Another Brief Update on RDH (Short Video) and a Dr Judy Wood Presentation in French

RDH Interview Segment

UK Column featured a short segment of an interview by Ben Rubin of RDH outside the courthouse, here at around 4:40 – the a short interview with RDH will be aired on Friday.……

A shame UK Column didn’t cover the case properly earlier – years ago – e.g. directing their viewers to Richard’s film. (Neither did they cover his film about the Jo Cox killing/alleged killing). Mike Robinson seemed a little nervous!

The full interview was shown on Friday 2nd Feb, but it was in the UK Column News Extra bulletin – which is behind a Paywall unfortunately.

I also just found an article on KentOnline – which is not too bad.…


Notes from Someone who Was Present In Court

I received some feedback from someone who was present at RDH’s pre-trial hearing:

I was at the hearing and I was one of the people who was able to remain in the courtroom. It’s a small point but in the interests of accuracy I must tell you that I counted the people who were there in support of Richard. By the time the hearing started at 14.10, there were 40 people there in support. Only the 20 (not 30) with seats were permitted to stay in the court – the others were required to leave. Unfortunately, their polite but firm protests were insufficient to sway the court manager (clerk? Not sure of his correct title). They agreed to leave when Richard reluctantly asked them to do so, so that the hearing could commence.

Interestingly the large coat of arms crest which would normally be hung on the wall behind the judge (or in this case the Master) was very unceremoniously on the floor, mostly hidden from view and propped up against the wall at an angle like an afterthought – even though the pegs which it would have hung on were still there and looked fine. This felt significant and not like a “housekeeping” matter.

Afterwards I saw that a few other people had arrived during the hearing and had waited outside with the people who’d been ejected. I’d say that overall, in total 50 people came to lend support, not as many as 60.


In the court was Richard and his solicitor, opposing counsel Mr Price, his two accompanying solicitors , Mr Hibbert and a man accompanying him and a journalist who sat to the side), the clerk and the Master.


Report by Ben Emelyn Jones

Richard posted this on his website too:

I (Richard D. Hall) appeared at a High Court hearing on Monday 29th January 2024. The hearing was to determine the outcome of the Claimant’s application to accept without question the official narrative of the Manchester bombing, and thus prevent me from presenting any evidence which challenges the official narrative at a trial.

I was expecting a decision at the end of the 2 1/2 hour hearing, but the judge has reserved judgment and will give a judgment in due course.

I did a short interview with Ben Rubin of UK Column after the hearing which I suspect will be broadcast at 1pm on UK Column News on Wednesday 31/1/2024.

Ben Emlyn Jones was present and has posted this account (slightly modified).

Richard D Hall has appeared in court and I went along to support him and report on proceedings. The case was held at one of the highest courts in the land, the Royal Courts of Justice in London. I got there early to maximize my chances of getting a seat in the public gallery. I was also worried that Marianna Trench would bring in a gang of her deep-sea bottom feeders from the BBC to hog them all; as it turned out, she never even showed up. As it was, so many people were there, all on Richard’s side, that some couldn’t get a seat. My good friend and comrade Dr Nick Kollerstrom was there, and I should have guessed he would be; he is an ace at analysing legal dramas. The Royal Courts of Justice was built in the 1870’s and is a grand and striking building; but, I think, ugly and intimidating. It has a very bad energy. It reminds me of Dracula’s castle or Barad-dûr. The courtroom itself was quite small and the public gallery was mixed in with the counsel benches. The security at the main entrance was similar to that at an airport. I had to empty my pockets and step through a metal detector. All potential weapons cannot be taken into the courts… including sharpened spikes no doubt! Richard turned up dressed in a dapper grey suit with waistcoat, the first time I haven’t seen him wearing brown or black. I wasn’t sure how he would react to my presence because, as you know, he and I have had our differences; but he greeted me warmly and thanked me for coming. He had no barrister with him and was defending himself, typical of his style. His counsel was a McKenzie Friend who is a retired solicitor.

The hearing only lasted about an hour and three quarters and was actually quite simple. I didn’t take down any written notes because I wasn’t sure how it would look to do so, but I didn’t need to really. This was not Richard’s trial, just a preliminary hearing establishing the rules of the future full trial, but it is vitally important as I explain here . The claimants’ barrister began by explaining why he thinks all Richard’s evidence should be struck from the record. This was, he said, because all the facts of the Manchester Arena attack have been established by other proceedings such as the Manchester Arena Inquiry. He also provided some reports from Martin and Eve Hibbert’s doctors. The facts don’t need to be disputed because the facts are legally agreed upon already; that was the purpose of the Inquiry. Richard countered by saying that the facts were not all agreed upon. In fact 28% of the public say they think the real truth about the Manchester Arena bombing is being kept from the public. The Public Inquiry was not a proper legal ruling anyway. He then provided a “skeleton” of his own research. The judge had been given a “bundle” of more that he could study outside the court. Viewers of Richplanet TV will be familiar with this information, for example see here. Martin Hibbert sat at a bench on the back row; a space had been cleared for his wheelchair. In front of him were two of the claimants’ counsel’s solicitors and the barrister himself occupied a solo seat on the front row next to Richard and his counsel. I gather there is a reason for this formation because the barrister insisted upon it. Mr Hibbert himself remained silent throughout; in fact no witnesses were called at this hearing. His daughter Eve was not present. Richard spoke with authority and drive; he explained how his evidence has every bit of legal validity and should be presented at the trial. He comprehensively discredited the claimants’ counsel’s case. None of his defiance has slipped an inch. There’s no doubt he won the performance competition. The judge did not announce a ruling and said he would have to consider for a while. Hopefully Richard should receive a verdict in two weeks or less. What will that ruling be? Well, obviously I hope it will be in favour of Richard and in any fair judiciary it would be; however, we all know other forces are at work in the establishment. If the judge rules in favour of the claimants then we can safely say there is no doubt at all that the forces of darkness have marked this proceeding and they are trying to rig the process beforehand so that Richard cannot win. Anyone can beat the world’s best athletes in a marathon if you make referee break the legs of all the other competitors. Nevertheless, we should hope for the best. See here for a HPANWO Radio interview with Nick Kollerstrom about this subject: (coming soon).

Dr Judy Wood Global BEM Presentation (2012) Dubbed Into French

For any French speakers… here’s Dr Wood’s 2012 BEM talk dubbed into French!……
Thanks to whoever made it!

This adds to one which was translated into Italian in 2011:




Related articles...

Comments are closed.