The Law vs. the Truth: Getting to the Bottom of the Richard D. Hall Case

Part 2 - Forensic Evidence

Part 2 - Forensic Evidence

This is the second in a a series of articles on the Richard D. Hall case. If you have not already done so, please read Part 1 first.

Introduction

The Richard D. Hall case can only be properly understood with reference to the forensic evidence which he, and later Iain Davis, have produced in relation to the Manchester Arena incident. In Hall’s case, that evidence is presented in his book and film, both titled Manchester — The Night of the Bang, published in March 2020.

The film version of Manchester — The Night of the Bang (2020)

The findings of Davis’ independent investigation are laid out in his book, The Manchester Attack (2024).

As will see in subsequent parts of this series, all the forensic evidence which Hall sought to present in his defence was systematically ignored, ridiculed, and excluded by senior High Court officials.

For those who may be new to the Manchester Arena incident, the key forensic evidence is summarised in a 74-minute presentation by Davis which you can find embedded near the top of this post. I strongly recommend that you watch that presentation before reading any further, because it serves as an excellent primer on the topic.

Most of what follows summarises Davis’ key points, with a small amount of elaboration in places. Although there is very little original from me in this part, it is important that you are familiar with the information it contains, so that you can see for yourself why the authorities seem desperate to suppress this evidence.

In Part 3, I will also show some of the forensic evidence which Hall presented in his defence at the summary judgment hearing. Cumulatively, the evidence adduced by Hall and Davis provides significant reason to doubt the official account of what took place in the City Room on May 22, 2017.

Setting the Scene

In his presentation (contained here), Davis begins by discussing:

• the known history of false flag terrorism;

• the known history of hoaxed false flag terrorism;

• the existence of companies which specialise in simulating crises, e.g. for training exercises; 

• the highly emotive way in which the attack was presented to the public by politicians and the legacy media;

• official claims that Salman Abedi used a large TATP shrapnel bomb to kill 22 people (23 including himself) and injure an additional 59 people, of whom 21 were mobile enough to leave the City Room and 38 were evacuated later;

• the layout of the City Room using a virtual tour from Operation Manteline, the Greater Manchester Police investigation into the incident;

• injuries sustained in the stampede/crush as people fled the arena; and

• wild exaggerations of the casualty rate in the mainstream media and by police.

Around the 24:40 mark, Davis turns to the “significant anomalies” in the evidence which contradict the official version of events. It is those anomalies which I wish to focus on here.

The most important piece of evidence, to which I will refer several times, is known as the Barr footage. This is 43 seconds of footage recorded inside the City Room by John Barr, who uploaded it to Facebook at 00:01 on May 23, 2017. In an interview, Barr told Hall that the footage was taken approximately four minutes after Salman Abedi had allegedly detonated his device (i.e., around 22:35 on May 22, 2017). Readers are advised to familiarise themselves with the footage before proceeding:

Lack of Building Damage

Davis notes the official claim that the bomb was a TATP high explosive device packed with 3,000 pieces of shrapnel consisting of 29.26 kg of metal nuts and 1.47 kg of screws and cross dowels; it was described by expert witnesses during the Saunders Inquiry as “enormous,” “huge,” “massive,” etc.

It is, therefore, surprising that the detonation of this massive TATP explosive device, spraying thousands of pieces of metal in all directions, failed to cause any damage to the large-area, flimsy merchandise stall standing only six metres away from the alleged blast site at its nearest point, despite apparently hitting some people in front of it:

Composite image of  the merchandise stall, taken from the Barr footage. Source: Hall (2020, p. 210).

Nor did the shrapnel cause any damage to the plate glass doors separating the City Room and Manchester Victoria Station:

The plate glass doors separating the City Room and Manchester Victoria Station, undamaged with investigators fresh on the scene. Source: Hall (2020, p. 33).

The glass doors were approximately 30 metres away from the alleged epicentre of the bomb (bottom centre below):

The location of the plate glass doors (bottom centre) in relation to the official blast site Source: Hall, Brexit, Jo Cox, Manchester Arena “Bombing”

Nor did the massive TATP shrapnel bomb cause any damage to the lighting in the City Room:

A still from the blurred footage taken from the BBC documentary “The Night of the Bomb.”

There were no signs of 3,000 pieces of shrapnel scattered on the floor, or floor damage:

Source: Barr footage

On July 6, 2017, the Guardian reported that “When the device was detonated, it was so powerful it caused a crater in the arena’s concrete floor and a 23 sq metre (250 sq ft) glass skylight shattered.” Yet, below is the “seat of the blast” according to GMP. It does not show a “crater.” In fact, it is unclear what exactly it does show:

Source: GMP, in Manchester Evening News

In early June 2017, a sceptic going under the pseudonym of UK Critical Thinker organised a drone flight over the City Room to photograph the skylight, which is directly above the official blast site. The image in the bottom left below shows that the skylight was undamaged:

Source: Hall (2020, pp. 31-32).

Thousands of pieces of metal flying in all directions as the result of a TATP shrapnel bomb being detonated apparently failed to shatter any glass. The closest they came, officially, was a single damaged window at the ticket office:

Source: GMP, shown in Davis

The strange thing here is how localised the damage was. None of the other seven ticket windows were damaged, nor was the rest of the wall, nor was the box office sign above, nor was a prominent pillar between the blast site and the ticket office, nor was the floor:

Source: GMP, with Davis’ annotation.

For reference, the damaged window was approximately 16-17 metres from the epicentre of the alleged blast:

The damaged ticket window is top centre. Source: Operation Manteline, shown in Davis

The lack of structural damage to the rest of the ticket office is confirmed by a redacted CCTV image released by the Saunders Inquiry:

Source: Richplanet.net

The following images are from Operation Manteline, and, like the damaged window photograph, they were entered into evidence at the Saunders Inquiry:

The location of the damaged wall and doors is shown by Davis below:

Source: Iain Davis

At first glance, this damage to the wall and doors may seem like compelling evidence of a shrapnel bomb having detonated nearby. However, Davis observes that the black damage markings clearly visible against the white doors (circled in red below) are not visible in the Barr footage:

Source: Iain Davis

It follows that the damage to the doors must have been fabricated some time after the Barr footage was taken (i.e., after 22:35 on May 22, 2017) and before June 26, 2017, when Prince Charles and Camilla visited:

Charles and Camilla’s visit to the Manchester Arena, with the damaged doors to the hospitality suite visible in the background. Source: Daily Mail. Three times in the article, wooden hoarding replacing shattered glass panels is mentioned, yet no photographic evidence of this is provided.

Similarly for the walls, Davis, using a negative image for contrast enhancement, finds “no visible damage” on the Barr footage:

City Room walls, damaged in the Operation Manteline photograph, yet undamaged in the Barr footage. The image on the right shown in negative. Source: Iain Davis.

If Davis is correct, then the GMP evidence of shrapnel damage to the building, submitted to the Saunders Inquiry, is unreliable. If so, then the evidence of shrapnel damage to the window is also unreliable.

In sum, there is no credible evidence of building damage that is consistent with the detonation of a massive TATP shrapnel bomb.

The Alleged Victims

According to official sources, 22 innocent people were killed in the blast, plus Abedi, and an additional 38 lay injured and awaiting evacuation, which according to the Kerslake Report (p. 60) did not begin until 22:58.

According to GMP, 19 of the 22 fatalities were located within six metres of the blast site, and a 20th was located around nine metres away. This is shown in the image below, annotated by Davis, in which the circles are two metres apart from one another:

The Barr footage was taken at approximately 22:35 and points towards the alleged epicentre of the blast. If the official account were true, we should expect to see at least 19 fatalities within a six-metre radius of the blast site, which is approximately where the number 8 is in the image below. For reference, six metres is the distance from the alleged blast site to the undamaged merchandise stall. In addition, although the Barr footage does not capture the whole foyer, there should be at least one more fatality visible plus most of the 38 victims who were officially injured and awaiting evacuation (they, too, should be mostly clustered around the blast site). So, around 58 victims should be visible in the Barr footage. Yet, as per Davis’ count, only 17 bodies can be seen, which is nowhere near enough:

Davis’ composite from the Barr footage, looking towards the epicentre of the blast.

A photograph taken by Chris Parker, a homeless man, which Davis has demonstrated was taken while the Barr footage was being filmed, i.e., before any casualties were removed, also shows nowhere near enough victims to match the official account. All the victims, furthermore, are facing away from the camera, or are covered, making identification impossible. There does not appear to be blood everywhere:

The Parker photograph. Source: Hall (2020, p. 26).

Below is what the Saunders Inquiry claimed the foyer looked like one second before the blast. (Hall contends that this image was in fact captured 30 seconds earlier and that the Saunders Inquiry was covering something up.) The alleged detonation point would be approximately centre left in the image below:

Source: Richplanet.net

With people starting to stream out of the concert, and others waiting to meet them, there were scores of people in just this one section of the City Room. Why, therefore, after 3,000 pieces of high-velocity shrapnel officially tore through this crowd at close range, was the entire area not covered with bodies, body parts, and blood? As the Barr footage and the Parker photograph show, four minutes later a large amount of empty floor space was visible.

Davis notes that Professor Anthony Bull of the UK Centre for Blast Injury Studies told the Saunders Inquiry that a TATP bomb is so powerful that it would literally blow bodies apart within a 10-metre blast radius. Remember, 19 of the 22 fatalities, according to GMP, were located within six metres of the blast, and a 20th within nine metres. If Bull’s expert testimony is accurate, then dozens of people in the CCTV image above would literally have been blown to bits, and the rest would have been seriously injured. Dismembered body parts and large amounts of blood would have been prominent features of the crime scene. But that is not what was observed in the Barr footage and the Parker photograph.

Instead, we find anomalies such as Ruth Morrell appearing to walk normally in heels, despite later telling the Queen that a bolt had passed 15 cm through her leg.

Ruth Morrell in the Barr footage appearing to place her full weight on each foot despite her injury. Her jeans do not appear to be torn. Source of composite image: Hall (2020, p. 49).

ITV News showed the following images in relation to Morrell’s injury:

Ruth Morrell’s injury as shown on ITV News. There is no indication of what caused the square-shaped injury. Source: Hall (2020, p. 49).

Standing next to Morrell when the bomb went off, according to the Saunders Inquiry, was Michelle Kiss, who was officially the furthest fatality from the blast (see the annotated GMP diagram above).

The following was submitted into evidence to the Saunders Inquiry by GMP:

Source: Davis (1:07:52)

Thanks to Hall’s painstaking assemblage of all 806 CCTV images released by the Inquiry into an easily navigable format (download it before it disappears), we can see for ourselves that this account is false (watch from 32:00 of Hall’s Manchester on Trial). Morrell and Kiss (both wearing white tops) spent several minutes chatting in front of the steps until at least 22:28:14, but by 20:30:18 Morrell was standing at the bottom of the steps with her daughter Emily, without Kiss in view. Emily is most clearly visible at 20:30:32.

Ruth Morrell and Michelle Kiss in front of the steps at 22:28:14. Source: Iain Davis.

Ruth Morrell and her daughter, Emily, standing at the bottom of the steps at 22:30:32, with no sign of Michelle Kiss to their left. Source: Iain Davis.

It is possible that Morrell went up to the top of the steps with Kiss at 22:29:24 as per the GMP account and then came down again without her. However, one second before detonation, Ruth Morrell was not standing at the top of the steps with Michelle Kiss. She was at the bottom of the steps with Emily:

Ruth Morrell, one second before detonation, was not standing next to Michelle Kiss at the top of the stairs. Source: Iain Davis.

Therefore, what accounts for the discrepancy between what GMP told the Inquiry and what the CCTV footage shows?

Davis notes that there were no proper inquests into the deaths of the 22 alleged victims. Despite the fact that coroner’s inquests were initially announced under the auspices of Sir John Saunders, they were subsequently subsumed under the public inquiry led by Saunders, allowing the terms of reference to be set by the government. None of the 22 victims received a proper coroner’s inquest and the circumstances of their deaths were not recorded by any court.

In terms of the survivors, there are also legitimate questions to be asked. For example, below is an iconic photograph of 14-year-old Eve Senior, which according to the BBC, “filled the front pages of almost every newspaper.”

Eve Senior, in an image that made front pages across the world.

Does it really appear that Eve Senior has just sustained “14 shrapnel wounds”? In the BBC’s own report featuring that image in 2022, it was “18 shrapnel wounds,” with Eve, her mother and sister standing “just yards away” from a massive TATP shrapnel bomb. By the logic of Professor Bull’s testimony to the Inquiry, they would all have been blown to pieces.

Nick Bickerstaff was not injured during the evening of May 22, 2017, however, the Sun on Sunday published a 107-second video he recorded on the concourse as he purportedly went in search of his daughter, Ellen, following the bombing. He claimed to have witnessed “people blasted to bits and half their bodies are everywhere,” which would be consistent with the detonation of TATP shrapnel bomb.

The Bickerstaff Video. Source: The Sun on Sunday.

However, as Davis shows, elaborating on Hall’s analysis in the 2020 Video (around the 14-minute mark), what the Bickerstaff video really shows is proof of foreknowledge. A pink balloon visible in the footage indicates that it was recorded after hundreds of such balloons were released during the track “Sometimes” around 20 minutes before the end of the concert. However, in the footage there is no stampede; no evacuation announcement is audible (which began nine seconds after the stampede); and the people behind Bickerstaff are acting normally, even sarcastically mimicking his out-of-place yelps. The video was, thus, demonstrably recorded before the bang that caused the stampede. How, then, did Bickerstaff know what was about to happen, and why did he record the video?

The Alleged Bomb

Expert testimony was given to the Saunders Inquiry by Lorna Philp, the principal case officer at the UK forensic explosive laboratory that “TATP […] was the explosive used at the Manchester Arena.”

According to Davis, TATP “emits neither light, heat, nor smoke when it explodes.” Yet, Davis goes on to produce dashcam footage as well as multiple witness testimonies indicating that there was a flash, heat, and smoke, which is inconsistent with the detonation of a TATP device but consistent with a pyrotechnic device.

TATP, Davis notes, has an “acetone-like fruity odour.” Yet, numerous witnesses reported seeing and smelling smoke as well as a foul odour,” as one might expect to experience in the aftermath of a bombing.

What caused the smoke? There is evidence from the CCTV footage that smoke was continually emitted from a location near the bottom of the steps to the mezzanine—and not the alleged blast site—for hours after the detonation. It appears that a smoke machine may have been used (see Hall’s 2023 video, Manchester on Trial, 1:15:00).

Many CCTV images, though redacted, show smoke emanating from a location whose approximate location is marked by Hall’s green arrow. Was a smoke machine used?

The Alleged Bomber

As Davis (57:36) records, eye witness Suzanne Atkins told the Saunders Inquiry that she had seen Abedi just before the detonation. She described his movements as follows: “[Abedi] walked off toward the left of the exit doors, in the corner, past the merchandise area.” She described Abedi as heading to Point P, not the stated location of the bomb (B). The inquiry panel offered no comment on this.

Image from the Saunders Inquiry showing Point P and the alleged bomb location B.

Davis contends that Atkins’ eye witness testimony is consistent with the last three recorded movements of Abedi on publicly available CCTV (highlighted in red then blue):

Source: Richplanet.net

Without the merchandise stall being visible in these images, and without there being any publicly available images in the last 20 seconds before the bang, it is difficult to ascertain where precisely Abedi was heading. But Davis’ contention is plausible.

The issue could have been definitively resolved, Davis argues, by the “point of blast image” mentioned by British Transport Police Chief Inspector Andrea Graham to the BBC. As Davis puts it, “This is perhaps the most crucial piece of evidence in the whole official account of the bombing. It purportedly shows the location and the moment that a terrorist committed mass murder.” However, the image was not submitted into evidence at the Saunders Inquiry and was not discussed there.

Point P is in a CCTV blind spot area (marked in green below):

Source: Iain Davis, annotating Hall’s diagram in Manchester on Trial.

Point P is annotated on the Barr footage by Davis below, directly below CCTV camera C2. There appears to be a scorch mark on the wall between the two. Was this caused by a pyrotechnic device?

Source: Iain Davis

As Hall (2020, pp. 14-17) first revealed, an audio recording of police chatter indicates that a person matching Abedi’s description (and no else in the CCTV footage did) was seen leaving a rucksack by a wall before fleeing the City Room; this was confirmed by a separate police account. Both pieces of evidence were not entered into evidence at the Saunders Inquiry.

Hall was also sent leaked police communications evidence from a whistleblower that a person matching Abedi’s description (“an Asian male with a backpack”) had previously been seen parking a grey Audi close to the Arena on Cheetham Hill Road before running into the Trinity Way tunnel that leads to the City Room. CCTV footage from the tunnel was inexplicably not shown to the Saunders Inquiry. The timing, however, corresponds to when Abedi went missing from CCTV footage inside the City Room. Hall suspects Abedi was arranging a getaway vehicle.

The grey Audi attracted police attention and was pursued after leaving its location on Cheetham Hill Road. Eventually, the driver was arrested, but we do not know what happened to him after that.

Police chased a grey Audi from near the Arena shortly after the bang. Source: Hall (2020, p. 17)

GMP Chief Inspector Michael Smith, who was the Operational/Bronze Commander on the night, but who is not named in the Kerslake Report and only appears thrice in the timeline presented in the second volume of the Saunders Inquiry report, claimed that Abedi’s severed torso was discovered the other side of the doors to the concourse. Yet, as Davis shows, the observable physical evidence contradicts that claim:

Source: Iain Davis

Conclusion

The forensic evidence above, much of it irrefutable, contradicts the official account that a massive TATP shrapnel device was detonated by Salman Abedi in the City Room on May 22, 2017.

The above evidence is not intended to be exhaustive. It covers only the key points. There are plenty more anomalies that could be discussed. For example, why did Sir John Saunders, leading the public inquiry, claim to have relied on grainy CCTV and police body cam images, as opposed to high-resolution crime scene photographs? Is it because, as Hall contends, there was no attempt to preserve the crime scene?

Composite CCTV images of the City Room from the early hours of the morning on May 23, 2017, assembled by Hall, reveal no obvious attempt to preserve the crime scene. Source: Iain Davis.

At any rate, there is more than enough primary empirical evidence here to demonstrate that those who have doubts about the official account of the Manchester Arena incident are not crazy or sick, as the legacy media would have us believe.

Rather, there are legitimate questions that need answering regarding the lack of building damage, the number of alleged victims visible in the Barr footage and the Parker photograph, the Bickerstaff video, the type of device that was detonated, the movements of Salman Abedi, etc.

There are also legitimate concerns regarding the evidence submitted by Greater Manchester Police to the Saunders Inquiry, and the Inquiry itself.

Again, there is no need to speculate on what may or may not have happened to the reported victims in order to see that these concerns are valid and need answering.

Instead of addressing them, however, the state appears to have resorted to lawfare to close down any challenge to the official version of events. Unfortunately for Hall, for exposing the anomalies in the state’s account, he became the target of that lawfare.