Wednesday, 22 July 2015

RICHARD D HALL - CHARLATAN OR FOOL - Guest Blog



JJ says


Richard D Hall - Charlatan or Fool?
 
Anyone with a reasonable grasp of this case will know Bennett provided Richard D Hall with much of his “research” and Hall has repeated it parrot fashion.  By doing so he has lost all credibility because he has many of the basic core facts completely and utterly wrong.
 
It does not matter how many views he has had, Hall is either very gullible or a person intent on deliberate misinformation. 
 
Lets take an erroneous core fact about Robert Murat, as an example there are many to choose from.
 
Bennett has written time and time again that by the end of 2007 the tapas 7 had all changed their minds about seeing Robert Murat outside 5a on the 3rd May
 
RDH states in his film that  by the end of 2007 they were all singing from the same hymn sheet and had changed their minds about RM (around 51mins in his film 4 Buried by Mainstream Media)
 
So how does Bennett, Hall or anyone else explain in April 2008 (note the date) that Fiona Payne and Rachel Oldfield gave Rogatory interviews to the Leicestershire Police where both stated Murat was outside 5a, on 3rd May.
 
Both Payne and Oldfield stated “Murat came up to me and shook me by the hand and said my name is Robert Murat”. No mistake, no uncertainty.
 
According to Bennett and Hall, these statements never happened, but it is in the PJ files for all to read.
 
What this shows clearly is that members of the tapas 7 intended to implicate Murat, whatever it took and this is what Bennett/Hall do not want placing under a spotlight.
 
So pages and pages of guff over the Smiths, but nothing on Fiona Payne or Rachel Oldfield
 
Why, would be a good question?
 
So I would like to ask the following and I am sure Rosalinda will give RDH the right of reply:
 
Did RDH do his own research?
 
If not from where did he get it?
 
Did RDH check this research with other independent sources?
 
Did he know of the Rogatory interviews?
 
Did he read them?
 
Has he met Clarence Mitchell in a professional or private capacity?
 
Can RDH/Bennett or anybody else produce a single document which shows FP and RO have retracted their statements made in April 2008?
 
If he cannot, will he apologise for misleading people and edit or withdraw his claims?
 
RDH has made many similar type claims casting aspersions on Murat and the Smith family amongst others, based on ill founded research.  Will he withdraw any accusation he cannot support as a fact, backed by official sources. 
 
Many of his claims are polar opposite to information given by GA in his book and the PJ in their official files, so is he implying they are wrong and his and Bennetts research is correct?
 
Where did he get the specific information that the tapas group all retracted their id of Murat by the end of December 2007.
 
Bennett and Hall work the same way copious volumes of dross with an occasional nugget of interest.
 
They rely on nobody questioning or checking what they say.
 
Bennett often writes, “he who writes it should prove it” this however does not, it seems, apply to Bennett or Hall.
 
Conspiracy lurks around every corner, innuendo, supposition and lies constitute research, unrelenting denigration, to stifle any opposite view whether that is in the form of a word, a blog or rival documentary.
 
Willing unquestioning disciples hanging on their every word.
 
Charlatans are people expressing expertise and knowledge which they do not have, they make things up and pass it off as true.
 
 Is there a better description?
 
These errors have been pointed out to RD Hall and so far he has done nothing to rectify them, however, if RDH is a genuine guy, who has been badly misled he should admit it and come clean.
 
We all make errors of judgement and we have all at some time, been taken for a fool in the sad tragedy of Madeleine McCann.
 
 
 

61 comments:

  1. Splendid idea - the guest blog that is.

    I tried to watch Richard D Hall's oeuvre but lasted only 20 minutes - way too meandering to hold one's attention and pretty much a cut and paste job of what
    few facts/hypotheses we have already.

    I have no doubt Hall is (another) Bennett tool - having watched him interview
    the failed solicitor and donning his cap throughout to Harlow's finest.

    Am holding out for the Poulton effort - if it ever materialises.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hutton take sone small element---IGNORRES THE REST!!!---I SMELL SIS ASSETT

      Delete
    2. Furtehremore--when she gioes ot Portugal and does thee research Ricard did, then, maybe, she will have soemthing sensible to say0---in the meantime--let her explain why the oaents were--and prsumably till are on the police child register as a single referenc e to a single file---a file which I suspect--brought them to the atention of thw SIS in the first place---and also i suspect the SIS have had the file buried---and--that's not all they have had buried--this case links in tk the HEATH case and that has the SIS running scare shitlesss!

      Delete
  2. I'm surprised RD Hall didn't do his own research instead of listening to Bennett.
    Bennett isn't as knowledgeable as he thinks he is, he's dropped quite a few clangers over the years, regarding this case.

    If R Hall isn't careful he too will loose credibility!! He'll get much more respect if he admits he was taken in by the know it all Bennett.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tony follows the path of many a cheating student. Where he hasn't done the homework, he has filled in the blanks with speculation and fake stats. He has probably got away with it for most of his adult life and in front of his own special needs audience, but out in the real world, absolutely none of his theories or beliefs stand up to scrutiny. I would be more than happy to face him in a debate, but methinks without his blue pen and the power to censor my words, he would be rendered speechless.

      In response to Verdi (weirdo), you claim this has nothing to do with defending the reputation of the innocent Smith family, and everything to do with destroying the good reputation of Bennett! Seriously? LOL

      From the outset, everyone who disbelieved the McCanns was tarred with the same mob justice/extremist brush as Bennett, who had pushed his ugly mug right up centre stage of this sensational case with an equally sensational (and malicious) private law suit. Followed then by his attention seeking leafleting of the McCanns' home town and all their neighbours.

      Therein were born the labels 'hater' and 'pitchforker' in this case, and from then onwards even the most rational and reasonable commentators were silenced for the next 8 years. The damage done by Bennett to the campaign for justice for Madeleine is incalculable at this stage. He has made the doubters of the McCanns so repugnant that the MSM have written us off as an entire group.

      Most of us who follow this case want justice for Madeleine, but we don't want hangings, stonings and vendettas against families, innocent or guilty. Bennett dreams of being a Witchfinder General, a job he was born for it must be said, unfortunately, he was born several centuries too late - don't let's encourage him.

      Delete
  3. Bennett and Hall are at opposite ends of the spectrum. How they joined as one for this is beyond me, its very concerning and puzzling

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree 22:19, it is quite bizarre. I have to confess, I have done little research on Richard Hall or Rich Planet - it's simply not my cup of tea, most of the topics are outside my areas of interest or expertise and I always have so little time.

      I did watch the Madeleine videos though and felt that Richard was being sincere, but terribly, terribly, misguided. He did in fact respond to a blog on here at one time and is welcome to reply.

      Without knowing the facts, its impossible to know why Richard continues down this path, he does not strike me as a stubborn, unwieldy man, in the same sense as Bennett. But as I say, he is welcome to reply, or indeed post a guest blog himself! Now there is a challenge!

      Delete
  4. To be sung to the tune of Copacabana, by Barry Manilow.

    His name was Bennett, he was a moron
    A 3-inch parting in his hair, a greasy mac cut down to there
    He would dissemble, and bore for Britain
    He thought he knew about the law, but his knowledge was so poor
    That every pension day, he’s giving half away,
    And if he isn’t very careful they’ll be back for more

    He’s a halfwit, the Harlow halfwit,
    With qualifications in bullshit,
    He’s a halfwit, the Harlow Halfwit
    With blue ink and passion for taking a thrashing
    He’s a halfwit……….. Oh shit, I’m banned!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brilliant summing up 01:12 and a good song choice too, that made me smile.

      Delete
    2. Comedy gold, I can just imagine this being sung by the likes of Black lace or the late Frank Zappa.
      On a more serious note tho, 1st reply by Anonymous22 July 2015 at 19:45,how did you suffer 20mins? I was cringing long before. When I watched Hall's 1st vid it soon dawned on me where he had got his cannon fodder.
      Anyway, back to the humour, I hear his next installment "Halls folly" will not be promoted on CMoMM any time soon.

      Delete
  5. I'll have to ban myself too, because I am doubled up laughing! I even sang it (in my head) with a picture of Bennett as a spitting image puppet shaking his marrakers in frilly shirt! Ha ha, wish I was technical at this moment!

    Actually, I should probably leave this for one night only 01:12, I may feel very guilty when I wake up, or then again, I might still be laughing! :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. http://www.weblo.com/music/images/artists/full/Machito_48f6cd84d59fa.jpg


    ;)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ha ha 01.12..........brilliant.....I was singing it in my head too..

    ReplyDelete
  8. Passion for taking a thrashing, classic! Still giggling.

    ReplyDelete
  9. http://madmaninamac.blogspot.co.uk/

    ;)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Just a small correction that Matt Oldfield states in his rogatory that he never met Murat and Russel goes from being sure to being unsure was it the night or teh next morning. Only Rachel insists on her statement to this date, however with many inconsistencies since their testimonies as to Murat's presence on teh night is not coroborated by the police officers to whom he was supposed to be interpreting for or by Silvia Batista , if one reads her statement carefully. She never said she sees Murat there and claims she doe sno tknow him. She advises police to check with the bar staff of one of the local bars tha participated in searches . This last one claims Murat was not seen there. Isabel Oliveira

    Matt Oldfield Rogatory : 4078 "Robert MURAT.'
    "Reply "Oh yeah, err never saw him, I didn't see him on the night but I wasn't around the apartment as much. I know he, that Rachael and Fiona saw him on that night but I didn't recognise him when the, when the picture came up and they all suddenly went we saw that man on the night. He didn't mean anything to me, err I'd not seen him. The first I'd seen him was on the, on the news. I had no interaction with him then and I know he interviewed err or translated at the Police Station but he wasn't involved in any translation for me and I hadn't see him before.'


    Russel O Brien Rogatory - Comments- I am troubled by MURAT’S denial of being there on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance and assisting in the translations. This has troubled me he would have an alibi had he have been honest about being there. The statement given in Portugal are true and accurate, other people put MURAT there on the night one of those being Sylvia head of house keeping. I would like to point out that I do not wish to change the statement given to the PJ but have reservations that the time may have been inaccurate and it may have been the following morning when I saw him.
    It just says here ‘What I said in my statement was right at the time’, I think those statements were correct, it’s just with the passage of time and all the other news has made me doubt, has made me doubt whether I’ve got what I saw on the morning and the evening mixed, but I’ll come back to, I can come back to that”


    ReplyDelete
  11. 22.19 The Bennet/Hall partnership is not puzzling to me at all. What unites them is they do not believe that Madeleine McCann was abducted. Sure, everybody has there opinions how the child died, the Smith sighting etc. etc. but really this Bennet bashing is getting a bit stupid. What I find puzzling and contradictory is that on one hand Bennet is being portrayed as an utter irrelevance whose views will be completely ignored by Operation Grange. Conversely, we are told that he his doing damage to the investigation with his posts about the Smith sighting. Many years ago when the Labour Party was tearing itself apart with factional in-fighting Jim Callaghan pleaded for unity and for the warring factions to fight "the real enemy" Perhaps that message is relevant to this thread,

    ReplyDelete
  12. Richard D Hall has no reason to fabricate anything. Everything he says makes sense. Why is it that every single statement from anyone else-except the Smiths- can be doubted or dissected. Whatever the Smiths said, it's the whole truth and nothing but the truth.???
    How odd

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bennett is bending over backwards and doing double somersaults to force the evidence of the Smiths to fit his own personal theory. Everything he is saying about them is pure (twisted) speculation.

      Bennett's theory fits the man. To explain, Bennett believes he alone is the voice of truth and innocence, he has been caste down into this world, this den of iniquity to sort us all out and he is fixated on the 'original' sin. Sex. He has 'caught' the McCanns out, and he is rubbing his hands in glee as he attempts to catch all the others. He has been sent by God himself, he is the chosen one.

      Very early on in this circus, it was intimated that the single (and Godless) Robert Murat had dodgy porn on his computer. This, in Bennett's mind, is the heart of the Madeleine mystery. People are not using their computers wisely like him, they are using them to partake in sins of the flesh and it is his duty to root them out.

      He probably even believes that there was someone high up in the Establishment, British or Portuguese, or perhaps even a US President, indulging in some sort of orgy in PDL with kids, animals, doctors and British ex pats, led by sex God and Mr. Fix It, Robert Murat. He hasn't quite thrown the Smith family into the mix (yet), but he's ready to give them a push.

      Tony doesn't understand human behaviour. He judges everyone by himself - that is, by his own warped morals and guidelines, and if we don't 'think' as he does, then we are wrong 'uns, and it is duty to correct us. He completely lacks empathy, he fails to understand the dilemma the Smiths found themselves in. But worse, he is twisting it to fit his square box into a round hole.

      He doesn't even understand that he is projecting all his own fears and paranoia in his words and his behaviour. For example, to him everyone is the enemy, we are all out to get him, therefore he treats everyone with suspicion (as every newbie to CMoMM discovers on joining), and he even goes so far as checking them out. Because he does this, he believes every other forum or blog owner does this too.

      He lives in constant fear, for that I pity him, but it is a fear of his own making and it is not shared by others, except maybe the pro sites JATYK2 and STMs. The nasty posters on these sites have good reason to want to keep their identities hidden, and the same can be said for nasties on the anti side. Many anonymous anti McCann posters, may now regret their vile ill chosen words and are probably experiencing that same terror of exposure. Their fear is apparent, they have driven away every decent poster from CMoMM. and I have no doubt when the time comes, the rabid few left will all deny their involvement. The tiggers, the snooks, the Verdi's the aquilas, the ladyinreds, Bennett will be denied more than thrice methinks.

      Delete
  13. Richard Hall is doing his best to find out the truth just like most people that want to see justice for Madeleine. Although some of what he says makes sense, none of us could possibly know WHAT THE TRUTH IS unless we have inside knowledge!!

    The same with the Smiths, but changes in statements do seem rather suspect, why would they be so sure it was Jerry they saw getting off the plane, and then suddenly change their statements after being got at. It's one gigantic jigsaw with lots of pieces missing, in my opinion I can't see it being solved any time soon.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Richard D. Hall might very well be a decent chap. I've never met him, so of course I don't know. But looking at his website 'Richplanet' with features such as - and I quote:

    'Animal Mutilation
    Sussex Mutilation Case
    Crop Circles
    Berwyn UFO Case'

    does not fill me with confidence that he can be trusted to do any investigative journalism into the disappearance of Madeleine.

    But hey, he has that paranormal thang in common with Tone the Comb - who thinks that dinosaurs are only a few thousand years old when radioactive dating and sediment analysis prove dinosaur fossils are at least 65 million to 230 million years old.

    And let us put the good doctors in that flat earther club too - they believed Danie Krügel and his miracle crystal machine could find Madeleine. Gerry had visions too. Kate and her dreams.

    Way too much hocus pocus for my liking.

    Sure, none of us know the truth and K&G are still lawyered up to the hilt - but that the truth will come out eventually, that I have no doubt of. Either by one of the Tapasniks growing a spine all of a sudden and/or the twins, as they get older, asking the germane questions. And demanding answers from their parents.

    No mumbo jumbo freak is going to solve this case.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Using mumbo jumbo and freak in the same sentence makes you sound CRUEL. If you're looking for people to be angry at look no further than melted teardrop boob flasher and self-confessed hotel room child neglect freak of nature, Bingo Phillips, and slippery in a cheap blazer, Frizell. They think they're off the radar. 2006 forensic phone data says NO!

      Yours sincerely, affinity deals R US!!! (F*ck 'em Kate, they ALL USED you!).

      PS, luckily for KB, old school tribal loyalties run deep....

      Delete
    2. 'melted teardrop boob' ?? Is that the name of a psychedelic rock band - circa 1969?

      I find your post amusing, but don't have scooby what you're on about.

      Delete
    3. @ Anonymous24 July 2015 at 18:26

      unlike anonymous 19.19 I don't find you post amusing - nor clever nor insightful.

      It reminds me of the posts by jeanmonroe on bennetts forum. 4429 posts without ever adding anything to any discussion - it must be a record he/she is proud of.

      Delete
    4. Those posts by Jeanmonroe on the Bennett platform are befuddled indeed, lots of underscoring and words/phrases that just don't go together at all

      Delete
    5. idontknowwhyjeanmonroedoesntgothewholehoganddoawaytwithspacesaswellaspuctuationandgrammarashseistotallyunreadableanyway

      Delete
    6. I have met him and while I'm not keen on the ufo side of things either, Hall is a decent chap and the reason I say so, if you watch his stuff he is willing to say 'i don't know' and if he makes a mistake he admits it. I'm sure he's a genuine person.

      Delete
  15. Let's examine bennett's research skills. He has started a new topic

    "MI5 covered up child-abusing MPs - report in Independent 23 July 2015. Why then were they involved in the Madeliene McCann case?"

    and his research has concluded:

    "Sir Anthony Duff, Head of MI5, covered up vulnerable children being used and abused by MPs and Ministers.

    He said it was to 'spare government embarrassment'.

    Why was MI5 so involved with the McCann case from the 'off'?

    Were MI5 or the security services on that secret committee that Matt Baggott, Chief Constable of Leicestershire, set up on 8 May 2007 - you know, the one where, even in response to an FOI Act request, they won't say who was on it?"

    Pretty amazing stuff eh - what cutting edge research
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Move on to todays papers and we can find:

    "Hundreds of police officers convicted in past three years"

    I therefore submit - using the bennett research tool - that Peter Mac (leod) of Photoshopping photos of Madeleine and her parents fame - was/is a corrupt Police Officer who should be banged up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint ... but is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices.--C. S. Lewis

      http://www.cpexposed.com/graduate/macleod-peter



      Delete
  16. Anonymous24 July 2015 at 03:58 said:

    "Richard D. Hall might very well be a decent chap. I've never met him, so of course I don't know."

    Hold on a minute - Ros met bennett and went for drinks with him!

    Are you saying she "should have known"?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Depends on the drinks

    ReplyDelete
  18. If you key in Richard D Hall into Wiki, you get this:

    Can anyone explain that anomaly (hope I'm not starting another Way Back Machine thread)


    'Image result for Richard D Hall (ETA image looks very much like Richard D Hall)

    Richard H. Hall

    Ufologists

    Richard H. Hall was a leading Ufologist and proponent of the extraterrestrial hypothesis to explain UFO sightings; he also wrote books and articles dealing with the role of women in the American Civil War. Wikipedia

    Born: December 25, 1930, Hartford, Connecticut, United States

    Died: July 17, 2009, Brentwood, Los Angeles, California, United States
    Books: Patriots in Disguise: Women Warriors of the Civil War, more'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_H._Hall

      Where is the picture which supposedly looks like Richard D Hall?

      Delete
    2. Google Richard D Hall - and there it is (with the Wiki link to Richard H. Hall)

      Delete
    3. Sorry, I cannot find a photo of Richard H Hall anywhere - only the comedian Rich Hall!

      Delete
  19. Well it seems that bennett has finally killed off CMoMM with his banning everyone who disagrees with him and trashing the Portuguese legal system.

    Look at the pathetic attempts to generate interest by starting topics on any old rubbish.

    Well done bennett.

    ReplyDelete
  20. official....Ladyinred whom is now a moderator is not interested in reading stories about westminster paedophiles. willowthewisp must be over the moon with the support. she deleted her post spineless bitch

    ReplyDelete
  21. richard hall is a tool and a fool he does no research on anything. he is taken in so easily just google belinda mckenzie and you will see the true resercher. he stayed at her home but does not know her wtf

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Who is online?
    In total there are 250 users online :: 18 Registered, 7 Hidden and 225 Guests :: 3 Bots

    biggles, cbeagle, Elça Craig, Five Star, Honeyblade, impishkate, interestedobserver, katkat, Lands_end, LombardySkeptik, magique, Maive, MF77, Mo, noddy100, onehand, Rabbitte, Rufus T

    Most users ever online was 2583 on Mon Oct 14, 2013 10:33 pm"

    Yes bennett - the best forum on the Mccann case in the world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the 3 bots are tony tony and erm um err umm tony. funny that, when kate mccann does all her mm and ahhs tony dont accuse her of smoking pot

      Delete
  23. I see Jill is working overtime tonight. Losing members is she?
    My advice is get rid of Bennett. That should help.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I doubt that the old guff which Jill is posting will encourage new members to join or old ones to stay.

    Has this new forum been mentioned here yet?

    http://maddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk/portal

    ReplyDelete
  25. Bennett is King Midas in reverse

    Everything he touches turns to dust.

    But even King Midas in reverse needs enablers - Bonnybraes (now BB1) at 3 Arguidos let him in and destroy the place in a few weeks.

    Halvern is learning the same, harsh lesson now.

    The guy sucks the oxygen out of any room (virtual or real) that he is given access to.

    Madeleine McCann's fate was never a concern of Tone - just a tool he could use to hoist his twisted world view upon.

    Man's a menace - best avoided.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A song for Tony!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWh0DOAfc7A

      Goodness knows what Jill Havern herself is up to now, cluttering the forum with old stories.

      Delete
  26. Well havern is desperate now - she and the forum have become a laughing stock.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Laughing stock, why? Threads do open up for laughter from time to time, and then everything turns into normal. Whats up now?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have a look at all the topics she has instigated.

      http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/portal

      Delete
  28. I see 'verdi' is working overtime today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At least he's having a lie-in at the moment. How cringeworthy it is when he and his fellow socks snook and Mark Willis back each other up.

      Delete
  29. Who is online?

    aquila, catherinemac, cbeagle, espeland, hentie, HiDeHo, Honeyblade, mank, MumofTwo, Nina, noddy100, Richard IV, Silverspeed

    ReplyDelete
  30. Richard Hall has actively exposed the London Tube Bombing fakery.... and exposed the fact that the Royal Commission was set-up by Power to conceal the Truth from all the idiots who think it's smart to join the cacophony produced by the (anti)conspiracy chorus.
    Championing John Hill's "Ripple Effect 2" qualifies Mr Hall to expose (m)any other causes, and he never fails to enlighten adequately-qualified intelligents. .
    ...and smart ladies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kudos Michael. Many comments here fail to understand the very premise of the work which is clearly stated in the title "Buried by MSM". Although RDH may have an opinion of the case, the fact remains that films such as these allow the viewer to build a broader information base from which to form an interest or point of view. RDH clearly encourages the viewer in the disclaimer PRIOR to the documentary, that any additional or corrected information will be considered and, if relevant, be added to the film - surely a laissez-faire concession. The point is this: information afforded by mainstream channels comes attached with vested interest, whether that is concealing the truth or selling potato chips.

      Delete
  31. Richard Hall's documentary on the McCann's is shameful. The shameful part is that it is still online. I have no problem with the raising of seemingly contradictory evidence, much of which can be explained by the blind panic that a parent experiences when their child goes missing. The evidence that comes across the strongest is Hall's own psychological mindset. He reports like a drinker would. He appears to go into mindsets that he gets stuck in. He shores himself up by repetition. When he attempts to show how balanced he is the scales remain pressed down with his foot. It's a pity because the technical work on the programme was quite delightful at times, however, he spoils it with tainted conclusions and a heavily biased and predictable mindset. Hall is not quite free of his own damage to make the leap into the realms of balanced thinking. My wild guess is that he feels that his own life is in shreds and so he attempts to project that on to anyone or anything in this sights. He must be always unhappy and blighted by compulsive thinking.

    The lack of balance has created a monster of a film which will hinder the open mind approach that is needed to locate Madeleine and solve the mystery. The public deserve a much better and more genuine investigation than anything that Hall seems capable of making at this time in his life. It's a pity that he sabotages himself and wastes his skills finding external demons, when the one that he seems unable to expose is the one lurking menacingly within himself.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Being recognized as a UFO nut surely won't help Richard Hall to sell copies of his new DVD 'WHEN MADELEINE DIED?' at £20 a time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Personally I think its great that people like Richard Hall exist, who else has even tried to inform the public of many of the facts that Richard does.....We certainly won't be getting it from any main stream media anytime soon.

      Richard Hall's documentaries are FREE to download and watch and distribute, you only need to buy' When Madeleine Died' if you don't have the ability to download and play it....something like my parents wouldn't be able to.

      STOP rubbishing people who are trying to open your eyes......

      Delete
    2. Actually 11:08, I have been trying to inform the public for 9 years, so too Nigel of McCann files, Joanna Morais, John Blacksmith, Teddy (Only in America) and countless other legitimate commentators.

      The difference is, we are not trying to claim we know what happened, nor are we accusing witnesses of lying or making up wild elaborate sub-plots involving a cast of thousands.

      Bennett and Hall have come up with a convoluted theory that not only strays away from the facts, it completely distorts them. Why? Because the sexually obsessed Tony Bennett believes he is living in Sodom and Gomorrah and that all non practicing Christians are indulging in deviant sex.

      The theory of Goncalo Amaral pains Tony Bennett, it is much too simple for him to accept. For Tony this has always been a sex crime, like the Michael Barrymore case, another one of his high profile obsessions.

      Delete
  33. Does it matter? Does it really matter? It makes for great entertainment. I'd rather watch this whether it's truth or lies than the garbage on our telly's now. At least it's got a sense of intellect whether you think it's credible or not.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Is Richard D Hall a charlatan or fool ?
    Is it really that simple ?

    I don't believe he is either. He's human though and, therefore, makes mistakes.It's easy to throw stones.

    ''Charlatans are people expressing expertise and knowledge which they do not have, they make things up and pass it off as true.

    Is there a better description? ''

    Swindler or Conman are better if we're staying in the 21st century.Is he either ? Richard D Hall's intentions, as i see them, are not far away from most people who aren't happy with the McCann farce .He smells something unpleasant and he doesn't buy the official story.He doesn't buy the innocence of the McCann's and he doesn't buy the mainstream's presentation.He doesn't buy the removal of the Portugal police force . Basically, he isn't buying a lot of 'facts' put forward buy a lot of charlatans. Unfortunately, he made mistakes, like everyone . He assumed that the place to look was the alt media .He made mistakes in who he thought were honest and had integrity and echoed them . He didn't see that they too might have a hidden agenda and, in his eagerness to spread what he thought was the real truth and expose those who have been, and still are, hiding it, just ran with it. He wasn't to know Bennet was driven by revenge for instance. And, with no knowledge of psychology or profiling or analysis ( which he admits) he trusted someone who showed him what appeared to be 'credentials' and no agenda and hoped to find more evidence and a new angle. He's done what he thought was the responsible thing and tried to present it . If witnesses keep changing statements, losing their memory or recovering 'new' memories , it's not Hall who's the charlatan - or the fool. Why would he put so much time and effort into it all ? He's getting slated lately online because of the charlatan Hyatt who he was taken in by .Slated by so many who hate witch hunts and haters. Yet he's had the integrity not to get into slanging matches. A fool would. So would a charlatan. Naivety isn't a sin, it's a weakness.Should we really attack the weak sheep in the herd ? What's that make us ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks for your considered and thoughtful response Ziggy. I have had to read it twice because it appears you have already shot holes in most of the arguments I was about to put forward, lol.

      I'm afraid though you are being too kind towards Richard. If he wants to present a credible body of work then he owes it to his audience to check and double check that what he is saying is true.

      Naivety is not a good enough excuse for poor research, the first thing he should have done was to check our his chief advisor, that he didn't is just lazy.

      I expect Hall is one of many Bennett has taken in, eejits who have allowed themselves to be drawn in so deep they no longer have any viable way out. People like Jill Havern, Petermac, HideHo and the father of Stuart Lubbock. And we can now add to that a documentary maker who cuts corners.

      The problem with Bennett's theory, as spread far and wide by Richard Hall, is that it accuses innocent witnesses in the McCann case of lying and being involved somehow in Madeleine's disappearance.

      I've never been comfortable with people who pry into the private lives of others and unfortunately the internet allows Bennett to pry much deeper and without getting out the binoculars.

      However Bennett accusing innocent people of heinous crimes he has made up in his head crosses a line for me. Neither he nor Richard seem to be in the slightest bit aware that accusing people who's names they have picked out of a police file, of being involved in a child's death, can be damaging to their lives and reputations?

      I'm afraid any sympathy I may have had for Hall's naivety flew out the window with his impersonation of David Payne's alleged conversation with Gerry. His documentaries like all the laughable 'research' on the cesspit, is loaded with confirmation bias. Hall was basically begging Hyatt to confirm sex abuse and confirm that Madeleine died earlier in the week, so he could tick the armchair detectives' (his main audience) boxes.

      His Madeleine audience, like his alien audience is niche, and very likely to stay that way. Those documentary makers who's videos go viral, strive for excellence and they don't use false truths to support their theories.

      The people who applaud Hall do so because he is presenting what they want to believe, and what they already believed before they pulled up a chair and opened the popcorn. They are not very different to his 'alien' audience, they have already been converted.

      Richard Hall doesn't have the charisma or the work ethic to make a work of excellence, and quite obviously, neither does Bennett.

      Richard is not the the weak sheep in the herd, and a big old hug to you for being so seasonally compassionate lol, he is the hopping, skipping Squealer, just as much a supplier of false information as Clarence Mitchell. Worse, he is pretending to do it on behalf of the child and those want to see her get justice.

      Delete
    2. Part II - been on the Baileys, lol

      It wasn't a disaster, a tragic death of a child and a group of terrified 30 something doctors, fearing for their futures and fearing their children would be taken away from them. For Richard it was and still is a deep sinister Machiavellian plot involving paedophile rings and deviant sex. He has not only bought into Bennett's bizarre perspective of the world around him, he is actually flogging it as kosher and/or far right Christian.

      He might seem like an all right sort of bloke, but his motives are not squeaky clean. He wants to make the 'big time' and go him but not through hard work and diligence, but through short cuts. Sonia Poulton, my dear fear cannot give herself the green light to release her own documentary, because she is too much of a perfectionist. The Madeleine mystery is an ongoing story, full of twists and turns and promises of much more to come. Anyone presenting a documentary based solely on 10 year old evidence might just as well stick to Martians.

      For me, Richard Hall's accusations against people such as Robert Murat, the Smith family and the young girls who worked in the crèche crosses boundaries that go beyond decent, civilised behaviour. How would he fee if a 'forum' took a statement he made 10 years ago and concluded he was a child molester for example?

      It is this failure to consider the feelings of other people that sticks in my craw Ziggy. The internet allows creeps like Bennett, Hyatt and Hall to make the worst possible accusations, but we don't have to accept them, and we certainly shouldn't take them seriously. They mostly represent insanity personified.

      If Richard Hall is happy, willing and able to point that twisted little finger of accusation at others Ziggy, then he must be prepared to be put under the microscope himself. I am afraid I have reached that point of age and wisdom where my inner dialogue on meeting new people is, 'what's their angle'.

      Richard Hall like Jon Corner wanted be 'discovered' via the Madeleine case. Their film making abilities finding the mass audience they deserve. Richard seems accepting of the fact that he will never light up a stage, but for some reason, he thought Tony Bennett might. Not the ugly mug of Bennett or his ability to send a chill through the heart of every heathen, but the great big stinking mass of supposed 'work' behind him. Ten years of 'research' by a small but determined pack of 'experts' who haven't yet found the courage to put their names to it.

      There are many people in this life and those who have gone before that I am in awe of Ziggy. And those who give blood, sweat and tears to reach perfection top the list. There is no joy in life quite so sweet as reading a life changing book or watching a movie that makes you go wow.

      And the reason they make you go wow, is because the artist has strived to take excellence to the next level. Unfortunately for Richard, even though he has provided hours and hours of, mostly boring, footage, he is still trying to flog the age old theories of No.1 conspiraloon Tony Bennett that were discredited years ago.

      Do I feel guilty about pillorying Richard Hall on Boxing Day? Not at all, or as about guilty as he feels when he accuses those names Bennett stuck pins in while going through the PJ files.

      Delete