More Lies & Malicious, Manipulation & Distraction Innocence Fraud Tactics – Part 19b©️

Bristol University’s ‘Post Conviction Activist’ Michael Naughton: Facilitating and ’Empowering’ Psychopathic Killers (Part 3)

Photo of Heather Mills and Ian Hislop from Private Eye in 2011 here

As stated in the previous Part of this blog series, Michael Naughton, and in turn Heather Mills from Private Eye, lied in 2009 about the ‘fingerprints found above Mrs Albert’s body’ and ‘DNA on her body’.

The November 2009 Private Eye article (Referred to in Part 19 here) also stated;

Eye readers will recall that Hall was only put in the frame because his mother used to care for Mrs Albert and had a key to her house. He had a firm alibi for all but about half an hour on the night Mrs Albert was killed. He was pubbing and clubbing with friends in Ipswich, dropping one off at his house between 05:30 and 6am, before arriving home to his mother, Lynne, at round 6.15am. As it was, it was unlikely he could have broken in to Mrs Albert’s home, killed her and arrived back home. But there was absolutely no way he could have burgled one old person’s home and then moved on to Mrs Albert’s.

Excerpts from page 29 of Heather Mills article for Private Eye magazine published on the 13th of November 2009 (Edition number 1249)

Heather Mills following statement;

But there was absolutely no way he could have burgled one old person’s home and then moved on to Mrs Albert’s.

was pointless and yet another distraction tactic. As already mentioned in Part 19a here, the Higham burglary was formally linked to a series of antique thefts and the two crimes were not formally linked, ie: Simon Hall’s murder of Joan Albert in Capel St Mary was not related to the antiques theft of ‘the old person’s’ home in Higham.

Crime scene photo of broken kitchen window

And the fact Simon Hall’s adoptive mother Lynne Hall had a key to Joan Albert’s home was irrelevant because Simon Hall broke Joan Albert’s kitchen window (Pictured above) to gain access to her and her home.

And if Simon Hall had of had a firm alibi, as suggested by Heather Mills for Private Eye (courtesy of Michael Naughton), it’s unlikely Simon would have been put in the frame in the first place.

TIE (Trace/Interview/Eliminate) Suspect

There were numerous reasons why Simon Hall was put in the frame for his murder of Joan Albert, some of which have already been highlighted throughout the Quite A Hall Tale blog series (Which begins here).

For example (As referred to in Part 2 here) due to the fact Simon Hall had previous criminal convictions for violence, and because he had lived nearby and knew the area well, Simon’s name was quickly flagged by the HOLMES information technology system used by police for investigations.

Simon Hall was automatically categorised as a TIE suspect (trace, interview, eliminate) in relation to Joan Albert’s murder. Therefore Suffolk police may have known when they first began interviewing Lynne Hall on the 18th of December 2001, that her youngest adoptive sons name had already been flagged up by HOLMES.

Lynne Hall – 2011
Photo courtesy of BBC

And Lynne Hall’s behaviour and statements in particular gave numerous suspicious and conflicting accounts from the very beginning of her contact with the police, in what was clearly her attempt to deflect away attention and cover up for Simon (Read more in Part 7 here).

For example, by Tuesday the 18th of December 2001, just two days after Joan Albert was discovered to have been murdered, Lynne was offering up two possible suspects.

Lynne told Suffolk police she had seen two youths/men in the village of Capel St Mary on the Monday or Tuesday of the previous week the 10th and 11th December (Read more in Part 7 here) She also stated on the same day;

I thought about ringing the barman Trevor ***** who is a builder in the village, in fact I didn’t do that. That roof is quite high with a flat roof. I believe from that roof Joan’s house could be seen

It is not known what Lynne Hall thought ringing the barman Trevor ***** who is a builder in the village would have achieved exactly, but many other houses would have been seen from that roof.

And if Lynne had had genuine concerns about the two youths/men, including the one who she said had a pleasant face but who gave her the impression they seemed guilty, why didn’t she tell someone at the time or contact the police?

Or were Lynne Hall’s choice of words a Freudian slip or her psychological projections perhaps, or a combination of the two?

Were Lynne Hall’s unconscious emotions about the men she had allegedly seen the week before, really all about her adoptive son Simon and what Lynne had witnessed just two days earlier?

Questions For Lynne & Phil Hall

Was it really Simon Hall with his pleasant face who gave Lynne the impression he seemed guilty when he arrived at her and Phil Hall’s home at 6.30am, after having committed his murder of Joan Albert?

Lynne Hall went on to state (In November 2013 – Read more in Part 10 here) that she had seen the microwave size locker her adoptive son Simon Hall (And Jamie Barker) had stolen from the Zenith Windows burglary, allegedly in her garden on the morning of her sons murder of Joan Albert.

Why did Lynne really choose to omit to tell Suffolk police about this fact at the time, and what else did Lynne Hall lie by omission to Suffolk police about?

Lynne said she had apparently asked Simon what the stolen microwave size locker was and had then apparently told him to get rid of said stolen locker as she did not want it in her garden.

Photo of an example of industrial waste bins

Simon Hall claimed he got rid of the stolen microwave size locker in an industrial waste bin (Along with the clothing, shoes and leather jacket he wore when he committed his murder of Joan Albert) early on the Monday morning.

And rather than telephone his line manager to ask for a few days off work in order to look after his adoptive mother (Which was the reason he gave for asking for a few days off work) Simon Hall used the excuse to drive to State Chemicals in Colchester to dispose of all incriminating evidence.

Suspicious Behaviour & Vanishing Clothing & Shoes

What exactly did Lynne Hall make of her adoptive son driving all the way to Colchester to ask for a couple of days off, when a quick telephone call could have been made instead?

Did Simon behaviour strike Lynne (or any of the Hall family members) as suspicious or unusual or was Lynne Hall actually aware of the fact Simon needed to get rid of incriminating evidence?

It is not known if Lynne and/or Phil Hall saw Simon Hall put the microwave size locker in his car, or if either of them saw Simon carrying the clothing, shoes and bulky leather jacket he had been wearing when he carried out his murder of Joan Albert, down the stairs from bedroom 3 and out of their home on that Monday morning.

It is also not known if a conversation was ever had between Simon and Lynne, and/or Phil Hall, about why Simon’s clothing, shoes and leather jacket had suddenly vanished.

Lynne & Phil Hall’s Lies & Concoctions

Simon Hall had purchased a brand new pair of mole skin type jeans/trousers from Tesco’s the day before. He then drove straight to his adoptive parents home in Capel St Mary with his new jeans/trousers and had spent a maximum of an hour at their house, before heading out for the night.

Lynne Hall claimed to the police on the day her adoptive son was arrested;

On Saturday the 15th of December 2001 I was ill in bed all day. I seem to think that Simon was around during the day and he put his head in to make sure I was okay. I may have popped down to make a drink.

The Sunday we were off to Stoke Rochford in Lincolnshire which is a stately home, it was a family get together. Simon told me at some stage that Saturday that he was going out and would probably not be back that night. I told him to be back because we were leaving early. I wanted him home at five or six am as I wanted to make sure he was okay and dressed properly

Excerpt’s from Lynne Hall’s 25th July 2002 police witness statement
Phil Hall

Also on the day his adoptive son was arrested, Phil Hall stated;

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

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

Did Lynne and Phil Hall really not recall seeing Simon wearing his ‘larey black shirt with red splashes over it’?

Nicola, who referred to her diary entries (Read more in Part 5 here) recalled seeing Simon wearing this particular shirt a week earlier.

Nicola had stated in her evidence that she recalled ‘laughing at’ the shirt because ‘it was a bit larey’ or loud’;

I do recall laughing at Simons shirt which was black with red splashes over it. It was a ’bit larey’ or loud

Excerpts from Laura T’s friend Nicola’s police witness statement dated 27th August 2002

Link to Part 19c here

9 thoughts on “More Lies & Malicious, Manipulation & Distraction Innocence Fraud Tactics – Part 19b©️

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