Richard D. Hall appeared at a High Court Hearing on Monday 29th January 2024. The Hearing was to determine the outcome of the Claimant's Application to accept without question the official narrative of the Manchester bombing, and thus prevent h…
Richard D. Hall appeared at a High Court Hearing on Monday 29th January 2024. The Hearing was to determine the outcome of the Claimant's Application to accept without question the official narrative of the Manchester bombing, and thus prevent him from presenting any evidence which challenges the official narrative at a trial. An article by Iain Davis can be found here. The Judgment can be found here. At the Hearing, video evidence was presented which was filmed at the scene of the Manchester incident, in the City Room, filmed 4 minutes after the blast. It showed a woman, Ruth Murrell, walking without impairment or any visual injury - who it was claimed had a nut or bolt travel all the way through her leg (15cm), and out of the other side. Also shown was a still image of the merchandise stall completely in tact, which was just yards from the blast and in direct line of sight of the blast. This evidence is not specifically referred to in this Judgment, and was not shown at the Public Inquiry. Images were also shown at the Hearing, of the City Room shortly after the blast, showing that no visible building damage was caused, and no blood is visible on the floor, and windows were not broken etc. This evidence is also not specifically mentioned in the Judgment. The evidence is first hand video and CCTV evidence from the crime scene.
None of the CCTV evidence which is relied upon by the Claimants, which would demonstrate they were present at the Arena, has been released by the Public Inquiry, and has not been seen by the Court. An Application to the Court to have this CCTV evidence released was submitted and a second Application was submitted to have the 2017 medical records of the Claimants released for a surgeon to view. Both of the Applications have been rejected in this Judgment. With regards the CCTV evidence, what was relied upon, were statements made by two people who claim to have seen the CCTV evidence, but no footage or images have been provided.
Many other evidential points were covered at the hearing which are presented In this video, and also the BBC's actions against Richard in relation to the timing of the Claim.
