Category: Angela Barker

Killer Simon Hall: Bristol University’s Innocence Fraud Groomer Michael Naughton, Kar Khange, Christmas Fairy Lights, Night Of Friday 14th December, Argument Over Family Meal At Stoke Rochford & More Questions For Stephanie Bon & Lynne & Phil Hall – Part 19d©️

Michael Naughton

Stephanie Bon

Following the break up of our relationship Simon did collect all his belongings.

Excerpt from Stephanie Bon’s police witness statement dated 4th September 2002

Again, it is still not known on what date exactly Simon Hall collected “all his belongings” from Stephanie Bon’s home in Colchester, Essex.

Stephanie Bon Photo courtesy of DailyMail
Lynne Hall
Phil Hall

Where Did Simon Hall Sleep On Friday 14th December 2001?

Is is also still not known where Simon Hall slept on the night of Friday the 14th and where exactly Matt (Matthew) W picked Simon up from to go and collect his new Audi motor vehicle, which Simon had been to view with his girlfriend Stephanie Bon “the previous Wednesday the 12th December at a garage known as Haverhill Kar Khange”.

Killer Simon Hall stated;

Having seen the car on that day I had agreed to purchase it and collect it the following Saturday the 15th.

I could not have collected it on the Wednesday as Stephanie does not drive and whoever took me over to pick up the car needed to be able to drive themselves back

Excerpts from pages 1 and 2 of Simon Hall’s Proof of evidence statement

Matt W confirmed he had picked Simon Hall up on the morning of Saturday the 15th December, in order for them to collect Simon’s new Audi motor vehicle.

Simon Hall had already paid for the car on the Wednesday, when he viewed it with Stephanie Bon.

However Matt W did not mention in his statement where exactly he picked Simon up from ie; Simon’s adoptive parents Lynne and Phil Hall’s home in Capel St Mary or his girlfriend Stephanie Bon’s home in Colchester – or somewhere else.

Christmas Fairy Lights

Lynne Hall told Suffolk police that Joan Albert had bought Lynne some Christmas fairy lights, although it’s not clear based on Lynne’s statement on what date exactly Lynne collected the Christmas lights.

It is also not clear from Lynne Hall’s police statement on what date her adoptive son Simon had allegedly “put them up in the bush outside” Lynne’s kitchen window, or if he ever really did.

Lynne Hall stated;

I remember that Joan bought me some Christmas fairy lights from the Co-op in Capel, she actually paid for them and told me that I had to collect them.

I collected them and Simon put them up in the bush outside my kitchen window

Excerpt from Lynne Hall’s police witness statement dated the 25th of July 2002
Example of outdoor Christmas fairy lights

Two days after her adoptive sons murder of Joan Albert, referring to the Friday evening (14th of December) Lynne Hall stated to Suffolk police;

The last time I actually saw Joan was on Friday evening, the fourteenth of December.

I waved to her at about 8.10am as I went to work to catch the bus.

I always used to check that she was up and Rusty was in the window.

I came home after work. I got the 5.40, number 93 bus, from the Buttermarket in Ipswich.

That usually gets me into the village at between 6.15 and 6.20pm.

I was already carrying shopping. My own and some that I had done for her. I also had Phil’s Christmas present.

It was a device that turned a bath into a spa bath.

I got off the bus and went into the Co-op and got a few items. I then went straight to Joan’s.

I was feeling ill just starting to come down with a bug.

I popped in intending to be quick, it was not usual for me to go in if I did not take Rusty out because he would get so excited.

We talked about the Christmas lights that she had bought me from the Co-op because some of them were not working.

Joan actually phoned me not long after I got home, it takes me maybe 5 minutes to get back.

All she actually wanted to know was if I Simon (sic), our son, had checked the lights.

Excerpt’s from Lynne Hall’s police witness statement dated Tuesday the 18th December 2001 (Read more excerpts in Part 4 here)

Although Lynne Hall mentioned the Christmas lights to the police, along with Simon’s name, Lynne did not actually state she had seen Simon on the Friday night or whether or not there were any plans for Lynne to see Simon that night.

Plus Lynne Hall only mentioned seeing her husband Phil Hall who had allegedly had a work colleague of his with him when Lynne got back home from visiting Joan Albert.

Lynne Hall stated;

Phil was at home with a colleague and he left just after 6.50pm and I had not even taken my coat off

Excerpt from Lynne Hall’s police witness statement dated Tuesday the 18th December 2001

Argument Over Christmas Meal At Stoke Rochford

It is therefore not clear whether or not Simon and his then girlfriend Stephanie Bon (and Lynne and Phil Hall) had argued on the Friday about there allegedly not being “enough room at the table”, at the pre arranged Christmas family meal up in Lincolnshire.

Stoke Rochford Hall, Grantham, Lincolnshire

It is also not known on what date exactly Stephanie Bon questioned “whether the relationship was worth continuing with”, as Stephanie had stated to the police.

Also not known is if the real reason for Stephanie Bon to question whether or not her relationship with Simon Hall was “worth continuing with” was due to Stephanie not being able to attend the family Christmas meal at Stoke Rochford, or if it was because of something else.

Shaun Hall older brother of Simon Hall

Unless Stephanie Bon had learned after all that there was “enough room at the table” because Shaun Hall and his girlfriend Leigh had pulled out at the last minute following “an argument”, due to their son having only recently been released from hospital.

Shaun Hall told police;

During the weekend of the 15th, 16th December 2001 I recall working overtime at my place of employment from about 8am – 1pm on Saturday 15th December 2001

I further recall having an argument with my girlfriend Leigh when I got home, in relation to a planned family visit to Lincolnshire the next day. Leigh and X were due to travel with my parents, Simon and I for a family reunion with my mothers side of the family

However X was ill and Leigh was refusing to let him travel as a result of this

I was upset about this, as my mothers parents had not seen X before

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

And Leigh, Shaun Hall’s then girlfriend, told the police;

Further to my previous statement I wish to add that on Saturday the 15th of December 2001, I believe I remained at my parents address of (redacted) with my young son X who had been quite ill and only released from hospital on the previous Thursday.

On 16th December 2001, we were all meant to be attending a large family meal but, due to X being ill, Shaun and I remained at home

Excerpt’s from Leigh Marshall’s police witness statement dated 27th August 2002

Although this still would not explain why Stephanie Bon would have questioned “whether the relationship was worth continuing with” because according to Stephanie Bon’s police statement, it was Lynne Hall who lied about there not being “enough room at the table”, not Simon.

Although it is possible Simon Hall had never asked Lynne about bringing his girlfriend along.

Again Stephanie Bon’s evidence was;

On Saturday the 15th of December 2001 I remember being at home in Colchester with my brother and old flat mate, Lionel *****, who lived at the house for a year.

We remained in all night and I clearly remember this time, as I was meant to be going to a family meal the following day.

On the Sunday Simon was off for a meal with relatives and asked me to go along as well. I instantly agreed, looking forward to meeting the rest of the family but, unfortunately Simon did not get around to asking his mum until it was too late.

By the time Simon asked Lynne, there was not enough room at the table and I was unable to go along

This had annoyed me and I remember questioning whether the relationship was worth continuing with.

I believe Simon said he was going out with some friends on the Saturday night, although I am not sure

Excerpts from Stephanie Bon’s police witness statement dated 4th September 2002

Link to Part 19e here

Killer Simon Hall: When Will Bristol University’s Michael Naughton Address His Innocence Fraud, Heather Mills, Private Eye Magazine, The Higham Burglary Which Was Formally Linked To Series Of Antique Thefts, John M Collins Jr, Mark Godsey, Ohio Innocence Project, David Protess, Northwestern University & Psycho Killer & Gang Member Anthony Porter – Part 19a©️

Michael Naughton

Femicide or feminicide is described as a hate crime broadly defined as “the intentional killing of women or girls because they are female”.

Killer Simon Hall’s sadistic ‘lust’ type murder of Joan Albert appears to have been associated to his covert and misogynistic hatred towards females.

The November 2009 Private Eye article (Referred to in Part 19 of this blog series here) did not address femicide or why someone would choose to murder Joan Albert and instead included the following statements;

In fact there is another crucial piece of evidence which points to Hall’s innocence.

It had been buried in a mass of unused material, handed over to Hall’s defence team just days before his trial, and it has recently been unearthed by law students working on Bristol University “Innocence Project”.

The students found a statement from a care worker who looked after an elderly man living 10 minutes away from Mrs Albert in Capel St Mary and who was also the victim of a burglary on the night Mrs Albert was stabbed.

The care worker reported that immediately after the burglary she noticed that two kitchen knives she regularly used to prepare meals had gone missing.

Later, when shown a picture of the murder weapon, she identified it as “similar to the one stolen.

It appears to have the same colour handle and length of blade.

It also has the same rivets on the handle”.

The students also found a “schedule of unused material” which showed that DNA was recovered from the knife from ‘more than one person’ but “the results are believed to be of no practical use”.

Could this be because, just like the fingerprints found above Mrs Albert’s body, footprints found in the garden and DNA on her body, it didn’t match Hall’s?

If if is established that the murder weapon was, as the care worker believed, stolen during the other house raid, it proves Hall could not possibly have been the killer.

Excerpts from page 29 of Heather Mills article for Private Eye magazine published on the 13th of November 2009 (Edition number 1249)
Photo of Heather Mills from Private Eye magazine from 2011 here

‘Shady’ & Malicious Manipulation, Distraction Tactics & Lies

Prior to Private Eye magazines publication of their insensitively headed article A Stab in the dark, Michael Naughton received a copy of the criminal cases review commissions October 2009 statement of reasons (SoR), which again can be read by tapping on the button below;

The Criminal Cases Review Commission’s Statement of Reasons On Their Referral Of Simon Hall’s Murder Conviction To The Court Of Appeal Dated 14th October 2009

Below are excerpts from the bottom of page 34 and top of page 35 of the criminal cases review commissions SoR;

Copies from bottom of page 34 and top of page 35 of the criminal cases review commission statements of reasons here

The Higham burglary, as referred to by the criminal cases review commission, and as noted in the above excerpts from the Private Eye magazine article, “was formally linked to a series of antique thefts” and the “two crimes were not formally linked”.

Furthermore, and as referred to in previous Parts of this ongoing blog series, killer Simon Hall was with his work colleague Jamie Barker until approximately 05:30hrs in Ipswich.

It was then around a 20 minutes to drive from Jamie Barker’s mothers house in Ipswich to Snowcroft, Capel St Mary, where Simon Hall then proceeded to park his car and make his way to Joan Albert’s home located in Boydlands – on foot.

Nothing was “buried in a mass of unused material” as claimed by Michael Naughton and re-stated in the 2009 Private Eye magazine article.

In reality Michael Naughton and his students had either;

  • not read all of the disclosed unused material
  • they had previously missed the statement from a care worker
  • or the content of said statement did not stand out as significant because the Higham burglary had already been “linked to a series of antiques thefts”

Following the exposure of killer Simon Hall’s guilt and the innocence fraud in 2013, Michael Naughton contacted Stephanie (Hall) by telephone.

Michael Naughton was told of many of the numerous disclosures made by killer Simon Hall leading up to and following his eventual admittance to his murderous crime.

Michael Naughton appeared to accept the fact he had been duped and stated at the end of the telephone conversation he “did not want to hear the name Simon Hall again”.

Why The About-Turn?

Years later, in what appeared to be a malicious attempt to continue his own self interested fraudulent public relations campaign, Michael Naughton spoke to a reporter.

The reporter published the following, in respect of the knife killer Simon Hall had used to commit his murder of Joan Albert;

Also, the team of students made a startling discovery before Hall’s confession.

A DNA profile from the murder weapon had not been disclosed at trial.

“I knew this was dynamite”

Michael recounts excitedly.

“I was buzzing and couldn’t sleep for three days.

We knew that we were absolutely onto this”

Excerpts from an article by Alon Aviram for the Bristol Cable headed The working class academic fighting to overturn wrongful convictions dated the 2nd of March 2021

Killer Simon Hall claimed he wore his socks over his hands during his murder of Joan Albert, although it is possible he used a pair of gloves he already had with him.

It is also possible Simon Hall chose to lie about putting his socks over his hands, as referred to in Part 6 (which can be read by tapping on the button below) as if to somehow minimise his premeditated murder and to continue to exert power and control over others.

PART 6 Killer Simon Hall: Power & Control

Circumstantial DNA cannot be dated, although killer Simon Hall was adamant his skin (Hands) did not come into contact with Joan Albert’s kitchen knife and he claimed he did not cut himself during his murder.

It is not known what “fingerprints found above Mrs Albert’s body” Michael Naughton and subsequently Private Eye magazine were referring to or the “DNA on her body”.

As already stated in Part 6 Joan Albert’s body and clothing were tested for “any evidence of direct sexual activity”. None were reported to be found.

So after breaking his own protocols, Michael Naughton and in turn Heather Mills from Private Eye magazine lied in 2009 about the “fingerprints found above Mrs Albert’s body” and “DNA on her body”.

Again, killer Simon Hall claimed he did not touch any doors and the “footprints found in the garden” belonged to Simon Hall, but he had disposed of his black office shoes on the Monday morning of the 17th of December 2001.

When Will Michael Naughton Address His Innocence Fraud?

Excerpts from a December 2010 article for the Barrister Magazine headed Why the conviction of Simon Hall cannot stand which included statements by Michael Naughton and demonstrated yet further evidence of him going against INUK protocols (Which were referred to in Part 19 here) read;

Mr Hall, now aged 33, was convicted solely on the basis of black nylon flock fibres and polyester fibres found in his addresses and vehicles that were claimed by the prosecution expert at trial, Judith Cunnison, to be highly rare and ‘indistinguishable’ from fibres found at the scene of crime and the deceased’s body.

Fibre evidence is regularly used by police forces in the UK and globally to assist in crime scene investigations.

However, as fibres, unlike DNA or fingerprints, cannot provide a positive identification of a suspect, they are rarely used to obtain convictions in the absence of other evidence.

Questioning the way in which fibre evidence was used in Mr Hall’s case, Dr Michael Naughton stated:

“The future use of fibre evidence in criminal trials rests on the judgment of Simon Hall’s appeal. It is of vital importance to the avoidance of convicting the innocent that the conviction is quashed and it is firmly established that it is inappropriate to use fibre evidence alone in light of its inherent shortcomings”

Excerpts from a 13th December 2010 article headed Why the conviction of Simon Hall cannot stand

Killer Simon Hall was not convicted “solely on the basis of black nylon flock fibres and polyester fibres found in his addresses and vehicles” nor was the “fibre evidence” used on its own to convict him!

As already pointed out in previous Parts of this ongoing blog series, Simon Hall was convicted on a wealth of circumstantial evidence which included the lies and concoctions of Simon Hall and the Hall family members (Lynne, Phil and Shaun).

Another Example Of The Innocence Fraud Phenomenon

John M Collins Jr worked as a forensic scientist for around 20 years.

In an article he wrote and published in December 2014 entitled Innocence Fraud’ Demands Prosecutor Vigilance, John Collins referred to having studied overturned convictions for “about 10 years” and stated;

The ends cannot justify the means when the means are fraudulent

John M Collins

John Collins’ warning (above) was posted on a “wrongful conviction” internet website in May 2015, just under a couple of years after Joan Albert’s killer Simon Hall’s innocence fraud and actual, factual guilt to his murder was exposed.

The Wrongful Conviction Blog was set up by Mark Godsey who was once a federal prosecutor in Manhattan, New York City.

Mark Godsey went on to become a co-founder and director of the Ohio Innocence Project in his hometown of Cincinnati and refers to himself here as ‘a leading scholar, attorney and activist in the Innocence Movement’.

John Collins also stated;

I think it’s clear that exonerations can be the result of fraud or misconduct on the part of post-conviction activists and litigators.

How frequently it happens can only be speculated, but recent events in Illinois and North Carolina should serve as a warning that some self-proclaimed righters of wrong will resort to shady tactics to secure the freedom of previously convicted felons

John M Collins Jr (Source here)

One of the events John Collins was referring to was in relation to the killer of teenagers Marilyn Green (19) and Jerry Hillard (18), both of whom were murdered on the 15th August 1982 by a violent, psychopathic gang member called Anthony Porter.

David Protess with his arms and legs wrapped around the actual, factual, guilty psychopathic killer, and violent gang member, of Marilyn Green (19) and Jerry Hillard (18)

John Collins went into many of the details of the innocence fraud phenomenon fiasco, which saw actual, factual, guilty killer Anthony Porter released from prison and “exonerated” and Alstory Simon wrongly convicted and framed for Anthony Porters murderous crimes, in his book Crime Lab Report: An Anthology on Forensic Science in the Era of Criminal Justice Reform.

Film director and producer Shawn Rech also went on to co produce a documentary on this example of innocence fraud and in a June 2015 article called A Murder in the Park’: The Innocence Project That Wasn’t Shawn Rech stated;

..a little bit of digging would have shown any objective observer that the police conducted a clinical, textbook investigation

Shawn Rech

Following actual, factual, guilty killer and innocence fraudster Anthony Porter’s stay of execution Shawn Rech also stated;

This gave a team of Northwestern University journalism undergrads and their crusading professor David Protess, who taught investigative reporting at Northwestern’s Medill School of Journalism and founded the Medill Innocence Project, enough time to re-investigate the case.

What the Northwestern team quickly achieved was nothing short of a miracle.

They found new witnesses, secured an affidavit from an original witness changing his story, and confronted the “real killer,” Alstory Simon, even securing his videotaped confession.

Chicago watched it unfold on the local news.

Every few days there was a new development as Team Northwestern exposed the ineptitude—or worse—of the Chicago Police Department and local prosecutors

By Shawn Rech from an article headed ‘A Murder in the Park’: The Innocence Project That Wasn’t dated June 2015

Link to Part 19b here

Killer Simon Hall: Abuser & Hypocrite Sandra Lean & Her Concealing & Falsifying Lies, Deliberate Manipulation, Smear Campaigns, Gaslighting, Rebranding Of Dangerous Predator’s Into Faux Victims, Toxicity, Triangulation, Projection & Informal Fallacies – Part 18©️  

Sandra Lean

Projections

Sandra Lean published her following projections in 2022;

Diabolicals quite deliberately report inaccurate, misleading, unfair and outright dishonest information and tout it as “truth.”

Diabolicals defend their lies, half truths and inaccuracies, no matter how harmful, even when presented with factual evidence that their information is inaccurate (or worse).

Diabolicals appear to be incapable of separating fact from opinion and often offer personal opinions as fact.

Diabolicals don’t care about grief, distress or privacy.

They will use the grief and distress of devastated families, very often on both sides of the justice debate, simply to further their own aims.

Diabolicals thrive on stirring up hatred and discrimination against their chosen subjects.

They will quite deliberately connect pieces of unrelated information to smear chosen individuals.

Sandra Lean – 18th July 2022

There are different types of lies and liars including (but not limited to) white lies, barefaced lies, lies by omission, lies of exaggeration, lies of minimisation, lies of denial, lies of fabrications, lies of influence, duplicitous lies, character lies, lies of commission and lies by deception and there are compulsive liars, frequent liars, occasional liars, pathological liars, smooth liars, duplicitous liars, deceitful liars, delusional liars, narcissistic liars and habitual liars. 

Guilty innocence fraud killers, and their enablers (like con-artist Sandra Lean), use various types of lies in an attempt to dupe and deceive other people and can erode their targets reality in the process.

Killer Simon Hall lied and used deliberate deflective and manipulative tactics from the point of his murder of Joan Albert, as did many other people throughout his fraudulent public relations campaign, which included Sandra Lean.

Sandra Lean has been mentioned in previous Parts of this blog series and is also mentioned throughout the following ongoing blog series;

Toxic Abuser & Pretend Criminologist Sandra Lean’s Almost 20 Year HOAX PR Campaign & The Innocence Fraud Phenomenon Gravy Train Scam of Psychopathic Teen Killer Luke Mitchell

Charlatan & Fraudster & Her Innocence Fraud Narratives & Informal Fallacies

John M Collins stated (See here);

..with the construction of a compelling innocence narrative.

the passage of time makes it far easier to sell the alternative story as being legitimate

Excerpt by John M Collins Jr from an article for the National District Attorney Association organisation headed The Prosecutor with the byline, ’Innocence Fraud’ Demands Prosecutor Vigilance dated 2014
Screenshot of front cover of Sandra Lean’s 1st discredited book ‘No Smoke’

Sandra Lean’s discredited book No Smoke:The Shocking Truth About British Justice, which included a chapter on Joan Albert’s killer and six other guilty killers, should have been withdrawn from sale with immediate effect from the point killer Simon Hall’s actual, factual guilt was exposed in 2013.

A copy of chapter 5 from Sandra Lean book has been published to this website for study and educational purposes only and can be read by tapping on the button below;

Copy of Chapter 5 From Sandra Lean’s 1st Discredited ‘Smoke & Mirrors’ Book Promoting The Innocence Fraud Phenomenon Of Actually, Factually Guilty Killer Simon Hall

Instead of revising or withdrawing her discredited 1st book No Smoke, Sandra Lean made the following statements around four years later alleging;

I spoke with many people (including others whose cases were mentioned or discussed) about the question of withdrawing the book.

Not one of them wanted the book withdrawn.

There were discussions about possible revisions which would, of necessity, have taken a great deal of time and effort – time and effort that I was not capable of devoting to the matter at that time.

Sandra Lean – 10th of January 2017 here

However by the following year charlatan and con-artist Sandra Lean had found the “time and effort” to write and publish a second innocence fraud book.

Sandra Lean’s above statement was extremely telling and it was also telling in relation to the “many people” she claimed to have spoken with, who’s cases were also “mentioned in the book” – presuming she genuinely spoke with these “many people”.

Concealing & Falsifying Lies

It states here there are “two primary types of lies” concealing and falsifying;

Joan Albert’s killer’s falsified lies were evident by the fact he was actually, factually guilty all along of having committed murder.

Killer Simon Hall’s lies of concealment were evident by both his murder of Joan Albert and his burglary of Zenith windows, among his numerous other lies, some of which have been referred to in previous Parts of this ongoing blog series. The index for which can be read by tapping on the button below;

The Truth Behind Killer Simon Hall & His & His Deceitful Enablers Innocence Fraud Phenomenon Scam

Many of killer Simon Hall’s enablers also chose to lie by falsifying and concealment, including about the Zenith windows burglary and of the stolen items – along with many other events.

Their motivations to lie would have most probably varied.

For example Jamie Barker may have chosen to lie because he may have regretted his criminal actions.

It is possible Jamie Barker did not want people to know what he had done in the early morning hours of Sunday the 16th of December 2001 while he was with Simon Hall, and Jamie’s reason for not telling Suffolk police about his burglary may have been through fear of what the consequences may have been for him.

Sandra Lean knew about the Zenith Windows burglary by the 3rd of February 2013 because she confirmed this via an email she sent, which included the following;

While I appreciate that fighting a MOJ is an uphill struggle, and a steep learning curve, there are some “mistakes” which cannot be explained as ignorance, enthusiastic but misguided belief, or any of the other well trodden routes most people take on their journey towards justice. 

Sandra Lean – 3rd February 2013

This was another point in time when Sandra Lean, who refers to herself as a criminologist, might have considered withdrawing her book No Smoke.

Instead Sandra Lean did not seem to care about the fact Joan Albert’s killer and the Hall family members (Lynne, Phil and Shaun) and Stephanie Bon had lied to her by falsifying and concealment about the Zenith Windows burglary and the stolen items.

Sandra Lean was happy to let her deceptive, manipulated and false narrative in No Smoke remain.

Which meant she was happy to lie and mislead anyone who read her book.

In early October 2019 Sandra Lean announced here she had finally contacted her publisher to have No Smoke withdrawn because of what she called ‘one typo’.

Yet just a few pages in to the acknowledgment section of Sandra Lean’s book (Page ix read here) it stated:

Perhaps the saddest realisation is that this book only exists as a result of tragedy.

It arises from the suffering of ordinary people thrust into extraordinary circumstances.

Sandra Lean from No Smoke

Joan Albert’s killer could hardly be described as an “ordinary” person “thrust into extraordinary circumstances”.

During a podcast in 2020 with Sharon Indy Sunshine here (from approximately 30:20) where No Smoke was referred to, Sandra Lean claimed again it had been withdrawn – even though it was still up for sale and people were still buying.

Read Part 5 and Part 7 for more on Sandra Lean’s “one typo” lie by tapping on the buttons below;

PART 5  ‘Dangerous Clowns’ & ‘Confident Ignorance’ 
PART 7 Charlatan Sandra Lean Has Zero Credibility

NOTE: As of 22nd November 2022 Sandra Lean’s 1st discredited book was still for sale.

To date Sandra Lean has never admitted publicly she was wrong in the case and campaign of Joan Albert’s killer Simon Hall.

Read more by tapping on the button below to read Part 13;

PART 13 Unreliable Narrators & Sources 

Sandra Lean was one of the first people Stephanie (Hall) contacted after learning of killer Simon Hall’s suicide in February 2014.

Sandra Lean gave the impression of concern for the situation, but in reality Sandra’s main concern appeared to be for herself and the “ten years” she claimed to have “wasted”.

Her priority appeared to be to inform people on an internet forum here (Who in the main debated various killers and their cases and campaigns) that “Simon Hall was found dead”.

Screenshot of Sandra Lean’s 23rd of February 2014 forum post

It was following this that Sandra Lean said she believed Jodi Jones’ killer Luke Mitchell had a similar type of “twisted reciprocal relationship” with his mother Corinne Mitchell, to which killer Simon Hall appeared to have had with his adoptive mother Lynne Hall.

It was also around this time that Sandra Lean said she thought killer Luke Mitchell was actually, factually guilty like killer Simon Hall turned out to be.

She also said the Mitchell’s had conned her similar to how killer Simon Hall, his family (Lynne, Phil and Shaun) and Stephanie Bon had done.

Conversations were also had about the dysfunctional Hall family dynamics and some of their behaviours, which had been witnessed over the years, among other factors.

Sandra Lean also said she thought they were similar to the dysfunctional family dynamics and behaviours she had witnessed over the years between Jodi Jones’ killer Luke Mitchell and his enabling mother Corinne Mitchell.

Link to Part 18b here

Killer Simon Hall: The Illusory Truth Effect & The Enabling & Empowering Of Highly Manipulative Innocence Fraud Murderers, Psychopathy, Menticide & His Majesty’s Prison & Probation Services (HMPPS) & Monitoring – Part 17©️  

Joan Albert’s Killer.
Photograph of Simon Hall taken whilst at large and wanted by Suffolk police for a sexually motivated murder

Illusory Truth Effect & Gaslighting

In psychology, what is known as the illusory truth effect is a phenomenon in which a listener comes to believe something primarily because it has been repeated so often. 

The illusory truth effect can cause us to become susceptible to the effects of another dangerous form of reality erosion known as gaslighting. 

Deliberate manipulators who gaslight with the intention of eroding your reality and rewriting history tend to use the illusory truth effect to their advantage.

They will repeat falsehoods so often that they become ingrained in the victim’s mind as unshakeable truths.

Excerpts from 50 Shades Of Gaslighting: Disturbing Signs An Abuser Is Twisting Your Reality by Shahida Arabi

Dangerous and manipulative murderers 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.

Some murderers, especially those like Simon Hall will use anything and anyone for self-serving purposes and unfortunately HM prison and probation service do not always adequately assess or monitor cunning and calculated individuals like killer Simon Hall.

Psychopathy, Brainwashing & Psychological Harm

Therefore these types of offenders still pose a great risk of causing psychological harm to people they come into contact with following their convictions, especially those people who are unaware of psychopathy and the varying personality disorders associated with dangerous killers.

Brainwashing (also known as mind control, menticide, coercive persuasion,  thought control, thought reform, and re-education) is the concept that the human mind can be altered or controlled by certain psychological techniques.

Brainwashing is said to reduce its subjects’ ability to think critically or independently, to allow the introduction of new, unwanted thoughts and ideas into their minds, as well as to change their attitudes, values and beliefs.

Mischaracterised Motive To Murder

By the time the case against killer Simon Hall went to trial in February 2003, his murder of Joan Albert had been mischaracterised.

The crown prosecution service proceeded on the basis killer Simon Hall’s motive to his murder of Joan Albert was a burglary gone wrong, as opposed to it being a sexually motivated murder – as it turned out to be.

The term enabler generally describes someone whose behavior allows a loved one to continue self-destructive patterns of behavior.

Enabling usually refers to patterns that appear in the context of drug or alcohol misuse and addiction.

But according to the American Psychological Association, it can refer to patterns within close relationships that support any harmful or problematic behavior and make it easier for that behavior to continue.

It’s not always easy to distinguish between empowering someone and enabling them.

There may be little difference between the two.

Murderers Enabling & Enablers

Numerous people and organisations enabled actually, factually guilty killer Simon Hall to launch, and continue with, his innocence fraud public relations spin campaign following his murder conviction and imprisonment.

One example of this was killer Simon Hall’s adoptive mother Lynne Hall, who a couple of years after her adoptive son Simon had been convicted for his murder publicly claimed;

Lynne Hall

I couldn’t still be living in the same village where all this happened, if I was not convinced my son was innocent

Lynne Hall via Evening star article headed New act appeal tactic for Simon Hall dated 18th April 2005

Lynne Hall chose to lie for over a decade about her knowledge of her adoptive son Simon Hall’s burglary of Zenith windows in Ipswich, which he carried out with Jamie Barker on the morning of Sunday the 16th of December 2001, not long before his murder of Joan Albert.

Tap on button below to read Part 16, which includes reference to the Zenith windows burglary;

PART 16 The Murderer & His & His Deceitful Enablers Propaganda, Self Presentation, Secrets & Lies & The Innocence Fraud Spin Public Relations (PR) Campaign & More On Jamie & Angela Barker & Collusion

Lynne Hall’s concoctions were highlighted by the prosecution during her adoptive son Simon Hall’s trial for his murder.

For example Graham Parkin stated during his closing speech to the jury;

Well members of the jury I’ve dealt with the shoes except in this regard.

Do you remember that very small piece of evidence given by Mrs Hall in what I described and I underline as being an essentially concocted part of this case?

To mislead you away from the truth.

Given she’s been ill up and down during the night all the previous day, she now remembers she said to him as he past through can I clean your tan boots. 6.30am on a Sunday morning do you believe it?

Excerpt from prosecutions closing speech made by Graham Parkin

More on Lynne Hall can be read at Part 7 of this blog series, which can be read by tapping on the button below;

PART 7 Lynne Hall, The Cover Up & Attempting To Rewrite History

Lynne Hall spoke to the BBC following the court of appeals January 2011 decision to uphold her adoptive son Simon Hall’s conviction for his murder of Joan Albert.

On the 14th of January 2011 under the header Simon Hall’s mother vows to ‘fight on there was a video of an interview with Lynne Hall, which now appears to have been removed.

The article which accompanied the video stated;

The mother of a man from Suffolk who lost his murder appeal has said she will fight on.

Simon Hall is serving a life sentence for stabbing 79-year-old Joan Albert at her home in Capel St Mary in 2001.

There was concern over fibres found at her home which linked Hall to the scene but the Appeal Court said there was “no reason” to doubt the conviction.

Mr Hall’s mother Lynne said she would continue to fight to have him freed.

Excerpts from a BBC article headed Simon Hall’s mother vows to ‘fight on’ dated 14th January 2011

It is not known if Lynne Hall (or a representative for Lynne Hall) contacted the BBC to have the video of her being interviewed removed, or if the BBC decided to remove the video or if there was another reason why the video is no longer available to view online.

However following the release of the news Lynne Hall’s adoptive son Simon Hall had confessed to his actual, factual guilt to his murder of Joan Albert the East Anglian Daily Times reported the following;

The mother of Simon Hall today expressed her shock at learning of her son’s murder confession.

But Lynne Hall still maintains her son is innocent of the murder of pensioner Joan Albert in December 2001.

Mrs Hall said:

“I’m absolutely shocked because I know he is innocent and I still believe he is.

“But it’s the system. If he had pleaded guilty in the beginning, he would be home now.

“I know he has been really low and in hospital recently. He’s given up”

Hall’s parents Lynne and Phil Hall and his brother Shaun supported him through numerous appeals which were unsuccessful.

Mrs Hall added:

“I believe he feels he can’t take any more after all the fight he has put up and how brave he has been.

“If that’s his decision, that’s his decision but I will never believe that”.

Excerpts by Lauren Everitt for the East Anglian Daily Times article headed Capel St Mary: Simon Hall’s mother’s shock at his murder confession dated the 8th August 2013 article

In reality killer Simon Hall would NOT have been “home now” and out of prison if he had admitted to his guilt to his murder “in the beginning” as Lynne Hall claimed.

Killer Simon Hall was apparently progressing through the prison system quicker than many life sentenced prisoners and would have been where he was, or in a C-category prison

On the 10th of March 2014, three days before his brother’s funeral, Simon Hall’s older brother Shaun Hall stated to his brother Simon’s former wife;

Shaun Hall

Simon even saw mum recently and told her all about the truth about the confession.

We have access to all of these things..

You never knew the real simon and you never will now..

Shaun Hall

More on Shaun Hall can be read at Part 11 and Part 11a of this blog series by tapping on each of the buttons below;

PART 11 – Shaun Hall: “It’s Family And It’s Personal”, Murder Confession’s, Bare Face Lies & “Controlling Nature”
PART 11a – Shaun Hall: Innocence Fraud, Donations To Keep Website Running, More Confessions, Acting Out Of Character & “Just Remember The Truth Always Comes Out In The End”

Link to Part 17a here

Killer Simon Hall: The Murderer & His & His Deceitful Enablers Propaganda, Self Presentation, Secrets & Lies & The Innocence Fraud Spin Public Relations (PR) Campaign & More On Jamie & Angela Barker & Collusion – Part 16©️   

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

Edward L. Bernays

Secrets & Lies

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 example Jamie 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;

The Zenith Windows Burglary ’Secret’- PART 10
When The Mask Begins To Slip, The Zenith Windows Burglary ‘Secret’, Scott Lomax, David McCorkle & Inside Doubt – PART 10a
The Zenith Windows Burglary ‘Secret’, Jamie Barker, John Curtis & The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) – PART 10b

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.

That was hard

Excerpts from the 3rd March 2003 Evening Star article headed He didn’t kill Joan – he was with me

Jamie & Angela Barker & Self Presentation

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

Charlotte Nickerson ~ Impression Management and Self Presentation

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”

said Mr Barker.

Excerpts from a 19th May 2005 BBC article by Nic Rigby headed New forensic doubts over murder

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.

Excerpts from Tracey Sparling’s Evening Star article headed Life behind bars for Capel killer dated 28th February 2003

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. 

Link to Part 17 here