Brent and Neil go to Manchester - Part 3

*******************************************

I have not received any encouragement or inducement from anyone to write about or discuss any information related to the Manchester Attack. All research discussed is exclusively my own and based solely upon information freely available in the public domain.

*******************************************

Brent Lee and Neil Sanders have released their 8 part exploration of Richard D. Hall's Book and film called Manchester The Night of the Bang. You can download Richard's book For Free Here.

If you would like to support Richard's work you can also buy his Book HERE and HERE. If you wish, you can donate to support his ongoing legal battle HERE.

Before every Episode, Brent and Neil warn their listeners they will be discussing distressing material. I will be discussing the same and will include distressing images and video. Please do not read these articles if you are not prepared to consider such material.

**************************************

Episode 3 of the podcast series we're calling Brent and Neil go to Manchester starts with Sanders agreement with Hall's observation that there is no CCTV supporting the official narrative. What CCTV we have shows nothing to corroborate anything we are told about the bombing. The heavily redacted CCTV stills were provided at the official inquiry years after Hall published the book and film that Brent and Neil claim they are analysing.

Sanders then describes how Hall undertook a road trip to try to gather more information about the purported victims of a claimed bombing. Neil Sanders recounts that Hall visited the former home of Charlotte Campbell.

Sanders tell's his listeners:

Completely out of nowhere, he [Hall] speculates that Charlotte Campbell, the mother of this dead child, is all about the money and that her and her deceased daughter were not very close.

This did not come "out of nowhere" as Sanders claimed. Hall reported in his book, and in the video Sanders was analysing:

In August 2019 [I] visited Charlotte Campbell’s street and spoke to a local. The local explained that the couple had become very unpopular in their
local community due to the way they had been using Olivia’s death to make money. The pair now reside in Lanzarote; it was suggested to me by the local that they moved to escape criticism and harassment because of their management of the charity.

The appeal to emotion propaganda is once again notable in Sanders’ offered version. Hall was certainly reporting nothing more than hearsay evidence, but Sanders claim that he had "no evidence" was false.

Neil Sanders then ventures into an area that is key to the High Court claim made against Hall by Martin Hibbert. Sanders alleges, just as Hibbert has alleged, that Hall placed a camera in the garden of Eve Hibbert's family home. There is absolutely no evidence to support this allegation but it has frequently been levelled against Hall.

In Episode 3, Brent and Neil inform their listeners that Hall "put a secret camera in their garden to secretly film a child." This is a deceptive statement.

Hall investigative journalism was conducted in late 2019 and early 2020 when Eve Hibbert was 16 years old or older. She was teenager at the time. While technically still a "child" it is clear that Sanders has used the word in the context of the appeal to emotion propaganda technique he and Brent Lee habitually deploy. What is even more conspicuous is the very specific nature of Sanders' baseless allegation.

Sanders references an older copy of the video version of Manchester the Night of the Bang, presumably uploaded to Rumble 3 years ago. This is the oldest copy I could find. It is possible Neil Sanders saw an older version. If so, I would be interested to see it.

Assuming this is the older version Sanders watched, if we go to 1:18:22 we can see Hall discussing the surveillance camera that he fashioned to look like the branch of a bush. He demonstrates his camera by sticking it in his mother’s garden. At no point does Hall say that he placed a camera in anyone else’s garden.

Richard D. Hall’s camera in his mother’s garden

I think Sanders also inferred that the account of sticking a camera in someones garden is still in the book. I have both an original physical and a virtual copy of Hall's book and the 'camera in the garden' story is in neither. I may have misunderstood Neil's claim in this instance. It wasn't clear to me.

Sanders correctly identifies that Hall has cut that clip from later editions of his film. Sanders also accurately reports that Hall has stated that he did not leave a camera in anyone's garden but did leave a dash cam running in the public street outside of the property.

Claiming mind reading powers, Sanders states that the reason Hall cut the footage from later editions of the film is that Hall "know's that's not on." The problem with Neil's magical analysis is that there is no evidence that Hall did what Sanders is accusing him of. Why is Neil making such a precise accusation without any evident reason for doing so?

In an interview with ITV, Martin Hibbert made a series of unchallenged false claims about Hall. Hibbert was given free range by the broadcaster to make his allegations, bolstering his claim that he and his family were harassed by Hall. ITV broadcast these groundless allegations during the ongoing claim for harassment and GDPR breeches that Hibbert has lodged against Hall in the High Court.

For example, Hibbert alleged that Hall put a video of his daughter Eve on the internet. This was not true. At 22.23, seen in this Richplanet video, Hibbert is shown alleging Hall put a camera in his ex-wife's garden to observe Eve. Again, the legacy media anchors did not question this false claim, simply perpetuating the myth put forward by Martin Hibbert. Brent Lee and Neil Sanders have reiterated that falsehood during the ongoing trial.

Please note—for future reference—that the reported injury to Eve Hibbert is a very prominent subject in the interview Martin Hibbert agreed to give to the legacy media. The relevance of this observation will be established as we progress through this Substack series.

In reply, in the same Richplanet video (referenced above), Hall specifically addresses this ‘camera in the garden’ allegation:

I did not put a camera in anyone's garden. I put a camera inside my own vehicle, which was parked in a public place. The video I showed of a "camera in a garden" was at my mothers house which I was testing out to see if it would be of any use.

We can be practically certain this is true because, in his book, Hall wrote:

My camera was not close enough to see any injuries, nor make a definite identification. But from this evidence I suspect Eve Hibbert is in a wheelchair.

Had the camera been in the garden it presumably would have been "close enough" to see such details. Remarkably, in Episode 4 of their podcast, Brent and Neil acknowledge this statement from Hall. Yet, despite not having a shred of evidence to back up their accusation, they still push the 'camera in the garden' fable in Episode 3.

Brent and Neil are set upon "debunking" Hall's work on the Manchester bombing. They are seemingly uninterested in objectively analysing the evidence. Nothing shows that more clearly that Sanders insistence that the 'camera in the garden' story is true. Which, quite evidently, it isn't.

As discussed in Part 2, we know that Brent and Neil claim they recorded their podcast series last year. Richard D. Hall first received formal notification of the case filed against him in December 2022. The pairs podcast series frequently mentions the legal claim against Hall. Brent and Neil were fully aware of the nature of the civil action when they recorded their podcast series.

Unlike Neil Sanders, I do not possess psychic powers and cannot know what Neil thinks. That said, it seem reasonable to conclude that Sanders misreported or ignored evidence in an attempt to lend credibility to Martin Hibbert's harassment claim. Brent Lee, Neil Sanders and Martin Hibbert are seemingly prejudicing the trial.

I suspect, if the pair read this, they will suggest that I am also prejudicing the trial. I am reporting the evidence as objectively as I can and am trying to avoid making claims based on speculation. I am not knowingly making up allegations without any evidence to support them.

Sanders assertion, that Hall cut the clip from later editions to hide his allegedly immoral behaviour, does not stand up to scrutiny. Not only does Hall openly discuss the apparently damning section, the reason he removed it seems fairly obvious.

That clip has been deliberately and repeatedly misinterpreted by people like Martin Hibbert, Brent Lee and Neil Sanders to insinuate that Hall put a camera in Eve Hibbert's garden. It is persistently offered as supposed justification for a legal claim of harassment and GDPR breeches against him.

Nothing Hall did was immoral. Hall is an investigative journalist who was gathering evidence for a story of significant public interest. This led him to evidence indicating that numerous serious crimes, such as potential malfeasance in office, had been committed.

Hall sought to interview witnesses and doubted the claims of the reported Manchester victims. He used entirely legal, secret recording as part of the evidence gathering process. The BBC's editorial guidelines on secret recordings state:

The subject to be secretly recorded should normally be the target of any investigation, against whom there is prima facie evidence of wrongdoing or intended wrongdoing. Any attempt to secretly record people who are not involved in committing the behaviour under investigation, especially vulnerable people or innocent victims of the behaviour, will need a strong public interest justification – the ends should justify the means. [. . .] Secret recording will normally involve an infringement of privacy and, when it does, we must therefore ensure it is editorially justified.

It is perfectly acceptable for the legacy media to engage in secret recording. Most investigative television documentaries would never have been made without it. Why is it only considered morally wrong when the independent media do it?

Richard D. Hall had accumulated and reported a significant body of evidence strongly suggesting the Manchester Arena bombing was a hoaxed false flag. This made the alleged victims of the apparently fake bombing the targets of his ongoing investigation.

If crimes have been committed by the State, or agents acting for the State, then, if the victims' accounts are false, they are complicit in multiple crimes of monumental "public interest." As Hall stresses, this does not mean that the potentially "fake" victims are necessarily aware of any wrongdoing. Hall did not accuse the purported victims of "wrongdoing" but he uncovered "prima facie evidence" to suggest they were being deceptive about when, where and how their claimed injuries were sustained.

There was a very clear "public interest justification" and the ends most certainly did justify the means of secret recording. Some "infringement of privacy" was unavoidable. All of this is standard investigative journalist practice.

Hall is an independent journalist whose work reaches a significant audience. As reported by the BBC, Hall's YouTube videos had garnered more than 16 million views. As reported by the legacy media "following the BBC's investigation [into Hall], Hall’s YouTube channel, with more than 80,000 followers, was removed."

Hall is not a legacy media journalist member of the "epistemic authorities." As such, according to people like Brent Lee, his questioning of power and official state narratives justifies labelling him a "conspiracy theorist." Presumably, Brent and Neil use propaganda techniques to "debunk" Hall to protect the claimed right of the epistemic authorities to be the sole arbiters of the truth.

Throughout Episodes 3 and 4, it is primarily Sanders who focuses, almost exclusively, on the statement analysis in Hall's book. This is done to begin the process of "debunking" Hall's use of SA. Later, we will discuss why all of this "debunking" is pointless and irrelevant.

That said, it is fair to say that the bulk of Hall's book is partly based upon statement analysis of reported victim and witness statements. It is becoming increasingly clear that Brent and Neil do not question any of those statements.

In terms of whether or not a bombing occurred, they evidently believe every aspect of the official narrative. This is only a reasonable opinion if the evidence supports it. It doesn’t and we will explore why it doesn't in detail.

The appeal to emotion propaganda really starts to pick up at around the 12.04 minute mark with the usual expletives from Brent and Neil's, frankly, annoying guest, Joel Hill. He is emotionally triggered by some of Hall's speculation about the reported victim's and their families. Joel than nails down precisely why Brent and Neil rely so heavily on the appeal to emotion propaganda technique:

It's been a grim list [of the reported dead] and I want to say to the listeners, good on you for hanging out with that. If you are feeling emotions right now after hearing a f*cking string of people, just, dead, good on you. 'Cos that was hard, it was a lot to take in. And bless your hearts, 'cos we're on this journey with you guys together.

Brent Lee then doubles down on the propaganda technique and state:

We need to drive home how hard this is. This is a very serious thing and we need to go through this all together.

Don't think! Don't consider the evidence! Just feel angry that anyone dares to question the epistemic authorities reported accounts of dead children. We're with you listeners. We feel you. 

Leaving immaterial propaganda techniques aside, Sanders highlights that Hall claims images, such as the so-called "iconic" photograph of Eve Senior, do not show evidence of injuries. What Sanders omits to mention is the full explanation offered by Hall in the book.

Eve was supposedly a few meters away from an alleged TATP, shrapnel packed suicide bomb that was so powerful it blew the head and torso of the bomber 160 feet through the air and through a door. This massive suicide bomb supposedly killed 22 people. As reported by Hall, according to the official narrative, Eve suffered 14 separate shrapnel wounds and nerve damage to her legs, requiring extensive plastic surgery to rectify the damage.

Richard D. Hall observed that the reported level of tissue damage is not evident in the "iconic" image of Eve. The image is shown below.

Unlike Brent and Neil's podcast listeners, you can see the image yourself and decide if you think this girl looks like she was meters away from a massive shrapnel laden bomb that exploded moments earlier. Does the description of her injuries match the image?

Here is another “iconic” image from the Boston bombing of Jim Costello. Reportedly, his body was “pebbled with shrapnel,” he had to pull rusty nails from his stomach—shortly before this image was taken—and suffered extensive burns requiring that he receive skin grafts using pig skin.

Eve Senior attended the Manchester concert with her younger sister, Emilia, who, again as reported by Hall, made the following statements about the so-called TATP bomb:

We walked out and then suddenly something really hot flew over us. [. . .] I see all of it. I see the flashing lights of the explosion.

Such observations are inconsistent with a TATP explosion.

These are the kinds of little details contained in Hall's book that Brent and Neil have chosen not to disclose to their listeners at this juncture. While exploring the statement analysis section of Hall's book, they have not mentioned that Hall used it to supplement the other evidence he reported in regard to both the bombing itself and each of the victims.

Brent and Neil have also ignored the fact that Hall specifically stated that he was offering "a list of possible general scenarios" and hypothesised about what may have happened to the victims. Brent and Neil have tried to convince their listeners that statement analysis, and the apparent EXIF data from the Parker photo, represents the totality of the "evidence" offered by Hall to substantiate that the bombing was a hoax.

This could not be more deceptive. That deception is exemplified at the end of Part 4.

Promising that the debunking will soon begin, Sanders reads a statement Hall made to the UK Light newspaper which it subsequently declined to publish. Given Hall's legal predicament, the Light's cold-feet are perhaps understandable. Please go to 01:15:48 in this Richplanet video to see Hall's discussion about the interview.

Hall has examined the public inquiry, which published its finding in November 2022, more than two and a half years after Hall published his book and film. With much more evidence now released, Hall has updated his findings. For example, as we previously mentioned, he no longer believes that the EXIF data on the Chris Parker image is compelling. Hall has reported this to his viewers readers and listeners.

Sanders acknowledges and seems to initially agree with the following statement made by Hall:

If you remove the witness testimony from the public inquiry, you’re left with nothing.

There is no publicly available observable physical evidence to support the idea that a massive bomb exploded in the City Room of the Manchester Arena at approximately 22:31 on the on 22nd May 2017. No one can legitimately maintain that we must all believe the official account in the total absence of any physical evidence.

All we have to substantiate the official narrative is witness testimony. There is a tremendous amount of witness testimony but, given the lack of physical evidence, Sanders says:

For whatever reason, there is a certain degree of 'trust me bro' coming from the authorities on this one.

That's is correct.

We are expected to believe the official "story," not only without any supporting physical evidence, but while in possession of observable physical evidence that directly contradicts the account from the "epistemic authorities." Much of that evidence has been reported by Richard D. Hall and he now faces a potentially ruinous civil court claim and has been character assassinated by the entire UK legacy media as a result.

There can be little doubt that Brent and Neil do not care about jeopardising Hall's defence and are willing to be less than honest in their effort to do it. Sanders reports the following statement from Hall:

I’m not being sued for defamation, but harassment and breach of GDPR rules. This is not ‘in-person’ harassment. They are saying the opinions in my book amount to harassment!

In response, Sanders comments:

This is because he basically doxed several people.

Hall faces a claim from two reported victims, not several. One of the claimants, Martin Hibbert, has actively sought to promote his own public profile. Hall has reported nothing about Martin Hibbert that Hibbert hadn't either already published himself or had consented to allow the legacy media to publish about him. For example, you can read about his medical history and view his alleged x-ray images in this Telegraph article published in March 2020.

"Doxing" means:

[. . .] finding or publishing private information about someone on the internet without their permission, especially in a way that reveals their name, address

Richard D. Hall has not "doxed" anyone. He hasn't broadcast or reported anyone's personal details, beyond those already widely reported by the legacy media, and has garnered all the witness testimony from legacy media reports, interviews he has conducted and, latterly, the public inquiry.

Sanders' comment was, at best, ill-informed. At this point however, Brent's and Neil's use of deception, their inaccuracy and their habitual use of propaganda techniques has been so extensive we might suspect a more pernicious motivation behind Sanders' expressed opinion.

As we've already discussed in Part 1 and 2 of this analysis of Brent's and Neil's debunk, they are exclusively basing their interpretation of Hall's work on his original book and film. I suggest their interpretation is fundamentally wrong.

With regard to the purported EXIF data on the Chris Parker image and the statement analysis, Sanders claims at the end of Episode 4:

Those are the two pillars upon which he has piled all of his evidence up.

No, they are not. This is an example of Brent and Neil using the “factchecker trick” strawman.

So let' see how Brent and Neil "debunk" the compelling observable physical evidence reported by Hall that shows Manchester was a hoax.

We’ll move on to Episodes 5 of their podcast series in Part 4.

Part 4 will be published tomorrow on Substack.