Seven questions concerning Richard D. Hall

“If you know their name, they’re in the game.” — Miri Finch

---

1. As it is 100% certain on the side of the Hibberts that their proceedings against RDH are orchestrated, we would imagine the orchestrators would prefer complete control rather than only control on their side. Why would the orchestrators not ensure that control is on both sides rather than only on their side?

2. Why did RDH feel the need to observe anyone to check for authenticity of injuries considering the staging of the event is completely self-exposed directly by the media stories?

3. Why did RDH choose Eve Hibbert to spy on considering:

• she was a child who was obviously roped into the event

• her injuries as stated are an impossible absurdity

• the combination of the two reasons below:

  • she could easily have been a genuine sufferer of brain injuries and used in the event in which case her genuine signs of injury would not be able to work as confirmation of the event being staged unless you argued that any injuries displayed were not commensurate with the injuries as told to us - an illogical exercise because the injuries told to us are impossible.

  • by two years after an incident causing brain injuries, sufferers often make great recoveries so if Eve had happened to show no obvious signs of injury when RDH spied on her, the inference could not be made she didn’t suffer genuine injuries, again a scenario not working as confirmation of the event being staged … unless you argued that it would be impossible to show recovery after the injuries stated - but as above - this is an illogical exercise because the injuries told to us are impossible.
    
    In summary, why did RDH pursue a course of inquiry where the results whatever they were – that is, signs of injury or no signs of injury – would not serve to confirm that the event was staged?

4. Why did RDH report his observation when he claims he wasn't even sure if the person he got on film was the person he intended to observe and she showed signs of injury anyway?

5. Why did RDH treat the words of the Roussos's as candid when they were scripted crisis actors, thus if they were saying things that implied they were covering the fact that their daughter died prior to the event they were SCRIPTED to do that?

6. Why did RDH concern himself at all with the Roussos' words when the best he could do was speculate?

7. Why were the Roussos's scripted so that it was possible to infer they were covering their daughter had already died?

Bonus question: As a serious investigator, why didn’t RDH submit any FOI’s as UK Critical Thinker did or engage with the authorities as did Pighooey? Even I emailed paediatric orthopaedic surgeon, Dr Ibrar Majid, about the discrepancy between his claims of “wounds you would see on a battlefield” and the images of children in hospital perfectly consistent with “drill” and completely inconsistent with images of people injured by a nail bomb. Dear readers, correct me if I’m wrong here and RDH did, in fact, try to engage with the authorities on the Manchester bombing.

---

On the lighter side - Manchester Crisis Acting Awards by Anaconda Malt Liquor

---

See also:

• Conspiracists and Catfish, Miri Finch

• Richard D’s Hall of Mirrors, Miri Finch

• Is there any uniting on Manchester?, Petra Liverani