Anyone watching Channel 5's Under Suspicion Kate McCann?

[ilovebrie8]

It was on last night

How small does your world have to be never have come across people who use a different name professionally.

And what do you think this proves? That she had a subsidiary Hyde personality that killed a small child and left her Jekyll public face completely at a loss?

You really need to get off Reddit.

When my DC were small I signed them in and out of a holiday club using their surname, not mine. It was just easier for the staff to link us.

What do you suppose this indicates? I can't see how this implies anything negative.

I use my maiden name in some contexts (and my passport and driving license is still in my maiden name), I double-barrel in others and use my married name at times. When we were at an all inclusive last year, I registered in the hotel using my maiden name because that's what in my passport (and hence the travel agency booking). But my husband was down as the "lead guest" so at first every time I tried to sign for anything in the shop or bar, the staff looked askance at me as my last name differed from the lead guest's. So I started using my married name instead. It could have been something as stupid as that. In a tv show or book, it would be a clue but real life is messier and more prosaic than that.

EasilyPleased
Not used Reddit
The most comprehensive investigation over 14 hours
www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=185&part=1&gen=1
www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=204&part=1&gen=1
https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=222&part=1&gen=1
https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=235&part=1&gen=1
www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=236&part=1&gen=1
www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=237&part=1&gen=1
www.richplanet.net/richp_genre.php?ref=271&part=1&gen=1

Where is the photo from anyway? She does look a bit odd. Like she's got blue eye shadow on her eyelids or something 🤔

She just looked tired/unwell to me. But without the whole photo its hard to tell.

Or the entire internet.

Imagine my surprise when I google RichTV and on IMDB, the top-rated programmes listed on it are 'The Gateshead Grey' (about the death of a 'grey alien in Gateshead in 1940!), 'Twenty Years of British Ufology' and 'Ancient History and the Ark of the Covenant', in which two randoms think they have found both the grave of King Arthur and the Ark of the Covenant.

This is what IMDB has to say about its host:

Richard D. Hall is a conspiracy theorist who, among other topics, claims to uncover the lies, cover ups and deception perpetrated by news corporations - such as the BBC - by looking at and revealing what Richard claims to be the real evidence behind events such as the Madelene McCann disappearance, the 7/7 bombings, the Manchester bombing and the murder of Jo Cox to name just a few. BBC panorama aired a piece on him in October 2022 reporting the fact that he stalked and harassed victims of terrorist attacks. Coincidentally his market stall which he held once a month to sell his books and DVDs was closed by the council after complaints about his claims. It has been reported that Richard profits from slandering the survivors and victims of serious traumatic events, making fantastical and baseless claims about the validity of their injuries, psychological trauma and deaths.

That you could actually think that the ravings of a conspiracy theory lunatic with a track record in tracking down, spying on, and then slandering the victims of traumatic events, is a 'comprehensive investigation' of a child's disappearance says an awful lot about you, none of it good.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-63412651

He secretly filmed a woman who'd been left in a wheelchair after the Manchester Arena attacks to prove she could walk, and that the attack had been staged by 'crisis actors', for crying out loud.

But if prosecuted for slander Richard could have produced his evidence
Prosecuted for harassment on a person he never met or spoke to
A pre trial judge allowed his evidence in effect his defense to be banned
Unlike Brenda Leyland door stopped by sky news and shamed in SKY national broadcast who commuted suicide. But Sky followed a story of public interest so every thing was OK

That makes absolutely no sense. He was prosecuted. He lost the case at the High Court, was found guilty of harassment of two people who had suffered life-changing injuries in a terrorist attack. The judge described his belief that the attack was a hoax and that many of those supposed to be dead are living abroad as 'preposterous and untrue'. He was fined £45k and had to pay most of their legal costs.

I don't see what you think it has to do with the suicide of a McCann troll after she was exposed. Brenda Leyland did viciously troll the McCanns. That's not a conspiracy theory. She was doorstepped as part of an investigation by a crime reporter with considerable experience on a story that was very current -- internet harassment by trolls. She invited him in and admitted to it. Had she not died by suicide, she would probably have faced prosecution too.

The Royal High the judges give an oath to the crown. A case where the defense is gagged is not justice Richard is taking the case to the European court of human rights .blogging on this site is no different from what Brenda did
She expressed her honest opinion at the time based on the information she had read. So door stepping and national media is not harassment. But a person you never met or spoke to and only sent one polite request for an interview is harassment. It is in the journalist code to allow covert filming and is done every day and no other journalist has ever been prosecuted for harassment for it.

You aren't making any sense. But I won't bother trying to make sense of your posts, because they exhibit all the hallmarks of the mindset of Richard Hall and similar conspiracy loons -- a total inability to assimilate facts, a determination to believe that institutions like the High Court or mainstream media are fatally biased, and that a crackpot who makes a living from claiming that the victims of terrorist attacks are actors in hoaxes is correct.

The proceedings of the trial are online. You can see exactly why Hall lost his case.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Hibbert-v-Hall-Judgment.pdf

I listened to that podcast about this disgusting individual who stalked teenagers injured at Manchester to prove they were "faking it". He was prosecuted, if I recall, and is quite clearly unhinged.

Anyone who cites his unhinged youtube rantings as evidence and investigative is equally unhinged.

The alleged harassment was based on what Richard had put in his book and videos. He clearly stated it as an opinion based on his research
If you are shown a picture of what looks to like a picture of a banana but you are told that all the experts agree it is a picture of a apple. You can decide to except the opinion of the experts or of your own eyes. When you have film audio and photo evidence that contradicts what you are told as Richard did then if writing or speaking and showing this evidence and expressing your opinion on what that evidence indicates is harassment as it is in the new laws then we have come along way from common law and the Magna Carta

Freeman of the land logic right there. Boggles my mind that there are people who seriously believe this tripe.

And actually, Mr Hall's harrasment conviction was because he repeatedly filmed a permanently-disabled 14 year old CHILD and her disabled father without consent, to prove his unhinged theory that they were faking their disabilities.

Just disgusting. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c86q0ypq7q0o

Richard did not stalk teenagers he covertly filmed one individual to see if she showed the injuries that were reported he watched and deleted the film not showing it to anyone else. He honestly reported that the person was in a wheel chair and was being helped by carers . Journalist covertly film people all the time sometimes doorstepping them with loaded and aggressive questions

if you are interested in the unjust trial
dhughes.substack.com/p/the-law-vs-the-truth-getting-to-the

Incorrect he filmed once not once and not repeatedly deleting the film and not showing it anyone, He was convicted based on a new law that says if you express your research based opinion in a book or video that can be harassment
Some people think the mainstream media report honestly they are deluded

Unjust trial. Ok then.

No reasoning with crAzY.

I am not trying to escalate this into an argument, but while I totally agree with your point that the awful events of that terrible night highlighted to all parents never to leave their children alone, the awful decision to do so, made it a sad and ‘avoidable’ situation - not unavoidable.
The parents paid the ultimate cost for their error of judgment, nothing could be sadder, than losing your child like that.

If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you're misinformed."