Since the exposure of killer Simon Hall’s actual, factual guilt to his murder of Joan Albert and the exposure of his fraudulent public relations spin campaign, most of the people and organisations who were once involved with the case and campaign (With the exception of Simon Hall’s former wife) have never publicly held their hands up and said they were wrong.
These people and organisations have never acknowledged or addressed the very real innocence fraud phenomenon as opposed to the outdated “miscarriage of justice” phenomenon, which Simon Hall’s claims of innocence and fraudulent public relations spin campaign turned out to be.
Killer Simon Hall married at the end of 2008, coincidentally to another woman named Stephanie, who he had worked with in 2002.
Stephanie (Hall) was duped by a lot of the propaganda related to the miscarriage of justice phenomenon.
Stephanie (Hall) was also naive to psychopathic personality disordered people, which made her an easy target for someone like killer Simon Hall to groom, con and exploit.
She also wasn’t aware of just how many people were prepared to lie, deceive and grift on behalf of actually, factually guilty killers like Simon Hall.
It is not known who Sandra Lean was allegedly “compelled to help” in 2002 but the About page of Sandra Lean’s online bio for her 2008 website here (and reproduced at the foot of this blog) was written by someone called P Hughes.
P Hughes stated of Sandra Lean;
Since 2002 Sandra has felt compelled to help innocent victims who have suffered a major injustice.
Without payment, she has spent thousands of hours going through evidence and trial transcripts with a fine toothed comb, helping the legal teams out with her time and expertise.
She does this because she is passionate about helping these falsely accused and wrongfully convicted people in any way she can, and because she is appalled that the British Judicial system is as flawed as it is, letting so many people down.
Retired Roy Catchpole, formerly of St Paul’s Church in Sherborne, said he didn’t understand why the victim made the accusations which have led to him facing three counts of sexual assault and one of exposure on a series of occasions between August 2013 and June 2014.
Jurors were told about the collapse of his first marriage in 1994 which was reported at the time in the national press.
Catchpole told the hearing yesterday he and his then wife became estranged over how to treat their schizophrenic son before he left the family home and started seeing another woman – a then member of his congregation – and his second wife of 17 years.
Propagandist Sandra Lean & Her First Discredited Book
Actual, factual guilty killer Simon Hall was not falsely accused, he was always guilty as charged!
And killer Simon Hall’s family members (Lynne, Phil and Shaun), and many other people chose to lie and concoct stories in an attempt to pervert the course of justice.
Many of them also committed perjury.
It is not known exactly how Sandra Lean came to be involved in killer Simon Hall’s fraudulent public relations spin campaign.
It is also not known who spoke to Sandra Lean in order for her to put together a chapter in a book she wrote and had published.
Cover of Sandra Lean’s book ’No Smoke’ published in 2007 by Diggory press
Sandra Lean’s first discredited book called No Smoke: The Shocking Truth About British Justice, was first published in 2007 by Diggory press (Read more here).
Cover of Sandra Lean’s book ’No Smoke’ published in 2008 by Stephen T Manning/Checkpoint press
Sandra Lean’s first discredited book was published again in 2008 by Stephen T Manning.
Tap on the button below to read about some of the fiasco regarding Sandra Lean’s first discredited book;
Sandra Lean claimed in her first book No Smoke on page xiii in her introduction (Read more here):
Until two years ago, I had no idea that anything was broken.
I believed in the justice system, although I knew it had its faults.
A chance meeting with someone who believed that a family member was a victim of a miscarriage of justice was to change all that.
Excerpt from page xiii of Introduction of Sandra Lean’s first discredited book NoSmoke: The Shocking Truth About British Justice
Which suggests P Hughes claim on Sandra Lean’s About section of her website where PHughes stated “Since 2002 Sandra has felt compelled to help innocent victims” is another bare faced lie.
Tap on the button below to read more on Sandra Lean’s “until two years ago” statement;
Sandra Lean & Stephanie Bon & The Stolen Items From Zenith Windows
Stephanie Bon
It is thought Sandra Lean came into contact with Stephanie Bon during Stephanie’s fraudulent public relations spin campaigning for actual, factual guilty killer Simon Hall.
Stephanie Bon is referred to throughout this blog series, the index for which can be found by tapping on the button below;
It is not known if Stephanie Bon ever told Sandra Lean about the stolen items from the Zenith windows burglary, which killer Simon Hall took to Stephanie’s house in Colchester on Monday the 17th of December 2001.
It is also not known if Stephanie Bon ever spoke to Sandra Lean about her relationship with Simon Hall, and of any, or all, of the details regarding the Christmas family meal in Lincolnshire.
Tap on each of the buttons below to read more about the Zenith windows burglary and the Hall family Christmas meal in Lincolnshire;
Sandra Lean & Fraudster & Convicted Criminal Stephen T Manning
In 2007 Private Eye Magazine (Edition 1202) published an article headed Diggory Pockery which referred to Sandra Lean and Stephen T Manning. who was referred to here as ‘the evil liar”.
Fraudster and convicted criminal Stephen T Manning was named in the article by one of his many pseudonym’s Jack Havana.
Below is a copy of the Private Eye article;
Stephen T Manning stated of Sandra Lean’s first discredited book;
Sandra Lean’s NO SMOKE offers a vitally-important contribution to British social awareness.
Stephen T Manning
Already the subject of much debate within the judicial system, this book reviews seven specific real-life cases and in doing so exposes some truly shocking practices within the UK justice system.
The cases are exhaustively researched and documented in an easy-to-read contemporary style, and the conclusions presented in an articulate and professional format.
Review copies have been highly praised, and the book has already been recommended by sitting judiciary as an insightful (if rather disturbing) guide to the inner workings of British justice.
Sandra Lean’s book was not “exhaustively researched” as Stephen T Manning claimed because Sandra never had access to all the case files.
Sandra Lean did not attend any of the murder trials of any of the 7 killers she wrote about in her book.
In the case of actually, factually guilty killer Simon Hall, Sandra Lean relied on media articles and the word of liars like Stephanie Bon and the Hall family members (Lynne, Phil, Simon and Shaun).
There is also no evidence anywhere that Sandra Lean’s book was “recommended by sitting judiciary”.
This was yet another bare faced lie.
Jodi Jones killer’s mother also attempted to suggest something similar in April 2010 on an Internet forum here.
Liar Corinne Mitchell stated in part;
It also comes recommended by the c.c.r.c.!.
Sandra received an e~mail from a female saying the c.c.r.c. had recommended her book and could she get a copy.
Corinne Mitchell – 9th of April 2009
Someone contacted the CCRC (criminal cases review commission) around the same time to ask if Sandra Lean’s book had been recommended by them and their reply (Which can be read here) is reproduced in part below:
I asked:
“Could you please tell me if CCRC recommends a book named No Smoke by Sandra Lean to its clients?”
The answer to your question is no, the Commission does not recommend this book to its applicants.
Justin Hawkins
Stephanie Bon commented underneath Stephen T Manning, stating in part;
Justice 4 Simon, Justice for all
Miscarriages of justice are happening all around us, everyday, it’s fact!!
Sandra Lean eloquently explores various areas of the legal system and details a few cases amongst so many others.
The current British legal system does not allow people to maintain their innocence without paying the price:- bullying and abuse, “psychological reports” claiming an “in denial” attitude and refusal to admit guilt therefore take responsibility for their actions ending ultimately with no chances of parole.
DON’T make the mistake of thinking that you can rely on the system to put things right, you will be waiting a very long time.
Thank you Sandra for your hard work (sic)
Stephanie Bon
As stated in Part 17here manipulative killers who falsely claim to be innocent and who choose to launch fraudulent public relations spin campaigns, utilise a plethora of psychological tactics like coercive persuasion, the illusory truth effect and gaslighting to help promote their propaganda – as do many of their enablers.
It was not only the ruthless lies and deception of Joan Albert’s killer Simon Hall that allowed his innocence fraud to begin and continue on for as long as it did.
It was also because he was enabled by many other deceptive people, including charlatan and fraudster Sandra Lean.
Joan Albert’s Killer. Photograph of Simon Hall taken whilst at large and wanted by Suffolk police for a sexually motivated murder
The mechanism by which ideas are disseminated on a large scale is PROPAGANDA, in the broad sense of an organised effort to spread a particular belief or doctrine
Essentially propagandists use media such as magazines, newspapers, radio the internet and video to manipulate the masses into accepting or conforming to a certain idea
The lies, deceit and propaganda of killer Simon Hall, the Hall families lies, deceit and propaganda, Stephanie Bon, Jamie Barker, Phoebe Grant’s, and all the other people who chose to lie and deceive, took on a life of their own from the beginning and mutated over time.
Their lies, deceit and propaganda had many unsuspecting individuals wrongly believe it possible someone else committed the murder of Joan Albert.
Killer Simon Hall’s innocence fraud public relations campaign lasted for around eleven and a half years.
It wasn’t until the 5th November 2012 before actual, factual guilty killer Simon Hall’s then wife Stephanie (Hall) learned Simon Hall and many other people had lied.
And some people had also attempted to pervert the course of justice and committed perjury during the February 2003 trial.
These lies included Simon Hall’s movements during the time period leading up to when he chose to commit his murder of Joan Albert and of many other facts they had chosen to keep to themselves and lie to others about.
Jamie Barker & His Previous Employers Zenith Windows
For exampleJamie Barker did not want people to know about his and his “work colleague” Simon Hall’s burglary of Zenith Windows.
Zenith windows had been Jamie Barker and Phoebe Grant’s previous place of employment.
More on the Zenith windows burglary can be read by tapping on each of the buttons below;
Three days after killer Simon Hall was found guilty for his murder of Joan Albert, a media article was published under the header He didn’t kill Joan – he was with me.
The article included statements made by Jamie Barker, who had chosen to speak publicly via a journalist.
Some of Jamie Barker’s statements have been reproduced below;
By the time I went out I’d started to sober up a bit.
I had to stand up in court and draw a map of where we went
Jamie Barker
I could remember that well enough and I can remember getting into his car, so I can’t have been that drunk
If he dropped me at home at 5.30am and he got in at 6am like his mum says then he couldn’t have killed her.
He wouldn’t have had time
It all seems to have been down to the fibres as far as I can tell and his mum was a friend of the old lady, so she would have been in and out of the house
He was always a good laugh behind the bar and a great worker, although his time-keeping left a bit to be desired
I was just in total shock when I heard the verdict.
If it had been a fight that had gone wrong, then maybe
It’s been nine months of hell.
I was never told by police why things were happening
We had forensics all over the house and we didn’t know why
My mum was shaken even when we got to Norwich and then the first thing they came out with was ‘What was it like when the forensics descended on your house?’
She just broke down, but I couldn’t speak to her because I’d just given my evidence.
Actual, factual guilty murderers like Simon Hall, who choose to pretend they are innocent and who use various manipulative and deceptive tactics in an attempt to dupe others can be skilful at impression management and so can some of their enablers – like Jamie Barker as one example.
Impression management refers to the goal-directed conscious or unconscious attempt to influence the perceptions of other people about a person, object, or event by regulating and controlling information in social interaction.
Generally, people undertake impression management to achieve goals that require they have a desired public image.
This activity is called self-presentation.
In sociology and social psychology, self-presentation is the conscious or unconscious process through which people try to control the impressions other people form of them
It is not known if Jamie Barker told his mother Angela Barker about his burglary of Zenith windows prior to Simon Hall’s February 2003 trial.
However by Jamie Barker choosing to publicly make the claim he “didn’t know why” police forensics officers were “all over the house” was false, misleading and highly deceptive.
When Jamie Barker made the false, misleading and deceptive public claim “We had forensics all over the house and we didn’t know why”, he was practicing self presentation by attempting to influence the perceptions of other people by “regulating” and controlling the information he chose to disclose.
Jamie Barker was the last person to see Simon Hall before Simon chose to commit his murder of Joan Albert.
Jamie Barker also told the journalist he spoke with;
But an old lady being stabbed to death – that’s just sick
Jamie Barker
By choosing to omit the facts of his burglary of Zenith windows to Suffolk police and subsequently to the February 2003 jury, Jamie Barker was able to control the impression other people formed of him.
Although Jamie Barker referred to the murder of Joan Albert as “just sick”, he seemingly did not appear to deem the act “sick” enough to tell the police and the trial jury the truth about his and killer Simon Hall’s burglary.
In May 2005 there was another media article published by Nic Risby for the BBC which also included comments by Jamie Barker.
And again Jamie Barker chose to say nothing about his and Simon Hall’s burglary of Zenith window.
Instead Jamie Barker appeared to want to cause confusion and create doubt regarding killer Simon Hall’s ability to drive on the morning of Sunday the 16th of December 2001 and of the time Simon had dropped Jamie Barker home to Myrtle Road in Ipswich on that morning.
Jamie Barker even appeared to choose to introduce the fallacy that killer Simon Hall had changed his clothes after his murder of Joan Albert and had driven back from her home to his parents Lynne and Phil Hall’s home;
BBC News has also spoken to Jamie Barker, the last man to see Hall, before he is said to have killed Mrs Albert.
At the trial, police said Hall had murdered her at some point between 0530 and 0615 GMT – the only time period when Hall did not have an alibi.
Mr Barker, 24, said Hall dropped him off at Myrtle Road, Ipswich, some time between 0530 and 0545 GMT.
He said Hall would not have had time to then drive the nine miles to Capel St Mary (a roughly 20 minute drive), climb over fences, break into the house, murder Mrs Albert, climb back and change his clothes before driving back to his parent’s home in Capel for 0615 GMT.
He said that because Hall, who had a previous conviction for violence, had been drinking he was driving quite slowly at “about 20mph” which meant the journey may have taken longer than 20 minutes.
“There is no possible way, given the timings, that it could have happened that way”
Because Jamie Barker chose to lie to Suffolk police and during his evidence in the February 2003 trial, the jury did not have any information about Jamie and Simon Hall’s burglary or of where the stolen items had ended up.
Killer Simon Hall and burglar Jamie Barker conspired to not admit to their burglary, similarly to how all those people who Simon told about his burglary also conspired and colluded with each other.
It is not clear from Nic Rigby’s May 2005 BBC article when Jamie Barker became aware of Simon Hall’s previous convictions for violence.
It is also not known if Jamie Barker chose to lie about his and Simon Hall’s burglary because he may have been influenced by someone.
It’s very possible Simon Hall or one of the Hall family members (Lynne, Phil or Shaun), Stephanie Bon or Jamie Barker’s friend Phoebe Grant (or someone else) told Jamie that Simon Hall had previous convictions for violence and that Suffolk police suspected Simon was responsible for murdering Joan Albert.
Killer Simon Hall told representatives from the criminal cases review commission (CCRC) in April 2013 the Zenith Windows burglary had been Jamie Barker’s idea.
Again excerpts from the CCRC’s transcript read;
Celia Sophal: Whose idea was it?
Simon Hall: I am 99% sure that Jamie opened the window of Zenith Windows. I wouldn’t do that sort of thing. Nor him; but he had knowledge. I don’t know what made him do it. We weren’t thinking straight. We had been out drinking since 7.30 the night before.
Celia Sophal: Did either of you say anything?
Simon Hall: I remember Jamie Barker complaining about Zenith Windows, saying he had worked there. He called the bosses ’wankers’. That could have been the inspiration.
Celia Sophal: Do you remember what the window opened into?
Simon Hall: The window we went in by was the telesales office.It was the main room as you go into Zenith Windows off the street.
Celia Sophal: Who did what?
Simon Hall: I think we kind of split up inside the office and had a look around, looking in drawers and that.
Celia Sophal: Independently?
Simon Hall: Yes there was no chit chat. We just grabbed and picked things up in there independently.
Celia Sophal: Do you remember the locker?
Simon Hall: It was about a metre tall. I remember shaking the locker and thinking there was something in it. It was locked away so I thought it could be something good.
Celia Sophal: What happened to the locker?
Simon Hall: We went to the Woolpack. After this I put everything (all 4 CD players and the locker) in the back of my car.Jamie had none of it. I parked up my car. We had a family meal on the Sunday and I don’t think I took the stuff out until Monday.I had been to work to ask for some time off to look after my Mom because she was in bed poorly;upset (about the murder). I took it out of the car and went to the garage to get some tools to open the locker.To my surprise, when I got it open there was nothing in it, just a piece of metal inside doing all the banging. It was just a grey locker with nothing distinctive on it.
Celia Sophal: How long were you in Zenith Windows again?
Simon Hall: We were only in Zenith Windows for 10 minutes at the most
Celia Sophal: Had you been in Zenith Windows before?
Simon Hall: No. Jamie worked there. I didn’t have any other connection with Zenith Windows (apart from Jamie). I had no reason to go there. My girlfriend Phoebe worked at Zenith at some stage but I’m not sure when that was. I had no reason to go there
Celia Sophal: Had you done anything like that before?
Simon Hall: Not me. I had no need to do it. I had previous for fighting, not theft
Celia Sophal: How did you feel when you were in there?
Simon Hall: I remember it was a little bit exciting when we went into Zenith. It was scary at times as well. Like when you know you are doing something wrong. I don’t remember any conversation with Jamie about it. I had never done anything like that before
Celia Sophal: What happened to the locker?
Simon Hall: I disposed of the locker in a skip in the works car park – State Chemicals. I threw the pieces of the locker in there
Celia Sophal: And the CD players?
Simon Hall: I offered the CD players to Stephanie Bon and her brother
Celia Sophal: What did they say?
Simon Hall: They wanted to know where they came from. I’m not sure what I said; probably said that they fell off the back of a lorry. They took the CD players
Celia Sophal: Did they pay for them?
Simon Hall: No. I gave them to them. I didn’t want or need them and they didn’t give me any money
Some excerpts from an article published on the day killer Simon Hall was found guilty for his murder of Joan Albert are reproduced below;
Hall, dressed in a pink shirt and a black suit, took a deep breath as the jury foreman told the judge that at least ten jurors had agreed on a verdict.
When he uttered the word “guilty” the court erupted with wails and sobs from Hall’s family.
The judge waited for a minute until the noise died down, while Hall looked stunned in the dock.
He put his head in his hands, then looked up and shook his head as his inconsolable mum collapsed into the arms of her family.
Mrs Justice Rafferty asked if anyone would like to leave the court and offered Mrs Hall a glass of water.
Prosecutor Simon Spence revealed that Hall had previously been sentenced to a total of 17 months at a young offenders’ institute for assault causing actual bodily harm and wounding.
He was sentenced at Bury St Edmund’s Crown Court in June 1997.
He said the assault conviction, which had incurred eight months of the sentence, had happened when Hall approached a young man called Martin Russell in McDonalds in Ipswich, pushed him and asked:
“What’s all this about your dad accusing me of doing it in his car?”
The victim was left with cuts to his ear needing two stitches, a grazed chin and a cracked tooth on January 13, 1997.
Mr Spence added that on January 6, 1997, Hall lay in wait for a man called Stefan Bell outside a doctor’s surgery in Ipswich.
He went up and said hello, then for no reason punched him in the face and continued kicking him when he fell to the ground, while a co-defendant hit him over the head with a bottle.
There is no doubt that actual, factual guilty killers like Simon Hall and their deceitful enablers ie; family members, friends, girlfriends and other people like “work colleague” Jamie Barker, can and do go to great lengths, and for many years at a time (sometimes decades), to lie, deceive and manipulate others in order to avoid detection, judgment and face the consequences of their own actions.
Helen Pitcher is the current chairman of the criminal cases review commission (CCRC).
Helen was first appointed as chairman on the 1st November 2018 as can be read here, and was reappointed as chairman in 2021 as can be read here.
Excerpts reads;
The Ministry of Justice has confirmed the reappointment of Helen Pitcher in her role as Chairman at the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) – the independent body responsible for investigating possible miscarriages of justice.
The reappointment, approved by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, takes Helen into her second term and fourth year at the helm of the CCRC.
Chief Executive, Karen Kneller warmly welcomed the appointment as the Commission marks its 25th anniversary next year.
“Huge congratulations to Helen from all of us here at the CCRC. We are delighted that the term for this role has extended from three years to five after we sought to lengthen it.
“Helen is not only our Chairman but is very much part of the fabric of our organisation, bringing invaluable and unrelenting consistency and experience to the role in the quest to investigate possible miscarriages of justice”.
The CCRC made the decision to refer Simon Hall’s conviction to his murder of Joan Albert to the court of appeal on the 14th of October 2009, based on what they claimed was “new evidence relating to fibre evidence”.
Photograph of Simon Hall taken whilst at large and wanted by Suffolk police for his sexually motivated murder of Joan Albert
CCRC Commissioners Jim/James England, Julie Goulding & Euan Smith
The three CCRC commissioners who made the decision were Jim (James) England who had been chief crown prosecutor for West Mercia,Julie Goulding a trained nurse, solicitor and former NHS chief executive and Ewen Smitha criminal defence solicitor.
The three of them had been appointed as commissioners three years earlier, as can be seen here.
According to the CCRC;
Anyone convicted in the criminal courts of England, Wales or Northern Ireland, or in the Court Martial or Service Civilian Court, who believes they have been wrongly convicted or sentenced, can apply to have their case reviewed.
Applicants usually need to have exhausted the normal appeal process before approaching us.
It is our role to review cases and to identify any new factors which might shed light on the safety of the conviction or the correctness of the sentence.
The Commission considers cases impartially and employs people with a wide variety of skills and experience, including lawyers and investigators, to carry out this task.
In the course of a case review we may interview new witnesses or re-interview people involved in the original case.
We may also commission new expert reports or arrange fresh forensic tests such as DNA profiling.
The Criminal Appeal Act 1995 which created the Commission provided us with the power to obtain documents and information from any public body in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
In addition to basic material from court and prosecution files, there are times when we need to obtain other material such as medical records or files from social services or other agencies.
Sometimes we also need to look at defence files or obtain material from private companies or individuals and will seek their co-operation in providing their records.
During this period, staff at the Commission will usually start work on the case by obtaining some of the papers that are required for a review such as the prosecution files and judgments from the trial and the original appeal.
The Commission’s casework is carried out by Case Reviewer Managers and Commissioners who are chosen for their experience and skill in relevant areas.
When a review is complete we will consider, in light of everything that is known about the case, whether there is anything that raises a “real possibility” that the appeal court would quash the conviction or reduce the sentence if we referred it.
Whenever a referral seems possible, a committee made up of three Commissioners will meet to consider the case and decide whether or not to make a referral.
When a referral is made, the relevant appeal court must hear the case.
It is for the court to decide whether or not the conviction should be quashed or the sentence reduced.
The Commission’s decision about whether or not to refer a case is communicated to the applicant and his or her legal team or designated representative in a document called a Statement of Reasons.
This sets out in detail the Commission’s analysis of the case and the reasons for its decision.
The CCRC’s 2010/11 annual report and accounts, which included a reference to their referral to the court of appeal of Simon Hall’s conviction to his murder of Joan Albert read;
There is no doubt that the way in which expert evidence is presented to juries, and the weight that is attached to it, will become an increasingly important feature in appeals.
In this respect, we have found it helpful to be able to share knowledge and experience with the Forensic Science Regulator and his staff who have offices within our building.
Examples of the ways in which expert evidence has come before the Court this year as a result of Commission referrals include:
* methods of comparing fibres (R v Hall [2011] EWCA Crim 4)
The CCRC’s October 2009 statement or reasons highlighted at their paragraph 16 just one of what they viewed to be a “central” aspect to the prosecutions case, as per screenshot below;
Although the CCRC did make reference to Lynne Hall’s “reliability” at their paragraph 225;
Cherry Picking
The CCRC chose to cherry pick at the prosecutions closing speech and magic away the Hall families concocted evidence, which again Graham Parkin stated was woven into the general framework of the case;
Now Simon Hall was wrong in our submission when he said that this case is all about those fibres.
True it is that the finding of fibres is central to the prosecution case and of course without them there would be no case.
But it doesn’t rest simply on your assessment and your decision based on those fibres in Mrs Cunnison’s evidence.
No it does not. In fact I’ll go so far as to say this, the prosecution now have more evidence in this case for you to consider than we could ever possibly imagined we were going to have when I stood up to open it to you to outline it to you in other words just over a fortnight ago.
Now members of the jury we did not know nor indeed could we know that Simon Hall’s case was to develop well beyond what he had ever said before.
More particularly during the course of long detailed sensible interviews concluded by police officers in the presence of his solicitor throughout.
We did not know that his defence would include some material, and I’m going to say this, I’ll use the word deliberately and explain to you why I say it in a moment.
We couldn’t know that his case was going to involve material, which has been concocted.
Made up.
If you find it so to be you’ll have to ask yourselves the question why has it.
Because concocted means deliberate and dishonest.
To be woven into the general framework of the case, the general framework of his movements on that particular weekend of his lifestyle and those of his family generally. It is a serious submission that I make to you.
That Simon Hall aided by members of his family his rehearsed story, which they know in important parts not to be true.
He’s done it for an obvious reason the Crown say to escape proper justice.
To stave a conviction for murder.
Others in his family have done it for a perfectly understandable reason, wrong though it is in the result. Perfectly understandable isn’t it?
Mrs Hall said as you would have expected to, they can’t she can’t begin to believe that he Simon could do the thing which he is accused of. And I’ll add to that what mother could?
Excerpts from the prosecutions closing speech by Graham Parkin (starting at the bottom of page 16 continuing onto page 17 here)
Simon Spence For The Crown Prosecution Service & The Three Court Of Appeal Judges
Simon Spence
Again, it is not known why Simon Spence on behalf of the crown prosecution service seemingly conceded with the CCRC in 2009/10 in relation to the fibre evidence.
It is also not known why three court of appeal judges (Lord justice Pitchford, Mrs justice Dobbs and Mr justice Kenneth Parker) would also be seen to magic away other central features of the original prosecutions case.
The court of appeal judges went on to state in their January 2011 judgement (at paragraph 3 and 5 respectively);
Before we embark upon a consideration of the evidence and argument adduced at this appeal we shall describe in summary the prominent features of the circumstantial evidence at trial
The Crown acknowledged that the central feature of its case against the appellant was the evidence of fibre analysis
Excerpts from January 2011 court of appeal judgement here
October 2009 Statement of Reasons
A copy of the CCRC’s statement of reasons of why they referred actual, factual guilty killer Simon Hall’s murder conviction to the court of appeal has been published here.
INNOCENCE FRAUD WATCH 