Richard D's Hall of Mirrors?

A few days ago, someone in the comments section here at Substack asked me if I'd read Aisling O'Loughlin's recent article on "investigative journalist", Richard D. Hall. I hadn't (nor had I previously come across Ms. O'Loughlin's work), so I duly did. The article has since become a three-piece series, which you can read here, here, and here.

The Substack commentator wanted to know my opinion, and as the article series has proven - to put it mildly - rather controversial, I thought I would volunteer my thoughts...

In introducing this piece, it's important to underline that I've always thought that Hall's theory on Madeleine McCann is wrong. You can read the entirety of my thoughts on that scenario, and what I think really happened to her, here (and please do so if you haven't read that piece before), but to briefly sum up:

If the parents accidentally killed her and used their friends in high places to cover it up, then it would actually have been covered up, as in, kept out of the papers altogether, and we would never even have heard this child's name, just like the thousands of other children who tragically go missing every year.

Instead, the international establishment media went lockstep to make "Madeleine McCann" as famous as a celebrity, and to ensure all the world's eyes were on her parents.

That's no "cover up". If you want to see a cover up, check all the press coverage given to then UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair's, teenage daughter, Kathryn, when she tried to kill herself.

Can't find any?

Exactly.

The UK government possesses the power to shut the press up whenever it likes by slapping them with a D-notice, so were it really the case that these well-connected establishment doctors, the McCanns, had unintentionally murdered their daughter and their high-powered friends conspired with them to cover it up, then - just like Blair's daughter's suicide attempt - we never would have heard about it at all.

Of course, everyone has heard about it, and everyone has a theory about it, to the extent the "the parents killed her and covered it up" school of thought doesn't even really qualify as a "conspiracy theory". It's too mainstream, and even your most evangelically ordinary, consummately conventional 'normie' has considered that's a possibility.

That's because this is what the media is tactically manipulating us into thinking, with all its deftly engineered attempts to make Gerry and Kate appear as unsympathetic as possible, and therefore, in the minds of many, definitely guilty. The media wants us to think, and to profess, that the McCanns are guilty... when actually they're not.

Whenever I have made this case before, the first objection I always get is,

"But what about Richard D. Hall's work?"

To which I always reply.

"What if Hall has been set up?"

The establishment is a past master at elaborate and highly persuasive theatre, presented to the masses as real, so what if they set up - staged - the whole scenario, planting red herring "clues" to deceive researchers and lead them to the wrong conclusion?

My theory on the McCann "abduction" is that it was a staged, acted "crime drama thriller". Madeleine was neither killed nor abducted, this scenario was simply staged by a group of actors who flew out to Praia da Luz to do some on-location filming (hence why, when in the airport on the way to Portugal, and one of the group tells a scowling Gerry McCann to "cheer up, we're on holiday!", he snaps back, "f**k off, I'm not here to enjoy myself").

The child Madeleine, who may or may not have existed, was always intended to be found, alive and well, at a strategically timed juncture in the future.

We have already been prepped for this eventuality by the emergence recently of Julia Wendell, a young Eastern European woman who insisted she was Madeleine McCann, abducted by a paedophile from Praia da Luz as a toddler. Although this woman turned out to be an impostor, her emergence has set the stage for Madeleine's eventual return.

Remember that there was absolutely no reason for the press to give Wendell any attention at all, and whether she was the daughter of Gerry and Kate McCann could have been settled in a matter of hours with a simple DNA/paternity test (presuming these are real, as I know there is some debate about that - !).

Yet rather than refrain from giving Wendell any attention unless and until the test was done and returned a positive result, the press instead - once again - went lockstep in catapulting this woman to international attention, giving her front page headlines in all the papers and slots on top TV talk shows.

The reason for this operation was to change people's perceptions from, "the parents killed her, it's so obvious", to "hmm, well, I guess it is possible she's still alive..." - so that it seems more plausible and believable when the "real" one is found.

So why, you may ask, this absurdly elaborate acted world-stage play? What's the point?

As usual when the elites stage massive global lockstep operations, the point is multifactorial:

1. To push the chip agenda. We know they want us all chipped, especially children, and what could be more of an emotive and impactful push for that than the idea that "if only [the world's most famous missing child], Madeleine, had been chipped, we could have found her in hours and avoided all this dreadful heartache".... You know that if this happens, the masses will be positively lining up for their "Maddie Microchip" (and we've been further programmed about the "necessity" of chipping loved ones to keep them safe with the recent cat-chip mandate);

2. To demonise conspiracy theorists and clamp down on free speech.

I mean, just imagine: your beloved child has been horrifically abducted in terrible circumstances, you have dedicated your life to searching for her, and yet evil, vile ghouls online publicly accuse you of murdering her, when she was alive all along... Repulsive. Abhorrent. Something must be done.

There is basically no worse crime to accuse someone of than child murder, and the murder of their own child the most horrific crime of all.

If we are told (as I strongly believe we will be) that Madeleine has been alive all this time, that Gerry and Kate were in no way involved in her disappearance, and, "in fact", the whole scenario happened just as the "official sources" told us it did.... then that will spark a huge international debate about just how much freedom "vile cranks" should have online to "spew" their views, when they can get things so terribly wrong.

After all, the theory that the McCanns murdered their child could credibly have put them in danger. Vigilante mobs could have sought justice. Something must be done to stop innocent people being persecuted like this!

Cue draconian online "safety" laws and severe prohibitions on what we are able to say, both on the internet and everywhere else. It's classic problem-reaction-solution.

So, I believe that people pushing the idea that Madeleine died in apartment 5A have been set up with false evidence to hold that belief. That is to say, they are not "in on it" and intentionally leading us down the garden path: they have been manipulated and misled by the deep state military black ops team behind 'Operation Madeleine' into falling for planted "clues" (and if a human can be misled this way, so certainly can a cadaver dog - or one can simply hire them from an animal casting agency: "crisis actors" aren't necessarily just human).

So, that leads us back to Aisling O'Loughlin's articles on Richard D. Hall, which focus not on his Madeleine theory, but on his theory that the 2017 Manchester Arena bombing was a hoax.

That theory has recently been the focus of significant press attention, with the BBC, Sky, and Reuters, amongst others, all reporting on Hall's court case, where he is being sued by some of the "survivors" of this event.

However, it is crucial to note here that he is NOT being sued for saying the attack was a hoax: he is, as his lawyer pointed out, "perfectly entitled" to hold that belief.

He is being sued for (alleged) harassment and breaches in data protection, things which one is not "perfectly entitled" to do, regardless of whether one believes the persons in question are "crisis actors" or not.

However, the media is cleverly conflating the two, by focusing a lot of coverage on Hall's "hoax" theory, and then declaring he's being sued by "the victims", therefore implying he is being sued for his beliefs, and, consequently, frightening people out of questioning events or sharing their opinions, lest they get taken to court.

So we need to be very clear that there is no law insisting you have to accept the state's version of events, that you can't question media narratives, or that you have to accept any particular event as real. You don't. You're free to question as much as you like, and if you come to the conclusion the event was a hoax, you're free to say so (and other people are free to get offended and call you a "vile ghoul").

None of this is illegal.

The legal issues begin if and when people use these conclusions to participate in or incite harassment, and that is why Hall is in court.

Similarly, contrary to popular belief, the American conspiracy theorist, Alex Jones, was not sued for saying Sandy Hook was a hoax. You can read the full explanation of what happened at Jones' trial here, but to sum:

"What you witnessed was not a trial on the merits, but only the damages portion AFTER a verdict is reached and one party is already found guilty.
The general public was being played because they don't understand the difference between a trial on the merits verses a trial on damages."

So, these two high-profile trials have been deviously used to scare the public out of free speech, and we know they are being intentionally used in that way, because of all the mainstream press attention both cases received.

Aisling O'Loughlin says in her initial piece on Hall:

"The reason the mainstream media is giving this story so much coverage and exposure, directing people towards Richard D Hall’s paperback, Manchester - The Night of the Big Bang (on sale on Amazon for €54.28) - is because it’s a set up. If the powers that be thought this information should be hidden from the public, they’d ignore the story, starve it of oxygen. Amazon wouldn’t sell the book. Martin Hibbert would have been advised not to take the case against D Hall. The complicit newspapers wouldn’t meticulously set out his conspiracies for the viewing public to analyse. They want people to go explore and see for themselves. It’s a trap."

Whatever else you may think about O'Loughlin's pieces on Hall, she is absolutely, irrefutably right about this, and I have covered this issue many times at this site, including in my recent open letter to the press - sent to The Sun, Express, Mirror, Guardian, Piers Morgan and Marianna Spring - asking them to "expose" (i.e., publicise and promote) me, as they have other "conspiracy theorists".

Needless to say, none of them have replied, and nor will they, because they know what I say is absolutely true: that to "expose" me is really to promote me, to draw attention to me, and to make sure that more people than ever know about and support me - so they would never do it.

They are extremely selective indeed in who they "expose", and it's only ever people and theories they want you to know about, because you knowing about these people and investing in them, ultimately helps the establishment.

For reasons I have laid out above, your knowing about Richard D. Hall and investing in what he says, helps the establishment, because it helps frame "conspiracy theorists" as crazy cranks who harass innocent people and accuse grieving parents of murdering their children.

Note that this theme also features, not just in Hall's Madeleine theory, but in his Manchester bombing hoax theory, too, where he suggests one child who allegedly died there, was actually already dead, killed by her parents, and they used the "bomb hoax" to cover it up.

As I said about Madeleine, there's no worse crime to accuse someone of than child murder - including and especially their own child's murder - and so if the parents are ultimately vindicated, it makes the people posing these allegations look very bad indeed.

So this appears to be the purpose of Richard D. Hall's theories, and why they are given such extensive publicity in the mainstream: to frame the people who believe in and promulgate these theories as some of the worst possible people, about whom something must be done.

It's not about whether any particular event is a hoax or not, because as we explored earlier, it is perfectly legitimate to question the veracity of any event and come to your own conclusions about it - and in my opinion, you should do exactly this. You may conclude a certain event is a hoax, whilst others may be certain it's real, and that's okay: we can disagree, debate, that's what free speech is all about.

So it's not ultimately about proving irrefutably whether certain events are hoaxes or not, as we'll never have a complete consensus on that: rather, the point is to look at how the mainstream media is responding to an event, and therefore - whether real of hoaxed - if it is going to be used against us in some way.

The reason the MSM is "exposing" (promoting) Richard D. Hall's work, work which he may have produced in perfectly good faith - or he may not - is because it is driving us in a direction that is ultimately going to be helpful to them.

If and when Madeleine is found, for example, the fall-out and finger-pointing for "conspiracy theorists" who blamed the parents is going to be immense and the potential implications sinister and far-reaching.

The purpose of the media promoting Hall's theories on the Manchester bombing appear to be similar: to corral us in a certain direction which will ultimately implicate us as bad, even dangerous, people, when a certain key aspect (such as, the idea parents killed their child and used the bomb to cover it up) is revealed "undeniably" as false.

That doesn't mean all Hall's theories are false: absolutely not. They would get no traction if they were, and a lot of highly intelligent and discerning people are invested in them. But please be aware of how rat poison works - 99% sweetmeal, 1% arsenic.

It still kills the rat.

And it looks to me as if we are being baited into a very similar trap.

Thanks for reading! This article was originally published at miriaf.co.uk, which is entirely reader-supported, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you enjoyed this article, and would like to read more in the future, please consider…

1. Subscribing monthly at Substack or Patreon (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West, account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA (please use your email address as a reference if you’d like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows these articles to keep being created and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.