Category: Cherry picking

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 Luke Mitchell: “Dangerous Clowns” & “Confident Ignorance” – Scammers Sandra Lean & Scott Forbes From “Murder In A Small Town” Propaganda TV Show (Part 5)

NSandra Lean

Scott Forbes
Statement by Scott Forbes


Again, the above statement “No one trashes your name, more than someone who is afraid you will tell the truth” was made by fake lawyer Scott C Forbes, seemingly with the approval of Sandra Lean, and Kathryn Londry an executive director of the Elizabeth Fry society of Kingston, who Scott C Forbes stated had done “months of work, proof reading and restructuring..”.

Sandra Lean

Sandra Lean also appears to be afraid of the “truth”, as referred to by Scott Forbes above.

Stephanie (Hall) who was groomed, conned and exploited by Joan Albert’s killer (And others including Sandra Lean) after meeting him over twenty years ago, has had no direct contact with Sandra Lean since a few months after Joan Albert’s killers inquest.

The last time any direct contact was had by Stephanie (Hall) with Sandra Lean was here in 2017.

On the 9th of February 2021 (which was around two weeks before Sandra Lean appeared in a channel 5 TV show) Sandra Lean stated of Stephanie (Hall) “I wrote her a little poem”.

The TV show promoted the innocence fraud spin of Jodi Jones🌻 killer, and no doubt re-traumatised Jodi Jones🌻 loved ones, and others, in the process.

Sandra Lean chose to publish the following to one of her Facebook social media accounts;

There were 10 comments made under the post, nearly half of which were by Sandra Lean stating;

Sandra Lean’s “poem” was liked 26 times and one of the people who chose to like and comment on Sandra’s post was the mother of the killer of Paul Gerard “PG” McGilvray – Carol Toal who stated;


Joan Albert’s killers actual, factual guilt was exposed and established in 2012/13 respectively (Read here to learn more), and following his suicide his older brother here set up a ‘memorial’ website.

A screenshot of part of the site can be seen in Part 11a of the ongoing Quite A Hall Tale blog series here.

The mother of the killer of Paul Gerard “PG” McGilvray also chose to make a public comment on this ‘memorial’ site back in 2014.

Just over three months after Sandra Lean published her “poem”, she made the following statements in the comment section of one of her videos;

The first book was withdrawn to correct one typo where the wrong name was printed in error and to be updated because some of the people whose cases were featured have since died. But for some people, what they don’t know, they’ll just make up.

The first book was not withdrawn because it was full of lies and mistakes – I already explained that, but I guess you’ll just carry on believing what you want to believe anyway.

If you watched this update, you’ll have heard what I said about confident ignorance – thanks for demonstrating it for people.

I still talk about Susan May, Gordon Park and Simon Hall as well. I didn’t say I stopped talking about them – I said that No Smoke was withdrawn to be UPDATED about their deaths. It really does help if you read my replies properly, otherwise you’re just wasting everyone’s time – including your own.

Sandra Lean via the comments section of her 23rd of May 2021 YouTube video here

The ‘one typo’ Sandra Lean refers to is yet another of Sandra’s bare faced lies!

Sandra Lean’s “one typo” lie will be partly addressed in Part 7 of this blog series, and her first innocence fraud book “No Smoke” will also be addressed in more detail in future parts of The Truth Behind Actual, Factual, Guilty Killer Simon Hall & His & His Deceitful Enablers Innocence Fraud Phenomenon Scam blog series – who Sandra Lean claimed to “still talk about”.

Over several days in June 2021 Scott C Forbes made numerous statements via Twitter, below are a few screenshots of his tweets;


Jodi Jones🌻 killer is locked away in a prison, and Sandra Lean and Scott Forbes cannot debunk Stephanie (Hall’s) arguments, only her character?

“No one trashes your name, more than someone who is afraid you will tell the truth”

Link to Part 6 here

Killer Simon Hall: Michael Naughton, 2005, Bristol University Innocence Project, Innocence Network UK, Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld, Stephanie Bon, Killers Barry George & Michael Stone, Mike Burke/Bourke & “Justice for Barry”, The Illusory Truth Effect, Coercive Persuasion, Gaslighting & Murder Confessions – Part 17g©️

Michael Naughton & Bristol University Innocence Project

Michael Naughton who is referred to in previous Parts of this blog series and who is also mentioned on page 11 of the criminal cases review commissions statement of reasons here (Under the title of UoBIP = university of Bristol innocence project), works at Bristol university and he became involved with actual, factual guilty killer Simon Hall’s innocence fraud spin campaign early on.

Michael Naughton

Michael Naughtin’s online bio here reads in part;

…his work, which specialises on the problem of ‘miscarriages of justice’, with a particular focus on the wrongful conviction and/or imprisonment of factually innocent victims.

Michael Naughton decided to start an innocence project in 2004 the year after he had submitted his PhD thesis, which he chose to call Miscarriages of justice : exception to the rule?

The innocence project, referred to by some people as the innocence ‘fraudject’ due to the high number of guilty killers and rapists it helps free from prison, was based on the American version of the innocence project, co-founded by American lawyers Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld in 1992.

Stephanie Bon

Stephanie Bon

It is not known exactly when Stephanie Bon first made contact with Michael Naughton and if Stephanie, or manipulative killer Simon Hall, wrote to Michael after hearing about the launch of Bristol university’s innocence project.

However a 2005 media story indicated Michael Naughton had been contacted by many killers, including the killer of Jill Dando; serial stalker, rapist and predatory sex offender Barry George, as well as “the family” of sadistic serial killer and psychopath Michael Stone.

Both killers were referred to in Part 17d, which can be read by tapping on the button below;

The Innocence Fraud Of Serial Murderer Michael Stone “..an extremely dangerous man with an appalling record for dishonesty and violence”, His Deluded Sister Barbara Stone, The “Kent Experience” & More On The Illusory Truth Effect, Coercive Persuasion & Gaslighting of Innocence Fraud Killers & Their Deceptive Enablers- PART 17d

2005

Excerpts from the 2005 media story which centred on Michael Naughton and his “frustrations” with the criminal cases review commission (Referred to in Part 15 here) read;

The shelf above Mike Naughton’s desk in Bristol University’s law school is heaving with files of letters from prisoners who claim they were wrongly convicted and want help.

“It shows just how desperate so many people are”

says Naughton, a lecturer in criminal law.

“They have got nobody else to turn to so they are prepared to put their futures in the hands of a project led by university students. It really is quite disturbing”

Naughton’s office has become the bustling nerve centre of the University of Bristol’s Innocence Project which aims to provide free assistance to the victims of miscarriages of justice languishing in prison.

Students have been giving up their free time to sort through the mountain of correspondence.

“They should be out drinking or chasing the opposite sex but they are here getting stuck in” says Naughton

Barry George, the man convicted of killing the television presenter Jill Dando, has written to the project.

Naughton has also had contact with the family of Michael Stone, who has twice been convicted of murdering Lin and Megan Russell and whose latest appeal failed in January.

Many other notorious figures – Naughton will not name names – have been in touch.

Over the coming months and years undergraduates will work with local criminal lawyers, who are giving their time for free, on five cases which they believe stand a chance of being referred to the appeal court.

Naughton hopes that the six-month-old Bristol project will be the first of many to be launched at universities across the UK to create an “innocence network” of students working to free prisoners they believe have been wrongly convicted.

“It’s still very early days but we think there is a gap in the present system which needs to be filled”, he says.

Innocence projects are active in the US, Canada and Australia.

The best known was co-founded in 1992 by Barry Scheck, one of the lawyers who represented OJ Simpson at his trial. 

Excerpts by Steven Morris for the Guardian from his article headed Students to the rescue dated the 14th July 2005

Jill Dando’s Killer Barry George & His Confession To His Murder

Killer, serial stalker, rapist and predatory sex offender Barry George

Like killers Simon Hall and Michael Stone, Barry George used numerous aliases, including the alias Barry Bulsara.

Killer Simon Hall had used the name James Shiperlee, which was noted on his prison files;

Screenshot of Simon Hall’s HMP Wayland prison ’patient’ records

Like killer Simon Hall, killer Barry George was reported to have gone on to admit to his guilt to his murder of Jill Dando, as was reported here and here.

Also like killer Simon Hall’s immediate family members (Lynne, Phil and Shaun Hall) and others, killer Barry George’s uncle Mike Burke and his sister Michelle Diskin Bates chose to deny killer Barry George’s murderous crime and instead made excuses for him, his personality and his behaviours.

Excerpt’s from a 2002 Mirror newspaper story here reported some of killer Barry George’s uncle Mike Burke’s excuses;

Mike Burke (left) photographed alongside fraudster and con artist Surjit Singh Clair

Uncle Mike Bourke (sic) said:

“He was warned people might try and tape his conversations or put words into his mouth. 

“I just don’t think Barry would say anything like this. It is complete fiction. He has been on his guard.” 

Mike, of Co Limerick, Ireland, added:

“He has been a bit depressed lately because he knows a lot hinges on it. But he has done nothing to make his family doubt he is innocent”

However Mike Burke stated in the book he went on to write and publish;

On Sunday April 7th I heard on BBC Radio 4 news that the News of the World had a cassette tape of Barry allegedly confessing to the murder.

I bought the paper and read the story which I found difficult to believe.

It alleged that Barry said to other prisoners

’…because I was the man who committed the murder’.

I phoned the number given and listened to the tape recording which sounded like Barry though the sound quality was very poor.

I had warned him that something like that could happen.

The source of the tape was a by then deported Polish thief who claimed he used his tape recorder to record fellow prisoners’ music

Excerpt by Mike Burke from his book Mike’s Story: Barry George & the Jill Dando murder;

Mike Burke headed up the fraudulent public relations spin campaign to free his murdering, serial stalker and predatory rapist nephew Barry George.

However Mike Burke did state in his book he harboured doubts about his nephew’s behaviour, evidenced by his following statement;

I was again concerned he was trying to threaten me.

This type of behaviour undermined my belief in him

Exceprt from Mike Burke’s book Mike’s Story: Barry George & the Jill Dando murder

2002: Michelle Diskin

In 2002 a Scottish organisation, which was set up by one* of the six IRA terrorists who was convicted for the murders of twenty one people, and injuring 182 people, following two pub bombings, published Barry George’s sister Michelle Diskin’s excuse for her killer brother Barry George having admitted to his murder of Jill Dando.

A screenshot of Michelle Diskin’s published excuse is reproduced below;

Screenshot of ‘Justice for Barry George’ propaganda (The original can be found here)

*Three of the six men who were convicted of the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings admitted to being members of the IRA and also admitted to having planted the bombs.
In 1987 all six men had their murder convictions deemed “unsafe and unsatisfactory” by the court of appeal, but to date all six men have been unsuccessful in proving their innocence.

Similarly to killers Simon Hall and Michael Stone, Mike Burke wrote about a suicide attempt his nephew Barry George had made a couple of months after he was found guilty for his murder of Jill Dando.

On the 16th of September 2001 there was a story published in the Mail on Sunday, and according to Mike Burke here, a prisoner by the name of Daniel Reece had saved killer Barry George from an “alleged hanging attempt”.

Link to Part 17g here

Killer Simon Hall: The Innocence Fraud Of Sadistic Killer Kevin Nunn, The Illusory Truth Effect, Coercive Persuasion, Gaslighting, Stephanie Bon, Ann Craven, Andrew Green, Michael Naughton, Claire McGourlay, The Forensic Institute, Allan Jamieson, Tiernan Coyle & CCTV Stills – Part 17f©️ 

Stephanie Bon, Andrew Green & Michael Naughton

Stephanie Bon wrote the following in September 2006 to Andrew Green, CCing Michael Naughton;

Stephanie Bon

Hello Andrew

I was talking to Michael today about an idea that has been at the back of my mind for a while now..

I have been contacted a quite few times by people in our situation whom I always redirect to you, also people who are interested in volunteering and again, I have referred them to you

I had an email last week from a girl from Suffolk (near me); her brother has been arrested by the same detective as Simon and Michael Heath is also the pathologist for the prosecution… there seems to be a pattern emerging…

As the case is awaiting trial she wasn’t able to give me too much information on it but in her words, everything is circumstantial… Anyway, as I said, I offered my support as always and advised her to contact you and Innocent

I was just wondering if it could be good to perhaps try and organise some kind of family support days, perhaps once a month (or more or less dunno yet), initially, just to support people morally maybe? Who knows we could get a guest once in a while, someone with knowledge, even if just to reassure people that they are not alone. We could pass on Innocent details, promote the Innocence Project and generally show people that there is help out there if you know where to look.

I know that when I started, it took me ages to find you and Ann and it’s thanks to you two, I am here today.

I would hate to know of anyone struggling on their own, been there, done that.. it’s tough.

I know that in our case Simon’s parents are completely lost, have no faith and don’t think that anyone is here to help, I know better and this is why I run the campaign.

If anything was to happen, I would want it to be part of Innocent, not as in you do the work (well I would need some advice of course) but as in, this isn’t something I would do off my own back, it would just be great to see Innocent grown and develop down here, the closest we have is London or Kent which isn’t that near and who knows it may be more accessible.

Like I said above, this is just an idea and I would not go ahead without your blessing or proper advice, it’s just something I thought of and I would very much like your feedback on it.

I have copied Michael in as we discussed this today and he knows that my motivation is not for personal gratification, I just want to help people like I get help everyday, even if I just help facilitate it, I’m not sure how many people would be interested but it’s worth a thought

Excerpts from email correspondence from Stephanie Bon to Andrew Green September 2006

The Innocence Fraud Of Sadistic Killer Kevin Nunn

The girl referred to in Stephanie Bon’s correspondence to Andrew Green was/is a woman, and appears to have been the sister of Dawn Walker’s killer, Brigitte Butcher.

Sadistic killer Kevin Nunn

Sadistic killer and innocence fraudster Kevin Nunn lost his last appeal the year after Simon Hall’s guilt to his murder of Joan Albert was exposed.

The June 2014 supreme court judgement can be read here.

On the first page of the judgement it can be seen that the UK innocence network chose to intervene in Kevin Nunn’s appeal.

An excerpt from a Bristol university school of law article headed Innocence Network UK at the Supreme Court 13 March 2014 reads;

INUK was granted leave to intervene in the matter because of the experience of its member innocence projects in assisting alleged victims of wrongful convictions to make applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC).

The CCRC is the body that reviews alleged miscarriages of justice and refers cases back to the appeal courts if it is felt that there is a real possibility that the conviction or sentence will not be upheld. 

Andrew Green claimed via his twitter bio to be an “expert on criminal cases post trial”.

Screenshot of Andrew Green’s twitter bio

and his Linkedin bio stated he is a case supervisor at the miscarriage of justice review centre based at Manchester university.

Screenshot of Andrew Green’s Linkedin bio

Claire McGourlay & Defunct Innocence Network UK

It was reported here that Claire McGourlay set up the Manchester miscarriage of justice review centre in November 2017.

And a university of Sheffield school of law newsletter regarding Claire McGourlay read;

Claire McGourlay

In October 2007 Claire McGourlay set up the first Innocence Project in South Yorkshire.

She secured funding from the White Rose Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning in Enterprise.

Her objective was to give students a unique insight into this area of criminal justice.

This project utilises a mentored teaching environment to maximise learning opportunities for students, each Innocence Project (IP) is student-led and centres upon research into alleged wrongful criminal convictions.

Students are involved in reviewing real criminal cases giving them a unique insight, and valuable first-hand experience of the criminal justice process.

Some cases where evidence can be accumulated to support a wrongful conviction are referred back to the Courts of Appeal via the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

The students and the School also became part of a wider national body called the Innocence Network UK (INUK) where the students attend training courses about protocols and professional work.

In fact 14 students attended one such training event in Cardiff 24-26 October 2008.

Innocence produces Sheffield Law Graduates more equipped for professional practice and research beyond their studies and makes them more attractive potential employers.

The teams are already working on their first cases comprising two murders, a rape and a serious assault.

On the 15th April 2008 Claire addressed the INUK national meeting ”Working with campaign groups and victim support groups” at which the Attorney General was present and she has also been invited to sit on the first INUK Committee.

On 30 April 2008 the IP students led a session on the benefits of the project to staff at the School Spotlight on learning and Teaching day.

University of Sheffield School of Law December 2008 newsletter

The Forensic Institute, Allan Jamieson, Tiernan Coyle & Fibre Evidence

During the 11th Annual Forensic Research and Teaching (FORREST) Conference, Glasgow, which was held in 2015, Andrew Green gave a presentation called When is Fresh Evidence Fresh and True? the treatment of scientific expert evidence and experts in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division (CACD) of England and Wales.

Screenshot taken from The Forensic Institute website

Bad Science, bad law was also included in a list published by The Forensic Institute for the 2015 conference

Screenshot taken from The Forensic Institute website

and next to a photograph of Michael Naughton it stated;

I will speak about science and justice as you suggest with examples from the literature and cases that I have worked on that have proven guilt as well as undermine the evidence of guilt.

Screenshot taken from The Forensic Institute website

It is not known if Michael Naughton did speak about science and justice as was claimed in the above however Andrew Green, who says he was invited by Allan Jamieson did speak at the event and published his talk – see here for full context;

The same Andrew Green who refers to himself as a “criminologist” and claims to be an “expert on criminal cases post trial” chose to use the case of actual, factual, guilty killer Simon Hall )whose innocence fraud was exposed in 2013) as part of his talk.

Below is an excerpt from hornswoggler Andrew Green’s talk;

Andrew Green

To the CACD (Court of appeal criminal division), some forensic scientists must appear to subvert the nature of the evidence on which prosecutors rely.

In the case of Simon Hall ([2011] EWCA Crim 4), the prosecution relied on matching fibres from the crime scene to that found in Hall’s home.

There was no garment to which the fibres might be matched and fibres were of common types, so the proportions of fibres at each scene were compared, and these proportions were found to have matched.

In particular, the prosecution expert instructed for the trial found a small number of uncommon green fibres were found at the scene and at Hall’s home, and it was this that probably convinced the jury to convict Hall.

But at the appeal, a fibre expert, Tiernan Coyle was instructed on behalf of Hall, and he established the fibres said to be green were in fact black and indistinguishable from a large proportion of other fibres from both sites.

The argument (which is long and complicated) centred round the likelihood that the proportions of varying fibres from each site matched.

Coyle’s argument was (if I understand it correctly) that no one knows what proportions of any fibres exist in the environment in general and whether the proportions at the sites differ significantly from fibres which have gathered elsewhere.

Excerpt from Andrew Green’s talk When is Fresh Evidence Fresh and True?
Photograph allegedly from the 2015 conference (Source)
Photograph allegedly from the 2015 FORREST conference (Source)

Andrew Green did not attend killer Simon Hall’s trial for his murder of Joan Albert and therefore had no comprehension of all of the evidence presented to the jury.

Therefore his speculative comment on what “probably convinced the jury to convict Hall” is the same type of fraudulent nonsense already demonstrated throughout this blog series, and in other cases of the innocence fraud phenomenon.

The Hall Family’s Concoctions & Stills From CCTV

As have already been highlighted in previous Parts of this blog series, the prosecution relied on a whole lot more than the “matching fibres from the crime scene to that found in Hall’s home” as referred to by Andrew Green during his 2015 presentation.

It is still not known how the criminal cases review commission (CCRC) were able to magic away all the other evidence which was heard throughout Simon Hall’s February 2003 trial.

It is also still not known how the CCRC were able to magic away another main plank of the prosecution’s case, namely the Hall family’s concoctions.

Stills were extracted from CCTV footage of Simon Hall from the time he withdrew cash from the cash point machine located at Tesco’s on Saturday the 15th December 2001, where he purchased the black mole skin type trousers.

These stills were made available to the jury during the February 2003 trial, as was referred to at the foot of page 41 and top of page 42 of the judges summing up here.

Therefore it’s possible the jury were convinced killer Simon Hall was lying with regards the clothes and shoes he said he had been wearing that night and the following morning, as opposed anything to do with the fibre evidence.

For an alleged “expert on criminal cases post trial” it is interesting how criminologist Andrew Green doesn’t question how or why actual, factual guilty killer Simon Hall was wrongly convicted and sentenced for a ‘burglary gone wrong’ as opposed to his murder of Joan Albert having been sexually motivated.

Link to Part 17f here

Killer Simon Hall: The Grift & Grifters Of The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), Helen Pitcher, Richard Foster, John Curtis, Euan Smith, James/Jim England, Julie Goulding & Simon Spence For Suffolk Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), The Court Of Appeal Judges & Cherry Picking – Part 15©️   

🌟 The Magic Makers 🌟

Helen Pitcher

Helen Pitcher

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 Smith a criminal defence solicitor.

Copy of page 54 of the criminal cases review commission’s statement of reasons

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.

Excerpts from the CCRC’s 2009/10 annual report and accounts

Abracadabra 🪄

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)

Excerpts from page 19 of the CCRC’s 2010/11 annual report and accounts

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.

Link to Part 16 here