RDH Trial- Day Three

 

See here for day two: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2024/07/rdh-trial-day-2.html.

At the start of the third day of the trial of Richard D Hall, everybody felt that Richard was way ahead. The defence had declared with a very high innings, but now it was the prosecution's turn to come out to the crease and bat. Mr Price began by calling Richard as a witness. The first two hours of his cross examination was baffling. He started doing what is similar to a skeptics' debunking of Richard's theories on the Manchester Arena; not unlike the recent one Neil Sanders has done (unsuccessfully in my view). This was very odd because it seems to run contrary to the summary judgement forbidding any discussion of evidence. I had the feeling there was some strategy involved that I, not being a lawyer, could not understand; and I was right, but I'll come to that later. Mr Price kept reminding Richard of his responsibilities as a journalist, quoting OfCom's rules relating to "fairness" and the welfare of contributors. He claimed that the Hibberts had been featured so much in Richard's filmography that they counted as contributors and not just subjects. I doubt that, but I'm sure it can be clarified. Mr Price appealed to emotion again, returning to the "cruelty" and "hurt" Richard's actions had caused, allegedly. How the final photo of Martin and Eve in the restaurant before going to the Arena was "very precious" to them. "What about compassion?" he implored. As I've said before, such guilt tripping is not uncommon and I think it has no place in a rational discussion, see: https://hpanwo-bb.blogspot.com/2009/01/show-some-respect.html. Mr Price kept pushing Richard to explore the hypothetical possibility of whether the Hibberts' story could be true. "Why don't you just believe them, Mr Hall?" he said. "Surely you can understand why, if their story is true, they would be so upset?" "It's a very serious matter because you're accusing them of a crime!" He then asked Richard if he had done a risk assessment before producing his programmes, as if Richplanet TV is some kind of building site. He quoted numerous media regulations and how journalistic freedom and the public interest have to be weighed up against privacy and social violation etc. Two questions I would like to have asked him which never came up in the trial were: How does Marianna Spring's invasion of Richard's market stall and attacks on his reputation weigh up in that rulebook? And: In his view, how does one legitimately portray Martin Hibbert and his family with anything other than unquestioning adulation according to his standards? I might add, as a KC Mr Price lacks the eloquence and conviction of Mr Oakley. It's just as well he is not on Richard's side. 

 

Richard replied calmly, choosing all his words carefully; but he remained defiant. He kept returning to the point that the evidence was what mattered and that whether the witness' testimony matched the facts was relevant. In his view, there are questions that people have a right to ask and should be asking; and I agree with him. He brought up examples of real life false flag and staged terror like Operation Gladio and the Baghdad bombing in which actors pretended to be dead bodies. He described the cagey and contradictory attitude of the public inquiry. It was only later on in his summing up that I realized the game Mr Price was playing with Richard; he was testing him. He claimed that Richard had the "arrogant" idea that he had no need to balance his journalistic rights to free speech with his duties of protection towards witnesses and subjects. However, if Richard had answered differently, for example saying: "Yes, if it turned out Martin and Eve were telling the truth then I would have to withdraw my books and films and apologize to them." then he would be lured away from his central argument, that he questioned the truth of their statements in the first place. This would lead to him to being trapped in an infinite paradoxical loop, saying that despite his doubts about their honesty, they might be honest; and therefore he would not have been doing this research in the first place which made him question that etc. Mr Price stated as fact that Richard's theories were "baseless"; I wonder why he used that word. I was waiting for him to say "egregious harm" and "trust the science", but he is not quite that corny. It was only just before the lunch break that Mr Price briefly brought up what I thought was the core of the Hibbert's grievance against Richard, his filming outside Eve's house. He did not successfully counter the points made by the defence though, in my view. He asked Richard why he thought he had got it right about Manchester when all the judges, the police, the emergency services and the city council etc all got it wrong, as if reality is some kind of election. He accused Richard of confessing that what he does is harmful because he shields his own nine year old son from what is going on while castigating the Hibberts for not doing so with Eve, but that is not an accurate analogy. Richard is shielding his son from his own court case; a very different affair. As with the Alex Jones trial, Mr Price presented Richard with some examples of recent social media posts about this trial, as if Richard is directly responsible for the behaviour of others, see: https://hpanwo-tv.blogspot.com/2022/08/alex-jones-in-court.html. He did not include the HPANWO Voice posts in this series, probably because I am too reasonable for his purposes. There is only one day left in the schedule of this trial and I expect it will be mostly Mr Oakley summing up. I will be there tomorrow for that.
See here for day four: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2024/07/rdh-trial-day-four.html.

See here for background: https://hpanwo-voice.blogspot.com/2024/07/rdh-lawsuit-mini-portal.html.