Killer Simon Hall: Phil Hall, Double Binds, Diversionary Tactics, New Black Office Shoes & Attempting To Pervert The Course Of Justice – Part 8 ©️

Phil Hall

Double Binds

The double bind is a dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more reciprocally conflicting messages. Double binds are often utilised as a form of control without open coercion

Phil Hall used double binds when giving evidence to Suffolk police.

His first statement, which he made 4 days after Joan Albert’s murder, read as follows;

We have lived at our present address for about 20 years

During the past 2 years my wife has become quote involved with an elderly lady called Joan Albert, who lived on Boydland, Capel St Mary.

My wife would call upon Mrs Albert on a regular basis basically to oversee her welfare. She would often help out and walk Mrs Albert’s dog

I didn’t really have too much to do with Mrs Albert myself, but if I saw her I would engage into conversation with her, this mainly covered her dog’s welfare and other general topics

Mrs Albert would ring us about 2-3 times a week, if I picked the telephone up I would normally pass it directly to my wife

In my opinion I felt Mrs Albert was quite lonely and that was the reason for her to call us on a regular basis.

She was quite frail and became quite concerned about her dog ’Rusty’ (sic) ill health. I was led to believe she herself had problems with her heart and her leg. I also knew that she had recently been to hospital about a hernia in her abdomen

Mrs Albert never really spoke to me about her own family, to me, this was mainly spoken about to my wife

The last time I recall going to Mrs Albert actual home address was about 2 or 3 weeks ago. I either drove or walked to her home, I didn’t knock on the door as I was only dropping off an envelope containing gas canisters for her hair curlers.

I opened the letterbox and just pushed them through. Mrs Albert did not come to the door. I believe ’Rusty’ the dog was sitting on the window seat on the hallway. Fortunately I didn’t disturb the dog

Around 9.15pm on Saturday 15th December 2001, I was at home when I received a telephone call from Mrs Albert.

She was ringing to check on my wife’s welfare as she had come down with a bad cold. She also stated that ’Rusty’ was missing her friend, this was her usual way of being friendly.

I knew my wife couldn’t come to the phone as she was in bed unwell, so I carried on my conversation with her.

Mrs Albert explained to me someone had taken ’Rusty’ for a walk that afternoon but he had collapsed and had to be carried home.

She was obviously distressed and concerned about her dog

She went on to say that she wouldn’t know what to do without her dog.

I tried to reassure her, but on the other hand being realistic, stating that ’Rusty’ was also an elderly dog.

So in an attempt to lighten the conversation I made a jovial comment and said ”What you need is a toy boy”.

She instantly laughed and stated she wasn’t into that sort of thing, but it would be nice if she could get dressed up, be taken out for the night, then taken home and dropped off and nothing else

We carried on the banter for a while about her ideal man, in her case it was Howard Keel from Dallas

The conversation ended, Mrs Albert was fairly happy and it had cheered her up, we said our goodbyes and I told her I would tell Lynn she had called

I believe the conversation lasted no more than 10 minutes.

On Sunday 16th December, my wife, son and myself went out for the day, we arrived home late evening, I noticed the Police ’Closed’ sign along Boydland, and having listened to our Answerphone messages we discovered that an incident occurred with Mrs Albert

Phil Hall’s police witness statement dated 20th December 2001

Phil Hall told police he didn’t have much to do with Mrs Albert and if he saw her he would talk to her mainly about her dogs welfare and other general topics.

Yet he also claimed to the police on the night before his adoptive son Simon Hall had murdered Joan Albert, Phil had spoken to her about a “toy boy” and that there had been “banter” between them.

None of which sounds plausible, and Joan Albert could obviously not verify what Phil Hall claimed to police, as he well knew.

Phil Hall’s 2nd and last statement was made on the day his adoptive son Simon was arrested, excerpts read;

We have two children Shaun who is 26 and Simon who is nearly 25

Both the boys are probably closer to their mother than they are me and would go to her with any problems they may have.

I should add that we have always been open and honest with them regarding the adoption

Since Simon left school I have found his to be better behaved and more balanced when in a stable relationship.

He is a likeable boy and makes friends easily.

Simon had one particularly bad patch in his life which probably lasted about a year.

That started when he left school things having got on top of him, he became more depressed after his ex girlfriend died of meningitis.

I think that incident affected him deeply and things became very difficult at home.

Simon was quite intelligent if he applied himself and passed gis driving test soon after his 17th birthday

I knew Mrs Albert through Lynne who had become very close to her.

I went to the house a few times without Lynne but only to put things through the letterbox, I never picked the dog up without Lynne

To my knowledge neither of the boys knew Joan Albert.

I don’t know if any of the boys spoke to her on the phone. I thought Joan was comfortable not rich.

I spoke to Lynne often about Mrs Albert but never neither of the boys although they may have been present when Lynne and I were talking.

I sometimes felt Lynne was being put on but never voiced my concerns

On the 15th December 2001 my wife was upstairs unwell in bed, I don’t know when Simon left the house or even if I saw him at all that day.

I do not know what he was wearing that day at all

I recall that Lynne had asked Simon to make sure he was back in time to leave for Stoke Rochford in Lincolnshire where we had a family do.

I think we left about 8.30am on the Sunday. I went to bed quite late and apart from the phone call off of Mrs Albert at about 9.15am I don’t recall any other phone calls being received and I don’t recall making any.

I don’t recall what he was wearing that day but photographs were taken that day.

As far as I remember Simon was fairly quiet that morning but I think that was tiredness and he slept in the car.

I am willing to assist the police in this matter

Excerpts from Phil Hall’s police witness statement dated 25th July 2002

Phil Hall stated “I don’t know when Simon left the house or even if I saw him at all that day“ but he did “recall that Lynne had asked Simon to make sure he was back in time to leave for Stoke Rochford”.

The above is yet another example of Phil Hall’s double binds or conflicting statements, whereby one statement negates the other.

22nd December 2001: Killer Simon Hall Bought New Replacement Black Office Shoes

Below is a transcript of a typed note contained within the legal notes relating to Phil Hall’s shoes;

When Simon returned to live with his parents following the break-up of his relationship with Zoe ******* he had little or no clothes apart from the tee shirt, jeans and trainers which he stood up in. He had no decent shoes

As a consequence, he did borrow his father, Phil’s shoes in order to have decent shoes to wear when going out or when going for job interviews

Simon takes a size 9 – 10. Phil takes a size 10.5 – 11

In December 2001 he was probably still borrowing decent shoes from his dad when not otherwise wearing his trainers or brown boots.

As far as Lynne can remember, Simon did not get round to buying any decent shoes of his own until January 2002 when he would have had some Christmas money to spend

The police have not taken any of Phil’s shoes for cross matching or comparison

Notes re: shoes

In reality killer Simon Hall purchased a new pair of replacement black office shoes at Freeport shopping centre in Braintree on the 22nd December 2001, when he was with Donna (not her real name), as can be read in Part 5 by tapping on the button below;

He had disposed of the shoes he was wearing when he had committed his murder on the 17th of December and had apparently put them in an industrial waste bin near to where he worked at State Chemical’s in Colchester, Essex.

He used the excuse to drive to work on the Monday morning to speak to his line manager to request some time off work in order to dispose of his clothing, shoes and black leather jacket so that these items would be as far away from Capel St Mary as possible.

And the little or no clothes comment was another exaggeration.

Whilst killer Simon Hall may have borrowed his adoptive father Phil Hall’s shoes in the past, he was not wearing Phil’s shoes when he murdered Joan Albert.

Therefore there would have been no point taking any of Phil’s shoes for cross matching or comparison as this was another of the Hall families distraction tactics, attempting to pervert the course of justice.

The Audi motor vehicle Simon Hall viewed and paid for on Wednesday the 12th December 2001 when he was with his girlfriend Stephanie Bon, and picked up on the morning of Saturday the 15th December went on to develop problems.

In a further statement Simon Hall said;

I make this short statement by way of commentary on the witness evidence set out in the bundle of statements served under the heading ’Notice of Further Evidence’ with correspondence received from the Crown Prosecution Service dated 10th October 2002.

I brought that motor vehicle on the 12th December 2001

This was a Wednesday. I paid £450 cash.

Stephanie Bon was with me.

I had the car no more than a week when the gearbox fell out and the exhaust blew a hole.

I telephoned the garage and was told to bring the car back for a refund.

As a consequence I hired a trailer to return to the garage with the car I believe on or about the 29th December

The trailer was hired through Local Tool Hire (Ipswich) Ltd.

I note that one of my phone calls to them is set out in the phone records produced in this further evidence bundle by way of an exhibit to the Crown witness Andrew ******* Cadman

When I arrived at the garage with the car there was no one there

I had a wasted journey and subsequently telephoned the garage owner again.

He denied ever saying that he would be there to receive the car back.

He refused to give me a refund, told me I had bought the car as seen and it was tough luck if there happened to be problems with it

I believe my father tried to help me resolve the matter by speaking to the garage owner at least once if not twice and Court action would have been mentioned by my father of no satisfactory resolution could be reached

After my father spoke to the garage owner I telephoned them again and asked them if I was going to have to take this matter to Court.

It was at that point he drew a cheque on the company ‘Havertyre’ for £200 to settle the matter

In so far as Lee *********’s statement is concerned it is highly accurate given that my purchase of the vehicle was on Wednesday 12th December, an auction day when Lee ********* believes that he was in attendance at the garage.

The only error appears to be in his recollection of when I actually completed the purchase, he believing it to have happened by my collecting the car the following Saturday 15th December.

This is not true.

I paid for the car having decided to buy it there and then and was given a note from the garage owner Peter ******** regarding the tax of the vehicle all on the 12th December

I note the documentation the garage would otherwise have held in relation to the transaction has been lost in a burglary

Witness: ********, Peter James

This is the garage proprietor with whom I had most of the telephone calls hassling to get a partial refund owning to the defects in the vehicle.

He says that I brought it on the 15th December.

In this regard his colleague, Lee *********’s recollection is better and more accurate.

The purchase was made and completed on the 12th December.

In most respects his statement is reasonably accurate

Excerpts from Simon Hall’s October 2002 statement

According To Lynne Hall, Her Husband Phil Wanted To Strip DS Lambert Of His Medal

It was announced in March 2007 under the header Leading detective to retire that detective superintendent Roy Lambert, who headed up the investigation into Joan Albert’s murder, was set to retire.

Lynne Hall would go on to claim her husband Phil Hall “wanted to strip DS Lambert of his medal”.

The news article stated;

In March 1981, then aged 30 and working as a detective sergeant, he was confronted by a criminal armed with a sawn-off shotgun.

The gunman shot at Mr Lambert and another detective, both of whom were unarmed and only around 15 feet away.

Mr Lambert was later presented with the Queen’s Commendation for Brave Conduct and was praised for his “very gallant action in the line of duty”

Evening Star article headed Leading detective to retire dated 22nd March 2007

Following the criminal cases review commision’s 14th October 2009 announcement they were referring Simon Hall’s murder conviction to the court of appeal, Phil Hall made a public statement;

We are delighted, but at the moment I am somewhere between elation and shock.

We knew the commission were being very, very thorough and would not expect it to be anything less

This is evidence to us, yet again, that Simon is where he should not be

Excerpts from an Evening star article headed Simon Hall to get new appeal over murder dated 14th October 2009

Link to Part 9 here


4 thoughts on “Killer Simon Hall: Phil Hall, Double Binds, Diversionary Tactics, New Black Office Shoes & Attempting To Pervert The Course Of Justice – Part 8 ©️

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s