36 Comments
Aug 1Liked by Iain Davis

Dear Iain, A heart-felt thank you!

I started a forum on UK Column, 'The Bizarre Trial of Richard D. Hall by Iain Davis'

One aim was to correct the ignorant and wrong views of Richard coming out in the Chat at News time.

The amount of miracles in Hibbert's life are overwhelming!

My own feeling is that this man loves the media attention and can't get enough of it. I suspect he makes up drama as he goes along and often has to make up another amazing thing or 'miracle' when he realises he's said something that conflicts with his previous stories. For example, describing the injury to his neck; he seems to realise his daughter's injury was a 'through and through' involving going through bone twice but this nut/bolt in his neck did not go straight through the soft tissue of his neck ... therefore we see the quick adjustment of his story and his use of a couple of devices he finds hand, namely, call on the Divine, and attribute information to others - highly qualified others if possible - so he says,

'it and severed two of my main arteries (this to Philip Schofield, other times he reports it sliced his artery and severed his jugular vein). This is when Divine intervention comes in to cover the discrepancy, : 'I think there was a a guardian angel standing over..' then someone else gives specialist info; 'we were told that all the bolts and shrapnel were traveling at 90mph so they were saying that literally should have gone straight through errm and the surgeons were amazed to find the bolt in my stomach so it had gone through my neck and I had swallowed it.'

Right. He calls it a bolt but for me it's a hard nut to swallow.

The miracles abound and the 'first time ever' and 'only person sometimes 'in the world' (to have survived/done this) occurs so often. I do notice his use of 'literally', and attributing knowledge of the miracle to experts, 'surgeons were amazed' are frequent.

I find the man's ability to spin a yarn, sorry, to tell a tale with many hyperboles, just too much. I often think of his daughter and I feel deep pity for her. I am sure she is disabled and that is very sad. I hope she has many good friends and happy times. But having this terrible exhibitionist clown of a father who is just too narcissistic to see how often he shoots himself in the foot must be agony for anybody, especially a teenage girl. Frankly I'm not surprised his wife divorced him.

I most sincerely pray that Eve and her mother are able to live happily and peacefully without being disturbed by Martin Hibbert's flights of fancy and desires to use his daughter to garner fame and money.

I am preparing for bad news about Richard's trial. I can't see the country officially giving in because the whole fraud would come tumbling down on them. I am so disgusted at the lies that were not addressed at the Inquiry and the farce it was, I wouldn't be surprised at anything. After all, they wanted us to believe the jabs were 'safe and effective'.

Expand full comment

That Mr Oakley was able to restrain himself to the single audible 'wow' is very impressive. To hear the parents of their own vulnerable daughter bold as brass talk of having subjected her to what amounts to psychological abuse to pursue this dog and pony show is remarkable for all the wrong reasons. Insidious emotional conditioning of their doing. No-one else. Just them. Very sad for Eve.

Expand full comment
Aug 1Liked by Iain Davis

I totally agree. I have felt so sorry for Eve for such a long time. Her father going on about 'my little princess' and that terrible bit about his realising his 'little girl was becoming a woman' is utter projectile vomit inducement. Anyway, she was still 14 then, hardly a woman! Poor child. I really feel sorry for her, imprisoned by her disabilities to being forever in their clutches. I hope her mum is a lot better than how the trial has made her to come across. I bet she's scared of ex Martin Hibbert. At least she divorced him.

Expand full comment
Aug 1Liked by Iain Davis

I can't wait for the conclusion. Justice I hope. Thank you so much for covering this.

Expand full comment
Aug 1Liked by Iain Davis

Good Lord! How awful for Richard having to be forced to participate in this awful, ridiculous theatre.

Yet, behind the nonsense/absurdly of it all you can sense something (else) underhanded is at play.

God bless Richard. Helluva ordeal.

You put all that together brilliantly Iain. Great work. Thank you.

Expand full comment

Again a very detailed account with much information.

But it is what is not said or the that questions that are not asked .

Miss Gillbard was asked if she had read Richards book but not watched the film.

Was Miss Gillbard made aware that Richard offered to change his opinion if evidence was produced.

Was Miss Gillbard made aware that Richard had asked for and been denied the evidence that would allow him to change his opinion.

Richard has said he talked to some of the neighbours to asked if they were aware about Eve.

But not the whole street . The Greater Manchester Police questioning the whole street is how they became aware.

It was the publicity from Panorama and Disaster Trolls and the media stories that followed

That made an otherwise obscure incident national news. It was Mr Hibbert’s many interviews and involvement plus book that was serialised in the Daily Mail and the actions of the BBC

That brought this to the attention of Miss Gillbard and through her to Eve.

Expand full comment

If it wasn't obvious before, it's now crystal clear what the BBC is in the business of promoting; and it isn't "speaking truth to power".

Expand full comment

I've long suspected the BBC (essential arm of govt) as nothing but an unethical, corrupt, propagandist.

Quit watching/listening to a few years back. Naturally, done with the TV licence too.

Expand full comment

Yes. Also Richard simply sat in his car a little way away from their house because nobody seemed to be in. That is exactly what the Policeman did on the day he came to my house to tell me my husband had been found dead.

Also Richard did not film them.

I was filmed by someone from the Insurers for the Driver of the car that hit me. So such secret filming does go on. It is not used in court but somehow is used as witness evidence. However in my case it simply proved that I have the disabilities I had told them.

Expand full comment
Aug 1Liked by Iain Davis

Great stuff. Cannae wait fo the next one.

Expand full comment

So ... the train is on track to the desired destination, of at least discouraging if not stopping altogether, the questioning of false flag operations, which are frequently used to manufacture fear, manipulate public opinion and herd people in the desired direction.

The question is: how long can the train stay on such a faulty track without derailing and spilling its illegal goods, thereby ripping the covers off the train and the masks off its drivers?

Expand full comment

"Stalker Man" is 33 in pythagorean gematria.

Expand full comment

Miss Gillbard conceded that Eve could hear her berating Hall, referred to in the conversation as the “stalker man.”

Somewhat unconvincing?

Expand full comment

It's simply ludicrous, isn't it.

Such a risible script would've been turned down for a school pantomime!

Expand full comment

Thanks Iain - pretty obvious which way this is going, though can't wait for the conclusion tomorrow!

Peace :-)

Expand full comment

Yes... but.... we live in dishonest times where a lot of iniquitous deeds get condoned and evil people are not seen for what they are.

After all, they said the jabs were safe and effective and haven't stopped making them.

Expand full comment

If you mean 100% exoneration for Richard, I wish I could share your confidence!

Expand full comment

if it hadn't gone well, we'd have heard about it incessantly on the BBC, in The Times, etc.

peace.

Expand full comment

Yes, interesting point.

Expand full comment

Great! Thanks! I needed a kick in the pants to get me out of the doldrums. You are right.

Expand full comment

Fair point, but I still want categorical proof!

Expand full comment

I love those spot the difference tests although they normally make them a bit more difficult.

Or maybe he is like Thomas Mair why have one hat when you can have two

https://i.postimg.cc/ht4n1wtM/hats.webp

Expand full comment

"Miss Gillbard—effectively the co-claimant—stated that she had not read and was not made aware of Hall’s response by her solicitors." !

Expand full comment

I was incorrect to say Miss Gillbard was asked if she had read Richards book.

"Mr Oakley asked Miss Gillbard if she had read and agreed to the letter before claim sent to Mr Hall in December 2023. This was the official notification of a claim being filed against Hall by Mr Hibbert and, on behalf of Eve, Sarah Gillbard. Miss Gillbard said that she had not. Therefore it seemed evident that one of the claimants could not possibly have formally agreed to proceeding with the claim"

But Miss Gillbard signed the letter of claim for EVE or there was a signature next to her name.

Also Mr Hibbert did not sign the letter of claim directly instead a photocopy of Mr Hibbert signature was scanned into the letter.

Expand full comment

I am most certainly not a trained legal professional. What you explain, many thanks btw, sounds like it might not be 'all in order'. Do these discrepancies, 1. Miss Gillbard signed the letter of claim for EVE or there was a signature next to her name. 2. Also Mr Hibbert did not sign the letter of claim directly instead a photocopy of Mr Hibbert signature was scanned into the letter. make any difference?

Thanks.

Expand full comment

this is the claim letter

file:///C:/Users/Brian/Pictures/Manchester/Hibbert-Hibbert-v-Hall_-KB-2023-002102_POC.pdf

I note that there is no claim number at the top as there should be

but there is a signature above where it says Sarah Gillbard for and on behalf of Eve Hibbert. Contradicting the testimony as reported.

Mr Hibbert did not sign the letter of claim directly instead a photocopy of Mr Hibbert signature was scanned into the letter. the date is the same but it is not a wet ink signature as is normal.

There is a reason that the signature is above the name and no below it .

Expand full comment

Many thanks. Sadly I got @Your file couldn't be accessed'. But do not fear.

After the lunacy of the official 'Investigation' into the 'bomb' etc., I do not expect this trial to keep to the law especially on matters such as whether Eve, through her mother as Guardian, was properly consulted before she was properly able to agree to proceeding with the claim or whether Hibbert himself signed the form properly.

it became apparent that Hibbert sailed ahead with the claim without consulting Eve or her mother. This would seem in keeping with all his behaviour we have been able to see. He does what he wants which is to put his interests before those of anyone else, even his daughter. As has been commented, he appears to be unaware of Eve most of the time and she does not appear in his copious public appearances or his busy social media going back even before the Manchester Concert.

Expand full comment

Excellent reportage again, Iain. Now I get why you call it 'bizarre'. That 'wow' moment says it all.

I wonder what Agent Slazenger thinks of it all. Surprised she wasn't in the gallery with you. If I was her I'd have been there. As a kind of provocation test type thing. I'd saunter in and smile coyly and slyly at you and take the seat next to you. Then I'd offer you a sherbet lemon, and interrupt your note-taking now and again with wry observations on the proceedings. I'd obviously peer across at your notes from time to time and then do a kind of 'hmm, interesting' expression. Then I'd smile again, return my gaze to the courtroom and sexily slide another sherbet lemon into my mouth.

During any convenient breaks I'd engage you in discussion about the trial so far. 'Have I missed anything juicy?' I would ask. 'She's a wrong'un for sure, eh?' That kind of thing.

Once the proceedings were done, I'd hand you a near-empty pack of Rolos, shrug and say, 'it's my last one, but you can have it. Ciao!'

Then I'd saunter out and you wouldn't notice the tracking device or any other sleight of hand thing I'd slipped into your pocket.

Alas, Agent Slazenger clearly didn't feel up to the task. Makes you wonder what they teach 'em these days at Monckton, eh. Don't make 'em like they used to, clearly.

Expand full comment

Maybe I also should've mentioned the undeniable fact that it goes without saying that she'd be wearing her standard issue watch (the one with the microphone).

It also goes without saying that Marianna and/or her case officer will be avidly reading your reportage (hello Marianna's case officer! Nice night for walk, eh?).

Hence the juicy opportunities for provocation tests.

Expand full comment

The Mad Hatter will turn up soon carrying a teapot:).

Expand full comment

Lol

Expand full comment

Hi Iain, Am I being stupid? I'm waiting with my tongue hanging out, my heart thumping, but I haven't been able to find 'tomorrow’s concluding article' you speak of in final paragraph above.

No worries if it is still cooking. Just wanted to make sure I haven't missed something crucially important.

Many thanks again for all of these - I can't express how important they are.

Expand full comment