See here for day
three: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2024/07/rdh-trial-day-three.html.
The trial of Richard D Hall is over. The final day, only a half day in the end, was indeed Mr Oakley's summation. He described what he felt were the "very strange" elements of this case, such as the announcement of a planned future injunction halfway through the trial. He criticized Mr Price for failing to address the factual elements of Richard's evidence, even though it was he who originally brought them up. He made the point that Martin Hibbert's principle gripe seems not so much Richard's conduct as it is his opinions. This again raises the subject of an obvious ulterior motive. Something happened on Tuesday that I thought it wise not to mention at the time, while the trial was in progress; because it might give away intelligence to the enemy, so to speak. During his cross-examination of "Miss G" Mr Oakley asked her a question that didn't seem relevant at first glance. Did she approve of the mayor of Manchester Andy Burnham's proposal for a law to force people not to question the official story of terrorist attacks; she replied "Yeah!" without hesitation and with a vigorous nod of the head. I wondered why the barrister had asked her that question, but then it became clear to me. It was similar to Mr Price's cross-examination of Richard. Mr Oakley had laid out a trap for Miss G and she walked straight into it. She exposed herself as bearing personal and emotional hostility to conspiracy theories. If she had said something like: "Well, I hate this nonsense about the Arena attack not happening, but I do believe in free speech so wouldn't try to stop people saying it" she would have come across as more reasonable and open-minded. As it was, her attitude added to the suspicion that this lawsuit is just a vexatious pretext to punish somebody whose views make them angry. It is a form of litigious cancel culture. The barrister also made the point that it is only through questioning official stories that true justice is often done. He cites the obvious example of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, ten men imprisoned for a decade for a crime they didn't commit, the 1974 pub bombings. Another example is the Hillsborough inquiry; and there are many others. As expected, Mrs Justice (I'm sure her parents didn't call her that) Steyn ended the trial without making a judgement. She promised to do this in a couple of months. As we left the Royal Courts we were astonished to be faced with broadside of TV cameras and photographers snapping away; so you might have seen us on the news tonight! We did not speak to them and just walked straight down a side street to a pub for a well deserved drink. The trial is over, but we still don't know the verdict. Despite this, we were all in high spirits, especially Richard who is probably very relieved that this is all over, for better or worse. I know for a fact that regardless of the judge's decision, Richard will not go under. He has too many supporters and we will continue to support him. Mr Oakley came with us to the pub. As I said before, Richard's barrister was brilliant, but I did not know his real opinions. A good lawyer can act with enormous principled passion that seems genuine, but sometimes their own views are very different. This can lead to some misunderstandings, such as in this famous movie scene, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjbxL_v2DPk. As we spoke to him in the pub it became obvious that Mr Oakley was being sincere. I don't want to say too much in case it gets him into trouble, but suffice to say he is very much on our side. It was great to spend some time with so many like-minded people. Unlike a conference, this gathering had a serious purpose and a moral mission. I've made some really good friends this week. Despite it being an experience we'd rather Richard had not had to go through, and I'm quite certain he does too, we've all learned a lot and gained a lot. Richard himself should feel very proud of what he has achieved.
See here for background: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2024/07/rdh-lawsuit-mini-portal.html.
The trial of Richard D Hall is over. The final day, only a half day in the end, was indeed Mr Oakley's summation. He described what he felt were the "very strange" elements of this case, such as the announcement of a planned future injunction halfway through the trial. He criticized Mr Price for failing to address the factual elements of Richard's evidence, even though it was he who originally brought them up. He made the point that Martin Hibbert's principle gripe seems not so much Richard's conduct as it is his opinions. This again raises the subject of an obvious ulterior motive. Something happened on Tuesday that I thought it wise not to mention at the time, while the trial was in progress; because it might give away intelligence to the enemy, so to speak. During his cross-examination of "Miss G" Mr Oakley asked her a question that didn't seem relevant at first glance. Did she approve of the mayor of Manchester Andy Burnham's proposal for a law to force people not to question the official story of terrorist attacks; she replied "Yeah!" without hesitation and with a vigorous nod of the head. I wondered why the barrister had asked her that question, but then it became clear to me. It was similar to Mr Price's cross-examination of Richard. Mr Oakley had laid out a trap for Miss G and she walked straight into it. She exposed herself as bearing personal and emotional hostility to conspiracy theories. If she had said something like: "Well, I hate this nonsense about the Arena attack not happening, but I do believe in free speech so wouldn't try to stop people saying it" she would have come across as more reasonable and open-minded. As it was, her attitude added to the suspicion that this lawsuit is just a vexatious pretext to punish somebody whose views make them angry. It is a form of litigious cancel culture. The barrister also made the point that it is only through questioning official stories that true justice is often done. He cites the obvious example of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, ten men imprisoned for a decade for a crime they didn't commit, the 1974 pub bombings. Another example is the Hillsborough inquiry; and there are many others. As expected, Mrs Justice (I'm sure her parents didn't call her that) Steyn ended the trial without making a judgement. She promised to do this in a couple of months. As we left the Royal Courts we were astonished to be faced with broadside of TV cameras and photographers snapping away; so you might have seen us on the news tonight! We did not speak to them and just walked straight down a side street to a pub for a well deserved drink. The trial is over, but we still don't know the verdict. Despite this, we were all in high spirits, especially Richard who is probably very relieved that this is all over, for better or worse. I know for a fact that regardless of the judge's decision, Richard will not go under. He has too many supporters and we will continue to support him. Mr Oakley came with us to the pub. As I said before, Richard's barrister was brilliant, but I did not know his real opinions. A good lawyer can act with enormous principled passion that seems genuine, but sometimes their own views are very different. This can lead to some misunderstandings, such as in this famous movie scene, see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjbxL_v2DPk. As we spoke to him in the pub it became obvious that Mr Oakley was being sincere. I don't want to say too much in case it gets him into trouble, but suffice to say he is very much on our side. It was great to spend some time with so many like-minded people. Unlike a conference, this gathering had a serious purpose and a moral mission. I've made some really good friends this week. Despite it being an experience we'd rather Richard had not had to go through, and I'm quite certain he does too, we've all learned a lot and gained a lot. Richard himself should feel very proud of what he has achieved.
See here for background: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2024/07/rdh-lawsuit-mini-portal.html.
23 comments:
Thank you for your brilliant series of reports on this pivotal case.
An excellent summary, Ben. Thank you for taking the time to put your reports together... a very valuable exercise :0).
Fantastic reporting, Ben. I have been following all week. Thank you.
Thank you for keeping us informed. Now we wait & hope for a good outcome for Richard. Well done to Richard, his barrister and all that stood by him during the trial
Good to hear he's in good spirits. I feel a good omen.
Hi Ben thank you for your report,sorry I couldn’t be there but now the long wait and your quite right we will be there for Richard what ever the out come.
Many thanks
Ken Porkpie hat chapman.
Thank you Ben for your report,sorry I couldn’t be there at the end but now the long and painful wait and yes we will all support
Richard whatever the outcome.
Many thanks
Ken Porkpie hat Chapman.
Thank you for your report.
You're welcome, GM.
Thanks, Chrissie. It was great to meet you there.
Thanks very much, Jimmy. Much appreciated.
You're welcome, Anon. Mr Oakley was a true hero.
Hope that's not too painful, PITP!
You're welcome, Ken. Thanks very much.
Ben, I cannot thank you enough. I am stuck indoors as I'm disabled and don't share Hibbert's luxuries of $thousand wheelchairs or his 'miracles' he speaks of so often in public. I'm just an ordinary old person with several deteriorating conditions that cause severe pain. But I know there are millions like me and thousands with worse situations, millions are young.
I followed as much of Hibbert as I could as soon as he began persecuting Richard. I find him self-seeking, boastful, and I think he lies. e.g. in many News articles; 'injuries included:
A spinal cord injury, leaving him paralyzed.., A ruptured carotid artery, and a severed jugular vein requiring 16 pints of blood transfusion at the scene.'
A ruptured carotid artery, and a severed jugular vein requiring 16 pints of blood transfusion at the scene?
Even the incredibly flawed and anomaly filled enquiry pointed out continually how slow it was to get Medical help to the room and that only 3 paramedics were in the room all that night.
10:31pm: Bomb detonated, 10:42pm: First paramedic arrives at Victoria Station and made the point at the inquiry it was "not appropriate" for him to treat casualties immediately.
Since the first paramedic arrived at some 10 minutes after the detonation and apparently did not carry extensive supplies of blood or fluids.
I cannot understand how Mr Hibbert survived for what must have been over ten minutes since the first paramedic did not treat people. To partially sever the carotid artery is tantamount to severing it, it will pump out blood at a huge rate and the blood will shoot aa great distance. If this artery is nicked by accident in the Operating Theatre, it will 'incur high rates of morbidity and mortality' That is when the patient is in an Operating Theatre!
Thanks Ben, you are brilliant, I have done nothing but think and paray for Richard this week.
Thank you for your detailed reports on this important court case Ben. Much appreciated!
You're welcome, Snarnok and Anon. Glad you have helped cover this event from an alternative perspective.
Thank you Ben for all your reporting this week. They’ve all been thorough and comprehensive. Much appreciated all you’re doing. We’re all 100% behind Richard and a favourable outcome for him somehow.
Same here, Anon. You're very welcome.
Big thanks Ben for doing this and supporting Richard, good job 💪🙏🌞
My sincere thanks to all involved for fighting this battle. Winning the car will be icing on the cake.
My sincere thanks to all involved in fighting this battle.
It's been aw very worthy cause, Jasper. You're welcome.
Post a Comment