, I just copied and pasted it from Richard's youtube narrative, uploaded by Colin. G. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=554&v=ae4sc3v12fE
Yes, sorry, I really wasn't sure who wrote that bit starting 'Hoax?', it wasn't enirely clear from the post.

If those are Richard's words, it looks like they were written in 2012, soon after the 'Hollie Greig story' was broken by Robert Green. It was not long before then that I first believed the Hollie Grieg story. It was during 2012 that I learned it was all a cunning hoax.

I will say that Richard Hall and I have spoken, albeit briefly, about the Hollie Greig case and, basically, we have agreed to disagree about it.

In my opinion those are not Richard's words, they are the words of the person (Colin.G) who uploaded the video as they are posted after the link to richplanet.

Richard's link to a site where comments could be made about the case has been closed, so maybe he has changed his mind about the case and seen it for what it is?

hogwash

Posts : 130
Reputation : 114
Join date : 2015-09-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall

Post by Tony Bennett on 09.08.16 8:06

@Dread Pirate Robberts wrote:The Hollie case was not so much of a hoax, just a misguided, vindictive, desperate (and mentally ill) woman's attempt to attack her husband that spiralled out of control. 

REPLY: That's more or less an accurate summary, BUT, at its heart, this IS of course a hoax, a con, a fabrication, a lie, because there is no independent evidence Hollie was abused, and conclusive evidence to the contrary 

Robert Green was the gullible idiot.

REPLY: That judgment is far too generous. He made claims along the way that he must have known were false. There was probably a financial motive as well, since the Hollie Greig Demands Justice Campaign raked in large amounts of money which have never been properly accounted for - donations were made via the Paypal account of a single individual, Belinda McKenzie, who has a track record of financial irregularity. He also has form for circulating libelous information about innocent people - he was arrested down in Cheshire for doing the same to a solicitor with whom he had fallen out over the collapse of his travel agent business. He caused an entirely innocent woman to have to give up her hairdressing business.     

There used to be plenty of evidence out there when that case was prominent that clearly proved everything.

REPLY: With respect, that sentence makes no sense. "There WAS evidence...that PROVED everything"???

Either there was and is evidence that proved everything, or there isn't.   

The simple truth is this. Greig and Green cunningly put together alleged evidence which appeared to prove everything. Much hinged on whether or not a very severely mentally handicapped young woman was a credible witness. But the story collapsed when examined by Maggs Shaw, Jon Stevenson and others. One of the most obvious problems with the story was that for nearly all of the 14 years Hollie was supposed to have been routinely abused and raped by gangs of senior Scottish lawyers and judges in their homes, she lived at home with her mother - Anne Greig.     


I have no doubt about that whatsoever.

REPLY: You cannot be serious.

However if Tony has spoken to Richard and Richard remains convinced of the case, then I would say Richard's investigative skills and analysis simply cannot be trusted.

Just another CT trying to make a buck or two would be my instinct.  

Shame, because if there is one case that really needs investigating it's MM.

REPLY: Not everyone of course agrees with all that Richard has said in his 12 hours of documentaries about Madeleine. One of the things Richard does is publish on his website any factual challenges to his films - and answers them. His first Madeleine film attracted a handful of comments. He said Martin Smith was a 'friend' of Robert Murat. Martin Smith denied that. He published his correction. Another person said that his film had featured the 'wrong' tennis courts at the Ocean Club. He publicly acknowledged he probably got that wrong.

What is revealing, however, is how very few factual challenges have been made to his material. For example Textusa, who has stuck rigidly to 'Madeleine died after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May' for nine years, was moved to complain on his forum of 'numerous errors' in Richard's films, but admitted he'd never drawn them to his attention, saying he would do so when he had time. To my knowledge, he's never done so.

Finally, Richard's analysis and conclusions out Madeleine McCann chime with the views of a great many members of the world's most popular Madeleine McCann discussion forum - CMOMM.        
P.S.  @ Hogwash wrote:  "In my opinion those are not Richard's words, they are the words of the person (Colin. G) who uploaded the video as they are posted after the link to Richplanet".

REPLY: Yes. I agree.

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall

Post by Dread Pirate Robberts on 09.08.16 22:34

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Dread Pirate Robberts wrote:PLEASE EXCUSE CAPS. I HAVE DIFFICULTY FOLLOWING THESE TYPES OF THREADS.

The Hollie case was not so much of a hoax, just a misguided, vindictive, desperate (and mentally ill) woman's attempt to attack her husband that spiralled out of control. 

REPLY: That's more or less an accurate summary, BUT, at its heart, this IS of course a hoax, a con, a fabrication, a lie, because there is no independent evidence Hollie was abused, and conclusive evidence to the contrary 

AGREED.

Robert Green was the gullible idiot.

REPLY: That judgment is far too generous. He made claims along the way that he must have known were false. There was probably a financial motive as well, since the Hollie Greig Demands Justice Campaign raked in large amounts of money which have never been properly accounted for - donations were made via the Paypal account of a single individual, Belinda McKenzie, who has a track record of financial irregularity. He also has form for circulating libelous information about innocent people - he was arrested down in Cheshire for doing the same to a solicitor with whom he had fallen out over the collapse of his travel agent business. He caused an entirely innocent woman to have to give up her hairdressing business.    

AGREED 


There used to be plenty of evidence out there when that case was prominent that clearly proved everything.

REPLY: With respect, that sentence makes no sense. "There WAS evidence...that PROVED everything"???

Either there was and is evidence that proved everything, or there isn't.   

I WAS REFERRING TO A WEBSITE WHERE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE WAS LISTED SUCCINCTLY. THIS WEBSITE HAS SINCE DISAPPEARED, HENCE IT IS NO LONGER OUT THERE.

The simple truth is this. Greig and Green cunningly put together alleged evidence which appeared to prove everything. Much hinged on whether or not a very severely mentally handicapped young woman was a credible witness. But the story collapsed when examined by Maggs Shaw, Jon Stevenson and others. One of the most obvious problems with the story was that for nearly all of the 14 years Hollie was supposed to have been routinely abused and raped by gangs of senior Scottish lawyers and judges in their homes, she lived at home with her mother - Anne Greig.     


I have no doubt about that whatsoever.

REPLY: You cannot be serious.

I'M DEADLY SERIOUS?? I HAVE NO DOUBT THE HOLLIE CASE WAS FALSE. DID YOU MISUNDERSTAND ME? OR IS IT MY POOR ENGLISH.

However if Tony has spoken to Richard and Richard remains convinced of the case, then I would say Richard's investigative skills and analysis simply cannot be trusted.

Just another CT trying to make a buck or two would be my instinct.  

Shame, because if there is one case that really needs investigating it's MM.

REPLY: Not everyone of course agrees with all that Richard has said in his 12 hours of documentaries about Madeleine. One of the things Richard does is publish on his website any factual challenges to his films - and answers them. His first Madeleine film attracted a handful of comments. He said Martin Smith was a 'friend' of Robert Murat. Martin Smith denied that. He published his correction. Another person said that his film had featured the 'wrong' tennis courts at the Ocean Club. He publicly acknowledged he probably got that wrong.

What is revealing, however, is how very few factual challenges have been made to his material. For example Textusa, who has stuck rigidly to 'Madeleine died after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May' for nine years, was moved to complain on his forum of 'numerous errors' in Richard's films, but admitted he'd never drawn them to his attention, saying he would do so when he had time. To my knowledge, he's never done so.

Finally, Richard's analysis and conclusions out Madeleine McCann chime with the views of a great many members of the world's most popular Madeleine McCann discussion forum - CMOMM.    

I HAVE ONE MORE VIDEO TO GO (PART4) 12 HOURS?? BUT CURRENTLY ALL I CAN SEE IS THAT RICHARD D HALL HAS SIMPLY PUT ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT IS ALREADY OUT THERE ON FILM. HELPFUL, BUT THAT'S ABOUT ALL.  
  
P.S.  @ Hogwash wrote:  "In my opinion those are not Richard's words, they are the words of the person (Colin. G) who uploaded the video as they are posted after the link to Richplanet".

REPLY: Yes. I agree.

SO RICHARD MAY NOT STILL BELIEVE THE HOLLIE STORY THEN?

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE GUYS BEHIND OUTING THE HOLLIE GREIG CASE INVESTIGATE MM. I THINK THEY WOULD DO A BETTER JOB. 

Dread Pirate Robberts

Posts : 14
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2016-08-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall

Post by Tony Bennett on 09.08.16 23:29

@Dread Pirate Robberts wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Dread Pirate Robberts wrote:There used to be plenty of evidence out there when that case was prominent that clearly proved everything.

REPLY: With respect, that sentence makes no sense. "There WAS evidence...that PROVED everything"???

Either there was and is evidence that proved everything, or there isn't.   

I WAS REFERRING TO A WEBSITE WHERE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE WAS LISTED SUCCINCTLY. THIS WEBSITE HAS SINCE DISAPPEARED, HENCE IT IS NO LONGER OUT THERE.

REPLY: I am sorry. Sadly your sentence did not make clear what was meant by  'evidence out there...that clearly proved everything'. You meant the Hollie Greig Hoax site. Fine. We are agreed.  


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I have no doubt about that whatsoever.

REPLY: You cannot be serious.

I'M DEADLY SERIOUS?? I HAVE NO DOUBT THE HOLLIE CASE WAS FALSE. DID YOU MISUNDERSTAND ME? OR IS IT MY POOR ENGLISH.


REPLY: See above. It would not be the first time someone has not made something crystal clear on the internet. 
 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Finally, Richard's analysis and conclusions out Madeleine McCann chime with the views of a great many members of the world's most popular Madeleine McCann discussion forum - CMOMM.    

I HAVE ONE MORE VIDEO TO GO (PART4) 12 HOURS?? BUT CURRENTLY ALL I CAN SEE IS THAT RICHARD D HALL HAS SIMPLY PUT ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT IS ALREADY OUT THERE ON FILM. HELPFUL, BUT THAT'S ABOUT ALL.  

REPLY:
 You say that "all I can see is that Richard D Hall has put all the evidence that is already out there on film..." I would argue that the evidence of which you speak was "in here (CMOMM)" rather than "out there"  (on film).  Even if Richard Hall has done no more than take evidence from CMOMM and present it in visual form to a much wider audience out on YouTube, is that not in itself a major achievement? Some of the things written about on CMOMM in the past three years have now had 2 million plus views on YouTube and on Richard's sites.
  
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

P.S.  @ Hogwash wrote:  "In my opinion those are not Richard's words, they are the words of the person (Colin. G) who uploaded the video as they are posted after the link to Richplanet".

REPLY: Yes. I agree.

SO RICHARD MAY NOT STILL BELIEVE THE HOLLIE STORY THEN?

REPLY: I do not know what his up-to-date position is.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE GUYS BEHIND OUTING THE HOLLIE GREIG CASE INVESTIGATE MM. I THINK THEY WOULD DO A BETTER JOB. 

REPLY: Do you think that Richard Hall has got anything significant wrong in his three Madeleine films? If so, what? 

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall

Post by Verdi on 09.08.16 23:59

@Tony Bennett wrote:

What is revealing, however, is how very few factual challenges have been made to his material. For example Textusa, who has stuck rigidly to 'Madeleine died after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May' for nine years, was moved to complain on his forum of 'numerous errors' in Richard's films, but admitted he'd never drawn them to his attention, saying he would do so when he had time. To my knowledge, he's never done so.
If I had a quid for every time I've read criticism about Richard D. Hall's videos from people who haven't bothered to take it up with him, I'd be rich as Croesus.

As you rightly point out, Richard always gives critics the opportunity to voice their objections - question is, if valid, why don't they do just that rather than whinging on various boards across cyberspace?

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

Verdi

Posts : 3534
Reputation : 2056
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall

Post by Dread Pirate Robberts on 10.08.16 22:54

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Dread Pirate Robberts wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Dread Pirate Robberts wrote:There used to be plenty of evidence out there when that case was prominent that clearly proved everything.

REPLY: With respect, that sentence makes no sense. "There WAS evidence...that PROVED everything"???

Either there was and is evidence that proved everything, or there isn't.   

I WAS REFERRING TO A WEBSITE WHERE ALL OF THE EVIDENCE WAS LISTED SUCCINCTLY. THIS WEBSITE HAS SINCE DISAPPEARED, HENCE IT IS NO LONGER OUT THERE.

REPLY: I am sorry. Sadly your sentence did not make clear what was meant by  'evidence out there...that clearly proved everything'. You meant the Hollie Greig Hoax site. Fine. We are agreed.  


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I have no doubt about that whatsoever.

REPLY: You cannot be serious.

I'M DEADLY SERIOUS?? I HAVE NO DOUBT THE HOLLIE CASE WAS FALSE. DID YOU MISUNDERSTAND ME? OR IS IT MY POOR ENGLISH.


REPLY: See above. It would not be the first time someone has not made something crystal clear on the internet. 
 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Finally, Richard's analysis and conclusions out Madeleine McCann chime with the views of a great many members of the world's most popular Madeleine McCann discussion forum - CMOMM.    

I HAVE ONE MORE VIDEO TO GO (PART4) 12 HOURS?? BUT CURRENTLY ALL I CAN SEE IS THAT RICHARD D HALL HAS SIMPLY PUT ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT IS ALREADY OUT THERE ON FILM. HELPFUL, BUT THAT'S ABOUT ALL.  

REPLY:
 You say that "all I can see is that Richard D Hall has put all the evidence that is already out there on film..." I would argue that the evidence of which you speak was "in here (CMOMM)" rather than "out there"  (on film).  Even if Richard Hall has done no more than take evidence from CMOMM and present it in visual form to a much wider audience out on YouTube, is that not in itself a major achievement? Some of the things written about on CMOMM in the past three years have now had 2 million plus views on YouTube and on Richard's sites.

Agreed. That is what I actually meant, all he has done is taken the info and put it on film. And yes, it's an achievement, it's helpful, but no more than that. Its about time someone came up with more irrefutable evidence, enough perhaps to convict or at least prove Gov collusion. Problem is, no one credible will talk to individuals like RDH. He's a well known CT and has no real credibility. 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

P.S.  @ Hogwash wrote:  "In my opinion those are not Richard's words, they are the words of the person (Colin. G) who uploaded the video as they are posted after the link to Richplanet".

REPLY: Yes. I agree.

SO RICHARD MAY NOT STILL BELIEVE THE HOLLIE STORY THEN?

REPLY: I do not know what his up-to-date position is.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE GUYS BEHIND OUTING THE HOLLIE GREIG CASE INVESTIGATE MM. I THINK THEY WOULD DO A BETTER JOB. 

REPLY: Do you think that Richard Hall has got anything significant wrong in his three Madeleine films? If so, what? 

How could he get anything wrong? He's only used facts and evidence that is already widely known. 

Dread Pirate Robberts

Posts : 14
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2016-08-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall

Post by Dread Pirate Robberts on 10.08.16 23:01

@Verdi wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:

What is revealing, however, is how very few factual challenges have been made to his material. For example Textusa, who has stuck rigidly to 'Madeleine died after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May' for nine years, was moved to complain on his forum of 'numerous errors' in Richard's films, but admitted he'd never drawn them to his attention, saying he would do so when he had time. To my knowledge, he's never done so.
If I had a quid for every time I've read criticism about Richard D. Hall's videos from people who haven't bothered to take it up with him, I'd be rich as Croesus.

As you rightly point out, Richard always gives critics the opportunity to voice their objections - question is, if valid, why don't they do just that rather than whinging on various boards across cyberspace?

I guess the key word here is "if valid."

I seem to remember the hoax team contacting him but he obviously didn't think their evidence was valid as I don't believe he ever replied. In fact, I believe he did everything he could to avoid them. 

£1 refund then. 


Dread Pirate Robberts

Posts : 14
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2016-08-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall

Post by Verdi on 11.08.16 0:03

@Dread Pirate Robberts wrote:
@Verdi wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:

What is revealing, however, is how very few factual challenges have been made to his material. For example Textusa, who has stuck rigidly to 'Madeleine died after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May' for nine years, was moved to complain on his forum of 'numerous errors' in Richard's films, but admitted he'd never drawn them to his attention, saying he would do so when he had time. To my knowledge, he's never done so.
If I had a quid for every time I've read criticism about Richard D. Hall's videos from people who haven't bothered to take it up with him, I'd be rich as Croesus.

As you rightly point out, Richard always gives critics the opportunity to voice their objections - question is, if valid, why don't they do just that rather than whinging on various boards across cyberspace?

I guess the key word here is "if valid."

I seem to remember the hoax team contacting him but he obviously didn't think their evidence was valid as I don't believe he ever replied. In fact, I believe he did everything he could to avoid them. 

£1 refund then. 

I meant 'valid' as regards the whinger - if they have good reason to draw attention to the inaccuracy of a specific point, then go ahead and take it up with Richard D. Hall rather than roaming around cyberspace trying to discredit his work.

Your example appears to be hearsay, a vague knowledge of past events without any verification.

I stand by my original comment until someone can prove to the contrary.  Can you imagine the number of hoax calls received, for example, by the investigative team working on the case of Madeleine McCann?  A seasoned detective or analyst or researcher or journalist can instinctively differentiate between a hoax and a genuine informer.

I challenge you to tour the UK hosting venues for discussing conspiratorial theories on topical issues and/or producing hours of video time, drawing attention to anomalies, lies and inaccuracies - let's see how you fare on the scale of believable.

In the meantime, can you be more specific as regards the wrongs of Richard D. Hall's exemplary videos about the case of Madeleine McCann?

Thank you howdy .

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

Verdi

Posts : 3534
Reputation : 2056
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall

Post by Cmaryholmes on 11.08.16 16:44

@Verdi wrote...'A seasoned detective or analyst or researcher or journalist can instinctively differentiate between a hoax and a genuine informer'. This may be wildly irrelevant, but I am old enough to remember the extraordinary ' I'm Jack' tapes which deceived an entire police force for years until the ' Yorkshire Ripper' , Peter Sutcliffe was finally caught.

Cmaryholmes

Posts : 146
Reputation : 203
Join date : 2016-03-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall

Post by MRNOODLES on 11.08.16 17:43

@Cmaryholmes wrote:@Verdi wrote...'A seasoned detective or analyst or researcher or journalist can instinctively differentiate between a hoax and a genuine informer'. This may be wildly irrelevant, but I am old enough to remember the extraordinary ' I'm Jack' tapes which deceived an entire police force for years until the ' Yorkshire Ripper' , Peter Sutcliffe was finally caught.

To be fair it didn't deceive an entire police force.  It deceived George Oldfield and it as in charge of the investigation.  A fair few knew it was a hoax but he wouldn't listen.

MRNOODLES

Posts : 637
Reputation : 200
Join date : 2013-07-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall

Post by Cmaryholmes on 11.08.16 18:12

Point taken...not an entire police force then. But hoaxes are often very successful.

Cmaryholmes

Posts : 146
Reputation : 203
Join date : 2016-03-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall

Post by Dread Pirate Robberts on 11.08.16 23:21

@Verdi wrote:
@Dread Pirate Robberts wrote:
@Verdi wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:

What is revealing, however, is how very few factual challenges have been made to his material. For example Textusa, who has stuck rigidly to 'Madeleine died after 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May' for nine years, was moved to complain on his forum of 'numerous errors' in Richard's films, but admitted he'd never drawn them to his attention, saying he would do so when he had time. To my knowledge, he's never done so.
If I had a quid for every time I've read criticism about Richard D. Hall's videos from people who haven't bothered to take it up with him, I'd be rich as Croesus.

As you rightly point out, Richard always gives critics the opportunity to voice their objections - question is, if valid, why don't they do just that rather than whinging on various boards across cyberspace?

I guess the key word here is "if valid."

I seem to remember the hoax team contacting him but he obviously didn't think their evidence was valid as I don't believe he ever replied. In fact, I believe he did everything he could to avoid them. 

£1 refund then. 

I meant 'valid' as regards the whinger - if they have good reason to draw attention to the inaccuracy of a specific point, then go ahead and take it up with Richard D. Hall rather than roaming around cyberspace trying to discredit his work.

I roam nowhere and I'm not attempting to discredit RDH's work. I don't need to, he is already widely known as an unreliable CT. The net is full of them. Individuals trying to make a living from conspiracy theories. Even once half decent journalist like Sonia Poulton, now classifying herself as a "single mom" trying to make a living. RDH is no different.

Think about it. He went to praia da luz and didn't interview a single person. 

But then who the hell would speak to him!

He did grab some footage, and made a "documentary."

MM needs some really decent investigators.

This forum has a good reputation, largely because of the TB a small number of contributors which is why I am here.  

Your example appears to be hearsay, a vague knowledge of past events without any verification.

Correct. I may be wrong, if anyone can verify please do so, but my memory is all I have to go on.

I stand by my original comment until someone can prove to the contrary.  Can you imagine the number of hoax calls received, for example, by the investigative team working on the case of Madeleine McCann?  A seasoned detective or analyst or researcher or journalist can instinctively differentiate between a hoax and a genuine informer.

I challenge you to tour the UK hosting venues for discussing conspiratorial theories on topical issues and/or producing hours of video time, drawing attention to anomalies, lies and inaccuracies - let's see how you fare on the scale of believable.

I won't be doing that. There's enough individuals doing that already, as mentioned above lol. If I were to investigate MM, you wouldn't know about it, and neither would anyone on this forum (with the possible exception of two individuals.) Or any forum for that matter. 

In the meantime, can you be more specific as regards the wrongs of Richard D. Hall's exemplary videos about the case of Madeleine McCann?

RDH hasn't necessary done anything wrong. In fact, he has been somewhat helpful as I mentioned earlier. But it's not a serious attempt at exposing anything. It's mostly to do with extend his reach for his own personal gain. Which is what these types of individuals do. They latch on to prominent stories in an attempt to give themselves credibility. Those involved can't help but feel supported, but that in reality is an illusion. 

His videos have done nothing to further the case. They are entertainment only and we can only hope they spur on some developments from more serious individuals.

I doubt however, because no serious individual takes RDH seriously. I have only watched his 4 video's for the purpose of this debate. Having watched his previous videos some years ago, I can say without reservation, nothing has changed.

In fact, I'm surprised to see he is still in business. But then the gullibility of the public knows no bounds.  

Thank you howdy

Thank you sir.  howdy

Dread Pirate Robberts

Posts : 14
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2016-08-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall

Post by Verdi on 12.08.16 0:38

'No response was the stern reply' 


You've said all that need be to confirm my thoughts - I bid you farewell.  I hope you sleep well.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

Verdi

Posts : 3534
Reputation : 2056
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall

Post by whatsupdoc on 12.08.16 8:51

Quoting Dread Pirate Robberts...

I'm not attempting to discredit RDH's work. I don't need to, he is already widely known as an unreliable CT. The net is full of them. Individuals trying to make a living from conspiracy theories. Even once half decent journalist like Sonia Poulton, now classifying herself as a "single mom" trying to make a living. RDH is no different.





Not true. RDH is not known as unreliable. I spend a lot of time researching info on the net and I have never seen any such adverse comments.
Richard has made over 200 videos and I have also attended one of his lectures. As a professional in two completely separate fields, I think he is an honest person trying to discover the truth where many corrupt people are trying to keep the truth hidden away.

Making videos and editing them is expensive in time and money.

He doesn't appear on tv sofas as does Sonia.

The McCanns complained about Dr. Amaral making money when they were making millions.



People who criticize in a general way without mentioning details are usually ones IMO who fear the truth getting out, or just general disruptors.



I did wonder if DPR was taking our eye off the ball regarding Richard's latest video on the Didcot  murders, especially as he has had threats. That sounds like someone who wants to hush up any further investigation.

whatsupdoc

Posts : 527
Reputation : 264
Join date : 2011-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall

Post by JRP on 12.08.16 9:05

Ere, get over to CMOMM and discredit that Richard Hall bloke and his films. 

How do I do that?

Tell 'em his films are only made from facts! Tell 'em he makes a fortune from all those free films he gives away. 

coffee

JRP

Posts : 175
Reputation : 144
Join date : 2016-03-07
Age : 59
Location : UK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall

Post by Cmaryholmes on 12.08.16 12:41

He also invites anyone to point out any inaccuracies. How outrageous !

Cmaryholmes

Posts : 146
Reputation : 203
Join date : 2016-03-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Richard Hall and the Didcot Murders

Post by Tony Bennett on 12.08.16 14:13

@whatsupdoc wrote:I did wonder if DPR was taking our eye off the ball regarding Richard's latest video on the Didcot murders, especially as he has had threats. That sounds like someone who wants to hush up any further investigation.
Richard Hall and the Didcot Murders

I decided to get a copy of Richard's latest film - about the Didcot murders - and see for myself.

I had read about the Didcot murders and it seemed to me an 'open and shut case'.

Three members of a household had been murdered, and the fourth (Jed Allen) had evidently left the house the same afternoon, and CCTV cameras had traced him heading by train to Oxford. He had then sent text messages saying he was in turmoil. Later - I think it was two days later - his body was found hanged in some countryside to the north of Oxford.

I will be in danger of spoiling a very good story if I say too much more.

One forensic item that Richard explores is why, after travelling by train to Oxford after allegedly committing a triple murder, Jed Allen went to a cash machine and took out £100, apparently intent on committing suicide shortly afterwards.  In the film, Richard solves this conundrum.

Then attention focuses on an individual who admitted to being in the vicinity of the place where the three family members were murdered, around the possible time of the murders, but also admitted (according to evidence at the Inquest) to being within a mile or two of where Jed's body was found, allegedly hanged, 20 miles or so away, no more than an hour or so later. An unusual circumstance in any case. 

The reason the individual gives for being at that second venue so soon afterwards is unconvincing to say the least, and Richard devises a neat, if slightly time-consuming, way of disproving his account.

Richard tries to locate this individual, and, after a couple of failures, finally finds him at a third address. The individual does not speak to Richard at first, but on another occasion he rings Richard, who switchhes on his recording machine.

The individual then makes a clear, very audible, very explicit death threat, which is repeated.

To cut a long story short, Richard develops an alternative scenario for what happened, which initially seems preposterous, but by the end convinced me that he was right.

I think Richard's film may not be the end of the matter, as the film makes a case that the police investigation was at best thoroughly incompetent (and therefore there should be a re-investigation, that the Coroner did not do his job properly, and of course includes a credible death threat against him which in itself is a criminal offence.

He also puts the Home Office pathologist, Nicholas Hunt, under the microscope. Nicholas Hunt was the pathologist called in to carry out a post-mortem on nuclear and chemical weapons expert Dr David Kelly - and pronounced it a clear case of suicide. 

In this film we see a lone committed investigator carrying out a huge amount of original research, reaching a dramatic conclusion, and then making a highly credible film about it - vintage Richard Hall at his very best, I think.

I commend it - it's on sale on his website

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall

Post by whatsupdoc on 12.08.16 18:49

Sounds intriguing , Tony. I'll go over and order a copy.


PS...Richard's latest film is out today entitled Effects of Microwaves.

Part 1 of 3 is here...  http://www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=228&part=1

Part 1of 3  on YouTube is here...   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX2kZr0u630

whatsupdoc

Posts : 527
Reputation : 264
Join date : 2011-08-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall

Post by Roxyroo on 12.08.16 20:47

I've just watched Richard d. Hall's newest docs on youtube, and they prove that, yet again, that the government really don't give a f*** about us proles.
I Wonder just how many police officers actually realise they've been made guinea pigs as part of a huge test, just to get statistics on how many are badly affected by microwave tech.!

____________________
Everything I post is ALL MY OWN OPINION and therefore I.m allowed to think whatever I please! gm

Roxyroo

Posts : 231
Reputation : 151
Join date : 2016-04-04
Location : Perth, Scotland

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall

Post by BlueBag on 12.08.16 21:11

What we need is a new political movement based on absolute truth.

No hiding, no fudging, no white lies, no economies with the truth, no dark lies, just the truth.. almost a religious quest for truth (without the religion)... 

No secret weekly meetings with the "powerless" Queen... no thrice weekly lunches with Rupert Murdoch (I'm looking at you Thatcher you dead goon)... 

It's the only way forward.

You want to be elected then you open up your life so we can see everything... you got something to hide then go away.

People power and 100% accountability.

BlueBag

Posts : 3420
Reputation : 1269
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall

Post by Verdi on 12.08.16 21:38

@Cmaryholmes wrote:@Verdi wrote...'A seasoned detective or analyst or researcher or journalist can instinctively differentiate between a hoax and a genuine informer'. This may be wildly irrelevant, but I am old enough to remember the extraordinary ' I'm Jack' tapes which deceived an entire police force for years until the ' Yorkshire Ripper' , Peter Sutcliffe was finally caught.
Well of course, there will always be the exception to the rule but I think here you've picked on a bad example.

George Oldfield was obsessed with the case of the Yorkshire Ripper - obsession is a dangerous destructive emotion, it clouds rational judgement and destroys the soul.  It certainly took it's toll on George Oldfield.

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx

Verdi

Posts : 3534
Reputation : 2056
Join date : 2015-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall

Post by Dread Pirate Robberts on 12.08.16 23:05

@whatsupdoc wrote:Quoting Dread Pirate Robberts...

I'm not attempting to discredit RDH's work. I don't need to, he is already widely known as an unreliable CT. The net is full of them. Individuals trying to make a living from conspiracy theories. Even once half decent journalist like Sonia Poulton, now classifying herself as a "single mom" trying to make a living. RDH is no different.





Not true. RDH is not known as unreliable. I spend a lot of time researching info on the net and I have never seen any such adverse comments.
Richard has made over 200 videos and I have also attended one of his lectures. As a professional in two completely separate fields, I think he is an honest person trying to discover the truth where many corrupt people are trying to keep the truth hidden away.

Please inform me what his professional qualifications are. 

Making videos and editing them is expensive in time and money.

Not true. I've done it. With the right software it's only time consuming. 

He doesn't appear on tv sofas as does Sonia.

The McCanns complained about Dr. Amaral making money when they were making millions.



People who criticize in a general way without mentioning details are usually ones IMO who fear the truth getting out, or just general disruptors.

Typical response from one who doesn't like their understanding/belief being challenged. The only criticism I have made is that his efforts are not a serious attempt at solving anything. 

Next I'll be labelled as an MI5 agent. 




I did wonder if DPR was taking our eye off the ball regarding Richard's latest video on the Didcot  murders, especially as he has had threats. That sounds like someone who wants to hush up any further investigation.

I haven't seen anything by RDH regarding the Didcot murders, and on the contrary, I have stated that MM needs some decent investigators. 

Dread Pirate Robberts

Posts : 14
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2016-08-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall

Post by Dread Pirate Robberts on 12.08.16 23:07

@JRP wrote:Ere, get over to CMOMM and discredit that Richard Hall bloke and his films. 

How do I do that?

Tell 'em his films are only made from facts! Tell 'em he makes a fortune from all those free films he gives away. 

Iv'e never said that he makes a fortune from "all those free films." He actually makes is money in a completely different way.

coffee

Dread Pirate Robberts

Posts : 14
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2016-08-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall

Post by Dread Pirate Robberts on 12.08.16 23:09

@Cmaryholmes wrote:He also invites anyone to point out any inaccuracies. How outrageous !
He never responded to the HGH team when they pointed out his very many inaccuracies. 

Dread Pirate Robberts

Posts : 14
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2016-08-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Richard D. Hall

Post by Dread Pirate Robberts on 12.08.16 23:15

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@whatsupdoc wrote:I did wonder if DPR was taking our eye off the ball regarding Richard's latest video on the Didcot murders, especially as he has had threats. That sounds like someone who wants to hush up any further investigation.
Richard Hall and the Didcot Murders

I decided to get a copy of Richard's latest film - about the Didcot murders - and see for myself.

I had read about the Didcot murders and it seemed to me an 'open and shut case'.

Three members of a household had been murdered, and the fourth (Jed Allen) had evidently left the house the same afternoon, and CCTV cameras had traced him heading by train to Oxford. He had then sent text messages saying he was in turmoil. Later - I think it was two days later - his body was found hanged in some countryside to the north of Oxford.

I will be in danger of spoiling a very good story if I say too much more.

One forensic item that Richard explores is why, after travelling by train to Oxford after allegedly committing a triple murder, Jed Allen went to a cash machine and took out £100, apparently intent on committing suicide shortly afterwards.  In the film, Richard solves this conundrum.

Then attention focuses on an individual who admitted to being in the vicinity of the place where the three family members were murdered, around the possible time of the murders, but also admitted (according to evidence at the Inquest) to being within a mile or two of where Jed's body was found, allegedly hanged, 20 miles or so away, no more than an hour or so later. An unusual circumstance in any case. 

The reason the individual gives for being at that second venue so soon afterwards is unconvincing to say the least, and Richard devises a neat, if slightly time-consuming, way of disproving his account.

Richard tries to locate this individual, and, after a couple of failures, finally finds him at a third address. The individual does not speak to Richard at first, but on another occasion he rings Richard, who switchhes on his recording machine.


The individual then makes a clear, very audible, very explicit death threat, which is repeated.

To cut a long story short, Richard develops an alternative scenario for what happened, which initially seems preposterous, but by the end convinced me that he was right.

Was there any evidence for this "alternative scenario" Tony? No matter how convincing because if you remember, you were also originally convinced about Hollie Greig. 

I think Richard's film may not be the end of the matter, as the film makes a case that the police investigation was at best thoroughly incompetent (and therefore there should be a re-investigation, that the Coroner did not do his job properly, and of course includes a credible death threat against him which in itself is a criminal offence.

Was this threat reported to the police?

He also puts the Home Office pathologist, Nicholas Hunt, under the microscope. Nicholas Hunt was the pathologist called in to carry out a post-mortem on nuclear and chemical weapons expert Dr David Kelly - and pronounced it a clear case of suicide. 

In this film we see a lone committed investigator carrying out a huge amount of original research, reaching a dramatic conclusion, and then making a highly credible film about it - vintage Richard Hall at his very best, I think.

I commend it - it's on sale on his website

I guess this one isn't free then.

Dread Pirate Robberts

Posts : 14
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2016-08-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum