The Manchester Arena Incident: A disaster killing 22 and injuring 1,037 - or an elaborate hoax? !! NOW INCLUDES EXTRACTS FROM NEW BOOK by Iain Davis !!

Yes, the details are in the link I posted - Nick Bickerstaff and his daughter Ellen.

I don't know the ins and outs of this matter, but I just hope, for Richard's sake, that being involved in a court case doesn't result in some very unpleasant financial consequences for him.

Honesty wrote:I don't know the ins and outs of this matter, but I just hope, for Richard's sake, that being involved in a court case doesn't result in some very unpleasant financial consequences for him.

This action, by Martin Hibbert and Sarah Gillbard, acting on behalf of her daughter Eve Hibbert, has already been costly.

It's no secret that in barristers' fees alone, he has had to pay out nearly £30,000, maybe even more by now.

If Martin Hibbert and Sarah Gillbard can prove that Richard Hall has "harassed" them, there will be still worse consequences for him, because he will then be likely to have to pay for all their (reasonable) legal costs. 

In fact, Richard has not harassed them in any way. He has simply done what any other independent journalist would do, faced with obvious evidence that conflicts with the official narrative of 22 deaths and up to 1,037 injured. He has asked questions, spent much time gathering evidence, and published his opinion on what really happened - just as he did so spectacularly in his Madeleine McCann videos, which have now been viewed tens of millions of times.  

On Richard's side is his legion of supporters. They have been contributing to his legal costs.

It's also interesting that in a recent independent survey, 28% of respondents said they believed that the Manchester incident was staged. 

The court case is fixed for 22-25 July and there will doubtless be media reporting of the case.

At the initial hearing in January, around 100 supporters attended, but only 40 or so could be accommodated, the rest had to wait outside. 

Richard has asked court staff for a large court room to accommodate all his supporters.

If Martin Hibbert is unsuccessful, he will face a huge legal bill,  and presumably also Richard's costs.  How can be afford  to pay?

He must be confident of a win.

Bluebagthepirate wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

The court case is fixed. 

Should be a full stop after the word "fixed" Tony. 

I've fixed it. There is a full stop there now.   

It's important to look back at the Public Inquiry, because that was fixed as well. 

The evidence of an Asian male with a rucksack getting out of a grey Audi car and running towards the Arena was suppressed.

The absolutely crucial evidence of Ruth Murrell was not heard by the Inquiry. Despite her being promoted - even by Queen Elizabeth - as a victim who had had a one-inch diameter pieced of shrapnel go right through her right leg, she was seen in an independent video made 2-4 minutes after the device went off walking calmly across the City Room floor with no problem whatsoever. In the background, right next to where Salman Abedi is supposed to have blown himself to bits, can be seen an undamaged wall and a set of undamaged merchandise stalls - and no sign of Abedi's body. 

A later image, manufactured by those who staged this event, miraculously shows a series of apparent shrapnel impacts on the very same wall!

This incident was staged with the ingenious assistance of a simple pyrotechnic device that produced no more than a loud bang and some pinkish-orange smoke.

Ladyinred wrote:If Martin Hibbert is unsuccessful, he will face a huge legal bill,  and presumably also Richard's costs.  How can be afford  to pay?

He must be confident of a win.

This case is supported by those who staged this audacious hoax and clearly they must be very powerful people. The intelligence services were involved in and planned this action. Then BBC is backing it.

The Public Inquiry was fixed.

Whether an independent judge will give a fair verdict in this case remains to be seen.

The BBC is right behind the Hibberts and I would say they goaded him into bringíng this case.

Each of the alleged victims (with alleged injuries) and the families of those who allegedly died in the incident received huge amounts of compensation via a GoFundMe type of appeal that was swiftly launched days after the event (not sure by whom) - and that raised millions. Each 'victim' got paid out at least several hundred thousand pounds. Plus, each of the allegedly injured or the families of those allegedly dead were helped to make successful claims for even more compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. 

Yes, the Hibberts can easily afford to lose.

Amy Dean wrote:This must be the footage mentioned. I can't hear any singing still going on but it is weird that the other people in it don't seem to be aware of anything amiss. I don't think that all the squawking sounds are coming from him. Apologies if that's Ariana singing!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Note this from the Sun's report on Nick Bickerstaff:

"I saw the explosion 25 ft away, a white flash and the pressure coming towards me, up and to the sides. It blew me back. People in front fell like skittles".


Note: NO MENTION OF SHRAPNEL.


Yet Martin Hibbert says he was '10 metres' or 30 feet away and yet (allegedly) had 22 pieces of shrapnel inside him????  

I have an update from a supporter who was at the court today. 

Because the claimant, Martin Hibbert, is disabled, he attends court in a wheelchair. Therefore a lower court was found for him where the access was easier. This meant that there was only room for 30 of Richard's supporters in court. The High Court kindly provided video facilities in an 'overflow' court where another 30 of Richard's supporters were able to follow the proceedings.

The supporter who 'phoned me tonight thought the day went pretty well for Richard. Most of the time was taken up by Hibbert being cross-examined by Richard's barrister, Paul Oakley. According to the supporter, Paul Oakley's cross-examination brought out many inconsistencies in Hibbert's evidence and Richard was upbeat in the pub afterwards with his barrister having put Hibbert under so much pressure.

Tomorrow, Sarah Gillbard, mother of Eve Hibbert, will give evidence.

SKY NEWS report, 23 July:

================================== 

A conspiracy theorist has told the High Court "there was no bomb" and no one was "genuinely injured" in the Manchester Arena attack in which 22 people were killed.

Richard Hall said he believes the atrocity was staged and "millions of people have bought a lie".

The former television producer is being sued in a civil trial by Martin Hibbert and his daughter Eve who were severely injured in the explosion at an Ariana Grande concert on 22 May 2017.

The Hibberts have brought legal proceedings against him for harassment and data protection.

Their action relates to several videos and a book where he claims the bombing was a "hoax", as well as "secretly filming" Ms Hibbert and her mother at their house.

The father and daughter were at the gig where Mr Hibbert suffered a spinal cord injury - leaving him paralysed - and Ms Hibbert was left with a "catastrophic" brain injury.

As well as killing 22, the suicide bomber Salman Abedi also injured hundreds when he detonated a homemade bomb in the crowd, with the Hibberts among the people nearest to him at the time of the blast.

Mr Hall told the London court: "There was no bomb in that room or genuinely injured people... The primary evidence shows there was no bomb in that room that exploded."

He later said that a "majority" of people "believe a lie" about the attack, with evidence showing the incident was "faked".

"Millions of people have bought a lie," he said, and the public inquiry into the attack "ignored" evidence.
'No injured were visible', says Mr Hall

In his written evidence, Mr Hall claimed that a video, believed to have been filmed by a member of the public, 

was taken minutes after the blast, showing no damage to the building or broken glass.

He told the court: "There was no shrapnel visible. The lighting was intact and working. No injuries were visible."

He said the number of people in the room "seemed far lower than officially claimed".

He also said there was no sign of people of "rushing to attend to the purportedly dead and injured", or any other activity "consistent with an extremely serious major incident having just occurred".

Mr Hall, who said he has worked as a "fully independent investigative journalist" since 2015 after careers as an engineer and television producer, suggested there was "very strong evidence that injuries were being staged in a faked 'attack'".

Jonathan Price, representing the Hibberts, asked Mr Hall why he would not "just believe" the pair and Ms Hibbert's mother Sarah Gillbard about the incident.

Mr Hall replied: "Because there is no evidence to show any of their claims."

He later added: "I'm presenting the evidence and letting people decide for themselves", saying his statements were "my opinion based on what I see".

The barrister asked: "If it is true, and that is what they have been through, would you feel any compassion towards them?"

"Well, of course, but it is not true," Mr Hall said, adding: "I feel compassion to anyone who suffers a life-changing injury which they clearly have.

"Of course they do have life-changing injuries but I don't accept that it happened at 10.31pm in the Manchester Arena."

The barrister later asked Mr Hall why he believed it to be in the public interest to feature the Hibberts in his work.

Mr Hall replied: "There were many statements in the media but the primary evidence completely contradicted it... It was in the public interest to explore those witnesses."

The trial before Mrs Justice Steyn is due to conclude this week with a decision in writing expected at a later date.

In the public inquiry's third report, published in March 2023, the chairman Sir John Saunders concluded the attack might have been prevented if MI5 had acted on key intelligence received in the months prior.

================== 

The trial ended yesterday

Whatever would have been the reason for faking the event though? I have no problem in believing that some events were false flag ones (speaking generally, not specifically about this one) but that doesn't mean that nobody died in them.

It was a real attack, carried out by the man accused of it. But there are opportunists who use such events to claim compensation. There are some horrible   cases of this when the Twin Towers were brought down.

Yes, I can imagine there were cases of false claims for people who had not been in the Towers. 

There's a strange case if anyone wants to read about her. Tanya Head claimed to have been there - but wasn't in America at the time. She made no financial gains herself but was instrumental in setting up support groups for survivors.

Bluebagthepirate - I agree, and it's very odd that somebody  is not allowed to show what they deem to be evidence.  I haven't heard of this happening before, although it may have.  Are  legal representatives obliged to show evidence to the solicitor for the other party? If that's the case, and that solicitor has seen it, something must surely be amiss?

He has no evidence, only his opinion as he said..

Mr Hall described his book and films in written evidence as featuring "nothing more than honest reporting and opinion".

I see. Foolish, as Bluebag said.

To his Credit Richard has offered to change or retract any Information published by him which can be proven to be False or Misunderstood.

The Question is that if that Evidence exists, why is it not being produced?

Hardly transparent is it?

Hall hasn't got any evidence he only has his opinion and the judge is not interested in it.

George Orwell used to work for the BBC, or the 'Ministry of Truth' - so I guess he knew very well what they truly are.

Richards 'Timeline' Video of BBC requests escalating to threats and harrassment prove completely how the Operation against him has been orchestrated.

crusader wrote:Hall hasn't got any evidence...

Richard obtained a video taken by a Mr John Barr about 2 minutes after the device at Manchester Arena went off. It showed Ruth Murrell walking across the City Room with no discomfort whatsoever. There was a large dark patch around her right knee. Yet the following morning, the Queen visited her in a Manchester hospital, where the media told us she had had a piece of shrapnel go right through her right knee and showed us an image purporting to show a circular wound an inch or more wide.
In addition, the video showed an undamaged merchandise stall right next to where the device was set off and an undamaged wall behind.

A second still image produced at the public enquiry, obviously taken later on, purported to show the same wall with several marks looking like the impact of shrapnel. These *had* to have been added manually afterwards by those who perpetrated the hoax. This absolutely is *evidence*

Has her Majesty, the late Queen, ever visited anyone in hospital with "pretend" injuries before?
I find it offensive to say her Majesty would be involved in a fake bombing.
I also find it offensive to say families didn't lose loved ones that night. 
Hall can believe what he want's, he can spend his time filming and stalking people, but he shouldn't be surprised or upset when those people call him out on his activities.
And tell me this, if everyone at the concert was an actor and it was a fake bombing, why has nobody come forward to admit it, where are the whistle blowers?
Hall is also implying Ariana Grande is in on the secret isn't he, by association.

I accept that there are some weird things about this event, like the videos of Ruth Murrell and Nick Bickerstaff, but it is a step too far (in my opinion) to maintain that the whole thing didn't happen and that nobody died.

It wasn't a fake, or a hoax, or an inside job. I can't believe anybody would think those interviewees are not genuine. I'm not going to read any more about it.

I've just found this interview exclusively with Martin Hibbert. 

Will Taylor Swift now be Cancelling her London Wembley tour?

Think about that.