NOTE: The following has been reproduced for study and educational purposes only
Following the exposure of psychopathic killer Simon Hall’s actual, factual guilt to his murder and his and his enablers innocence fraud, Billy Middleton published the following to his WAP website;
Unsurprisingly, the MOJ community has been damaged with many feeling bitter and betrayed as they stand up for those they believe are innocent.
Billy (William) Middleton
It’s understandable, particularly for those who played no part in the train crash that was the latter stages of his online presence or behind the scenes in some cases too, or the many who tried in vain to stop it.
Many people put a lot of time and effort into researching the case, trying to help find the truth in any way they could, and who can blame any of them for feeling they should’ve spent the years on someone/something else instead – that it was a waste of time and effort?
They are not to blame for their carefully considered opinions, and shouldn’t be condemned for having the courage and commitment to look beyond the trial verdict when it’s made so incredibly hard find support for doing so.
Nor should any other potential MOJ victims be further vilified for their own plights or the people who support them, and the media shouldn’t be criticised for doing what a society with a free press requires that it should – to probe and question an otherwise effectively unaccountable system.
There is worry about other cases being taken seriously in future, and the many who know of someone who was investigated by SIO Roy Lambert they believe is innocent in particular are finding it hard to witness his gloating whether he’s right or not.
Change is always disconcerting, and things will certainly be different now, though for some the effects will be deeper and longer lasting than for others.
Simon’s family have dealt with this remarkably well and people shouldn’t be too quick to condemn their continued belief in his innocence, after all it might very well be true.
The Ministry of Justice said a confession by a person serving a life sentence would have “no impact” on the minimum tariff they would have to serve before being considered for release.
But it knows perfectly well, as does anyone who knows anything about miscarriages of justice, that maintaining innocence does impact on how far beyond the minimum tariff a person would ultimately serve and others have confessed for that specific reason only to go on and challenge their convictions upon release.
Simon might well have been progressing better than others through the prison system in that respect despite maintaining innocence, and it very much looked like he was about to join the exceptionally rare few who were released on or close to minimum tariff despite it, but there is little doubt in my mind that someone sending the parole board an abusive letter over a dispute where he could be reintegrated into society upon release shortly before his confession will have done that progress absolutely no good whatsoever.
So what do the MOJ community, the media and other related parties have to do now in the wake of this?
In reality despite the damage it has caused far and wide, everyone needs to do the same thing they’ve always had to do – consider the evidence separate from their emotions and judge it for what it is, present it as it is and not stop looking and questioning everything until the answers have been found as they should have been in the first place – beyond reasonable doubt.
People supporting someone incarcerated for something they believe they haven’t done need to look at how Simon was supported and learn from the mistakes, whether his confession is true or not, because while it’s easy to blame him in isolation for the harm done, if it’s a false confession your loved ones never ever ever need put in the position he was in to end up with and you can’t do that looking only at the 10 letter word confessionand his other perceived option may well have been suicide if he really just couldn’t take it anymore.
You need to look at the evidence and all that went on before it and see how wrong it was.
The media need do the same before dropping the evidence box and giving too much air space to irrational certainty, they still need to hold accountable the justice system which has a proven track record of getting it wrong and being openly willing to admit that in their view it’s better an innocent person is kept in prison than the system’s “integrity” is affected, otherwise they become no better than the pseudo press found in countries controlled by dictators and there will be nothing to prevent any authority in the country doing whatever it wants regardless of the evidence
So did everyone who actually knows the case with the exception of retired SIO Roy Lambert, who has now found a voice on the subject and started proclaiming arrogantly in the media to have never once doubted Simon’s guilt, did everyone else including myself, those involved in the Rough Justice documentary, the CCRC, the DPP and many, many others get it wrong?
It’s possible, and without knowing the circumstances and details of the confession it can’t be and mustn’t be ruled out.
However despite how readily people think ‘no one would confess if they didn’t do it’, that can’t be ruled out either, not least because just one of the many pieces of evidence pointing away from Simon’s guilt is that someone else confessed many years ago before Simon was convicted.
DNA, fingerprints, footprints along the accepted escape route found at the scene, none of which matched Simon’s, stomach contents pointing to an earlier time of death which coincided with a disturbance heard by many neighbours, not a trace with the exception of the infamous flock fibres which formed the sole basis of the prosecution’s case against him hence Mr Starmer’s continued quote “The one crucial link is the fibre evidence. Break this and the case disappears.”
You would expect then that the fibre evidence was strong and compelling, yet one slide claimed by the original experts to contain 1000+ such fibres actually contained absolutely none, zero, zilch, de nada, squat, when the CCRC’s expert reviewed it, other slides were broken and stuck together with sticky tape, and what had been described as lime green polyester was actually carbon black.
That is the credibility of the fibre evidence and the only evidence Roy Lambert could present so sure as he was of Simon’s guilt in the face of everything else, and it is that level of contradiction of the original evidence that the appeal courts upheld his conviction on describing the original forensics as ‘incomplete’ rather than completely and utterly false.
Which is more probable, that after Simon’s last appeal was rejected, knowing that it was the best chance he was ever going to have, which was followed my months and months of psychological abuse and mind games by the person who drove every last one of the thousands of supporters he had away with vile and malicious on and offline feuds such that he finally couldn’t take any more, he cracked, or that Roy Lambert was right all along despite all of the evidence to the contrary and everyone else was wrong?
I don’t discount the possibility that I’m wrong, but I remain as yet unconvinced that I am and if further details are forthcoming I will reassess it then
That doesn’t mean I don’t respect the fact that a confession has been made or refuse to accept it no matter what, I’m simply unconvinced on the evidence that it’s true or that it was made by a sound mind – particularly considering he was in receipt of medication for depression and had recently been rushed to hospital following an overdose which may or may not have been accidental.
I personally lost respect for Simon some time ago but I didn’t lose the compassion and humanity I would need to before I could ignore the above, the facts of the past don’t get erased by the words of the present.
By Billy (William) Middleton – 11th August 2013 (Originally published here)
Tap On Each Button Below To Read More On Billy Middleton
Joan Albert’s Killer. Photograph of Simon Hall taken whilst ’at large’ and ‘wanted’ by Suffolk police for a sexually motivated murder
Skullduggery, Concoctions & Web Of Deceit
The skullduggery used in an attempt to distort the reality of the true narrative of the facts of Simon Hall’s murder of Joan Albert, especially to any new comer to the world of the criminal justice system and its workings, would often succeed in duping people.
Although there were also many people and organisations already familiar with its workings who would also attempt to use their powers of persuasion and paltering to add to the already existing concocted, false and misleading narratives, distortions and confusion of a story based on a web of deceit.
SimonSpence who was the prosecution junior, alongside Graham Parkin, representing the crown prosecution service (CPS) during Simon Hall’s February 2003 trial, had made the false and misleading claim on his online bio that the evidence presented during the trial rested on contested fibre evidence.
NOTE: In June 2023 Innocence Fraud Watch became aware that Simon Spence and his chambers had removed the above blurb from his online bio.
The evidence heard throughout Simon Hall’s trial for his murder of Joan Albert rested on a whole lot more than contested fibre evidence asserted by Simon Spence.
Given Simon Spence’s role throughout the 2003 trial process and the 2010 appeal he would have known this if he was ever familiar with all the evidence in this case.
The jury were presented with a wealth of other evidence and Simon Spence would have had access to all the case files and access to the same police witness statements, which contained within them the very same excerpts which are published throughout this blog series.
The index for this blog series can be found by tapping on the button below;
And as per the prosecutions closing speech, which was made by Graham Parkin, the CPS case did not rest simply on the contested fibre evidence which linked Simon Hall to his murder of Joan Albert.
The case also rested on material concocted by Simon Hall and members of his immediate family (Lynne, Phil and Shaun) heard throughout the trial.
Sentencing
Following the guilty verdict of the February 2003 trial the East Anglian Daily Times reported on Simon Hall’s sentencing.
Their article was published the day after sentencing had taken place. Below are excerpts from their article;
Hall was sentenced to life imprisonment at London’s High Court yesterday but his solicitor said an appeal against his conviction was already underway
Dressed in a black suit, lemon shirt and pale yellow chequered tie, Hall listened to yesterday’s proceedings with a sombre expression
He looked shaken as Mrs Justice Rafferty told him that Mrs Albert’s death had been both “brutal” and “undignified”
“Dogged and painstaking police work eventually led to you, linking you to her home and her body by two different types of fibres”, she said
“Why you chose in the small hours of the morning to break into her home, may never be known”
The judge told Hall his parents must feel devastated after showing loyalty to him during “testing years” when he had acquired a criminal record for violence
Only one sentence could be passed, she added,
“you will go to prison for life”
Before Hall was sentenced, his barrister, Peter Rouch QC, urged Mrs Justice Rafferty to consider the fact that the prosecution’s case was that Mrs Albert’s murder had been a “burglary that went wrong”
He said there was never any suggestion that whoever killed the pensioner had gone to her home to deliberately take her life
Mr Rouch also said Hall’s previous convictions for violence, an assault in McDonalds in 1997 and another for wounding, was a result of a street fight
“He is only 25. He has a strong family union. Whenever he comes out of custody he will have that unit”
During the trial, the prosecution claimed Hall targeted Mrs Albert’s home because of his special knowledge about her living circumstances
His mother, Lyn Hall had walked the widow’s pet dog Rusty and it was alleged Hall once told ex-girlfriend Joanne Blowers that she lived on her own and was from a wealthy background
Graham Parkins QC, said Hall broke into the widow’s home in the early hours of December 16, 2001, with the intention of burgling the property
Hall told police he was drinking in an Ipswich pub on the night of her murder, and moved to Liquid Nightclub, then drove home and arrived at his parents’ house in Snowcroft, Capel, as 6.28am
The prosecution said there was a missing hour unaccounted for.
The main evidence of the trial centered on more than a thousand fibres found in Hall’s wardrobe at his Snowcroft home, his Audi car and in his home in Hill House Road, Ipswich
Forensic experts were unable to distinguish them from those found at Mrs Albert’s home and on her body, the court heard
Hall’s family sat silent and expressionless as he was taken down to the cells
They declined to comment after the case
Excerpts from East Anglian Daily Times article headed 11th April 2003
When The Mask Comes Off & Taking Stock
In 2013 during further occasions when killer Simon Hall’s mask came off, he disclosed numerous fantasies and plans he said he had, some of which included grooming, luring, raping and killing various female members of his family, including his adoptive mother Lynne Hall.
Excerpts from Simon Hall’s Sentence Planning and Review Report, referring to events recorded in September and October 2013 respectively read;
Mr Hall was heard on the pin phone stating that he wanted to hurt himself and others by sexually assaulting them, killing & stab (sic) somebody in the eye
Intel suggests that Mr Hall has been making phone calls stating that he intends to have sex with his mother, sister and adoptive mother and he fantasises about having sex with a child, killing the child and burying the body
Excerpts from page 15 of HMP Wayland Sentence Planning and Review Report (Report dated December 2013)
Killer Simon Hall also disclosed that apparently when he was younger he had “gone down” on the family pet dog.
An offender manager from HM prison service, recorded this in her notes as having been a pet cat, even though the offender manager had the benefit of recorded prison telephone calls and call logs.
And if the offender manager had spoken directly to Simon Hall, or appraised herself of the facts of the case as to why Simon was imprisoned in the first place, she would have possibly known Lynne Hall only ever apparently had Cavalier King Charles Spaniels and rabbits.
Lynne Hall stated;
We had lived at St John’s drive since 1969 and only moved because Phil was changing jobs.
My husband is known as Phil rather than by his first name George.
I should add that for the majority of our married life I have had a dog, they have always been Cavalier King Charles Spaniels, the first one we had was a Blenheim, which denotes the colouring in this case tan and white, he was called “buttons”, Buttons actually made the move from Lincolnshire to Capel with the family.
I think we actually moved around 1980.
Buttons was with us about 3 years before he had to be out down. we were a year without the dog before getting Lady who was a tricolour, Black, tan and white, again she was a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel. Lady only died around 3 years ago
Excerpt from Lynne Hall’s police witness statement dated 25th July 2002
As well as fantasies of harming children, Simon Hall also said he would probably have killed again if he were released from prison.
These disclosures also included comments of killing his then wife.
The following excerpt relates to events from early September 2013, whilst Simon Hall was still in open prison conditions at HMP Hollesley Bay;
Mr Hall’s risk has increased due to his statements over the course of 8/9 September 2013 that he had thought about absconding and ”killing himself”.
However, given Mr Hall’s recent admission of guilt, added to the fact that his index offence and previous offences are of a violent nature, it gives rise to concerns about the potential for him to abscond and commit a further violent offence.
His recent disclosures about sexual matters, also give rise to increased risk that Mr Hall may abscond and commit, not only a violent offence, but one that may be sexual in nature
Statement from page 21 of Simon Hall’s HMP Wayland Sentence Planning and Review Report (Dated December 2013)
A further reference taken from the same report read;
Intel suggests that Mr Hall has thoughts of self harm and smoking drugs
November 2013 note from Simon Hall’s security intelligence files
Lynne and Phil Hall travelled to HMP Wayland on the 30th January 2014.
Lynne Hall visited with her adoptive son Simon Hall, whilst her husband Phil Hall apparently waited in the prison visitors parking area in his car.
In excerpts from a copy of a letter written from HMP Wayland by killer Simon Hall, addressed to his adoptive parents Lynne and Phil Hall, it read;
Dear Lynne and Phil,
If I had children I would never turn my back on them no matter what the situation was. Recent events demonstrate that I have suffered psychological problems for most of my life and they are only going to get worse unless I get the help I need
The difference between us is that I am sorry for hurting you and bringing a huge cloud of doubt and shame over ”The Family”. But all you seem to care about is your image and reputation
You’re ashamed of me – fair enough, but as much as I love you both, I’m ashamed of you too.
You turned your back on me when I needed you the most. I’m obviously not well, but you couldn’t give a shit.
Instead you remain victims and have not offered any kind of help or support when I clearly needed it. Some of my actions are unforgivable, but so are yours
I will not write again and I have removed the phone number
True colours always reveal themselves
Simon
Excerpts from a copy of letter Simon Hall wrote from HMP Wayland to his adoptive parents Lynne and Phil Hall
Excerpts from one of killer Simon Hall’s final letters read;
I panic because of shame and because the truth is destroying me.
Living in denial gave me no reason to panic and if you remember, I only started to panic like that when I was being found out lying. I panic through fear of judgement and rejection
Am I like my biological father? He put himself before the children that he had
I am worried about genetics.
All of the Walton kids are damaged.
I believe that both nature and nurture f**ked me up, I do hate Lynne I do hate Shaun, but I hate myself more.
If they were in this cell, I’d punch their lights out. That’s true, but I’d want to hurt myself too
I don’t think it’s genetics.
I remember my conscience as a kid, before Shaun got hold of me. I think nurture is so important from both to adulthood.
If I’d been in loving households, I’d be different
Excerpts from one of Simon Hall’s last letters from 2014
Simon Hall was found hanging in his prison cell after committing suicide on the 23rd February 2014.
Fraud involves the false representation of facts, whether by intentionally withholding important information or providing false statements to another party for the specific purpose of gaining something that may not have been provided without the deception.
Often, the perpetrator of fraud is aware of information that the intended victim is not, allowing the perpetrator to deceive the victim.
At heart, the individual or company committing fraud is taking advantage of information asymmetry; specifically, that the resource cost of reviewing and verifying that information can be significant enough to create a disincentive to fully invest in fraud prevention.
As already stated in Part15 of this ongoing blog series, which can be read by tapping on the button below, the criminal cases reviews commission (CCRC) made the decision to refer actual, factual guilty killer Simon Hall’s conviction for 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”
Innocence Fraud Is Very Real As Is Evidenced By The Simon Hall Case & Campaign
In reality the CCRC committed fraud, which if the three court of appeal judges picked up on – they chose to not address or comment on in their judgement.
What was however stated by the court of appeal judges in their 11th of January 2011 judgement was that;
The Crown acknowledged that the central feature of its case against the appellant was the evidence of fibre analysis
Excerpt from court of appeal judgement dated 14th January 2011[2011] EWCA Crim 4
Simon Spence
Simon Spence was instructed by Suffolk’s crown prosecution service (CPS) at the time of the December 2010 appeal.
It is not known if it was Simon Spence’s decision alone to make this false acknowledgement, or if he consulted with other people at the CPS who also agreed to go along with this.
However Simon Spence does not appear willing to address these serious matters.
How many other cases of the innocence fraud phenomenon has Simon Spence and the CCRC been involved with?
Prosecutor Graham Parkin made it clear in his closing speech* during killer Simon Hall’s February 2003 trial for his murder of Joan Albert, the “central feature” of the case were Simon Hall and the Hall families (Lynne, Phil and Shaun) lies and concoctions “woven into the general framework of the case”.
*The closing speech of a prosecution or defence lawyer is a summary of evidence heard during a trial and is the final attempt to address the court.
Graham Parkin stated;
Simon Hall was wrong in our submission when he said that this case is all about those fibres
Graham Parkin
Although Graham Parkin went on to state;
True it is that the finding of fibres is central to the prosecution case and of course without them there would be no case.
Graham Parkin
Graham Parkin also made it clear when he stated;
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.
Graham Parkin
Graham Parkin also went on to state;
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
The CCRC & John Curtis Have Not Addressed Their Role In The Fraud
John Curtis – ‘head of legal’ for the criminal cases review commission
John Curtis who was the case review manager responsible for investigating killer Simon Hall’s conviction stated in January 2015;
The Commission’s contribution to society is important.
Miscarriages of justice remain a reality, as are the challenges to the organisation charged with their investigation.
Excerpt by John Curtis for Counsel magazine article headed Righting Wrongs dated 12th January 2015
What about the very real innocence fraud phenomenon?
How and why did John Curtis and the three CCRC commissioners James/Jim England, Julie Goulding and Ewen Smith ignore all the evidence against killer Simon Hall, and his family members (and others) who lied for him, in order to make their referral in October 2009?
What logic and reasoning did John Curtis and the three CCRC commissioners use during their review, investigation and decision making which allowed them to ignore all of this, and other evidence?
Exonerations Are Extremely Serious
A few months after John Curtis’s article was published the annual symposium of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) was held at the Wardman Park Marriott in Washington, D.C.
Collins told the audience of approximately 150 guests on the final day of the symposium.
“For our criminal justice system to go back and say that the decision of a judge or jury who decided to put a particular individual in prison [was wrong] . . . and suddenly say that the individual shouldn’t be there – and is therefore free to return to life in the public – is very, very serious”
Although the three court of appeal judges did not exonerate killer Simon Hall and upheld his murder conviction in January 2011, the CCRC were reviewing his murder conviction for a second time and were seemingly still focusing on the fibre evidence and were not perturbed by the Zenith burglary and other revelations around this time.
So whilst killer Simon Hall’s actual, factual guilt to his murder of Joan Albert was unravelling and being exposed, the CCRC were wasting further time, money and resources still looking for a route back to the court of appeal in an attempt to discredit the fibre evidence.
John M Collins spoke to Roberta Glass via her True Crime Report podcast in 2019 about how/why forensic science is being denigrated and challenged by the Innocence movement;
John M Collin wrote and published the Crime Lab Report: An Anthology on Forensic Science in the Era of Criminal Justice Reform in October 2019.
Crime Lab Report compiles the most relevant and popular articles that appeared in this ongoing periodical between 2007 and 2017. Articles have been categorized by theme to serve as chapters, with an introduction at the beginning of each chapter and a description of the events that inspired each article. The author concludes the compilation with a reflection on Crime Lab Report, the retired periodical, and the future of forensic science as the 21st Century unfolds. Intended for forensic scientists, prosecutors, defense attorneys and even students studying forensic science or law, this compilation provides much needed information on the topics at hand.
Part 20a of The Fraud Of The Criminal Cases Review Commission ~ Dropping Soon
It became clear in March 2021 that Michael Naughton’s statement to Lawrence Cawley in August 2013 (following the exposure of Simon Hall’s factual guilt) was a meaningless, throwaway comment;
It is quite sad in terms of the waste of resources and the distress to (Mrs Albert’s) family members when it turns out like this
And it also became clear Michael Naughton was/is without doubt;
someone who confidently asserts themselves towards a false truth in the presence of others. Even when the rest of the people there know that they are completely wrong
And unfortunately people who are unfamiliar with the innocence fraud phenomenon are continuing to be duped and exploited by Michael Naughton and people like him.
Outdated Claims Of ‘Innocence’
Then assistant director of the now defunct UK Innocence Project Gabe Tan alongside founder Michael Naughton Photo courtesy of the Guardian’s 2011 article ‘The Innocence Project: the court of last resort’
More than four years ago the University of Bristol (UoB) Innocence Project decided to fight the conviction of a man accused of a brutal murder. Through months of investigation and the healthy scepticism of former Bristol student Gabe Tan, the case of Simon Hall was brought to appeal at the High Court.
Hall was charged with the murder of a 79-year-old woman, Joan Albert, in 2001, but has maintained his innocence throughout the eight years he has spent in prison. But only through the efforts of research assistant Tan and founder of the UK arm of the Innocence Project Dr Michael Naughton was key evidence against Hall called into question.
“I’m quite a sceptical person,” says Tan. “I don’t just take things on face value. And what got me interested in this project was that I want to know the truth, especially when someone has been accused of a serious crime. I’ve learnt so much from working on this case. It’s opened my eyes to how forensic science can go wrong and given me a lot of skills.”
Gabe Tan was described by Michael Naughton in 2013 as being “upset” and “in tears” following the exposure of Simon Hall’s guilt to his murder of Joan Albert.
Gabe Tan can be seen towards the end of a video here with Michael Naughton. The video is called ‘Claims of Innocence’ which was the title of a book Michael and Gabe wrote and published and can be downloaded for free here. The first statement in the download is by a man called Paul Blackburn who stated;
Paul Blackburn
The withholding or lack of information was one of the most important factors in both my conviction and overlong incarceration. In 1978 when I was convicted, there were no information packs handed out in prison. I was ignorant of the case against me and of the legal process used to help convict me. I learned the rules and regulations of prison as they were used to batter me into submission. Information was one of the most important factors in my eventual release
Paul Blackburn
The Alleged “40 Year Old Virgin”
Paul Blackburn
It is not known who exactly Paul Blackburn was referring to when he stated “they were used to batter meinto submission” but it was not the police who arrested and questioned him for his crimes.
Glyn Maddocks
Stephanie Bon
Paul Blackburn was convicted of attempted murder andrape of a 9 year old boy referred to as ‘L’ and was represented by Glyn Maddocks (Referred to in Part 19k here) and was also mentioned by Stephanie Bon in her March 2010 statement (Read more in Part 18d here).
Paul was released from custody in March 2003 on a life licence having served 24 years for his crimes. At some point Stephanie Bon met up with Paul Blackburn and stated of him in 2010 “Paul B, I love you forever”.
In June 2009 Peter Walker spoke to Paul Blackburn and published an article in the Guardian (Read more here) in which Paul alleged he was “a 40-year-old virgin”.
The attack on the 9 year old boy ‘L’, by a then 14 year old Paul Blackburn was described by the court of appeal judges as follows;
The attack took place on the afternoon of Sunday 25th June 1978, probably at around 4.30 pm. The victim, L, was walking by a canal near an area known as Seven Arches, Great Sankey, Warrington, when he was accosted by a youth who threatened him with a knife. L was made to go with the youth to a nearby disused sewage works, where he was forced into a brick shelter. There he was made to remove his clothes and to perform oral sex on the youth, who then attempted to commit anal rape on him, ejaculating down the victim’s leg. The victim was then kicked repeatedly and stabbed before being covered with a board and a large quantity of heavy bricks.
When the victim failed to return home the police were informed and a search commenced. The following day, some 28 hours after the attack, he was found still concealed in the disused sewage works. He was alive but badly injured. It was patently a horrific attack.
Dr Michael Naughton, Founder and Co-ordinator of the Innocence Network UK and Bristol University lecturer, who is hosting the event, said: “Contrary to popular perceptions, the Criminal Cases Review Commission was not designed to rectify the errors of the system and ensure that the innocent overturn their wrongful convictions.
There is no evidence that Paul Blackburn was, or is, factually innocent of the crimes for which he was originally convicted and Paul’s pubic relations campaign has all the hallmarks of the innocence fraud phenomenon.
Euan McIlvride (Who set up the now dissolved company Ghost Rock LLP in May 2015) described here as a volunteer and “head of legal” for the Miscarriage of Justice organisation based in Glasgow, Scotland stated in January 2020;
Today on The Guardian online we find a disturbing, but depressingly familiar, tale of the treatment of our friend and client Paul Blackburn, who spent 25 years in prison for offences he didn’t commit.
Again there is no evidence Paul Blackburn didn’t commit the crimes for which he was convicted of when he was 14/15 years of age.
Michael Naughton stated in his (and Gabe Tan’s) book Claims of innocence;
Paul Blackburn was only 14 years old when he was coerced by the police into signing a false confession
Excerpt from page 17 of Claims of Innocence by Michael Naughton with Gabe Tan
But a deep dive into the convictions of Paul Blackburn shows the coercedconfession was, and is, a matter of opinion (The court of appeal judgement can be read in full here).
On the 8th of January 2020 Cheshire constabulary made a statement regarding Paul Blackburn’s court case. Excerpts read;
The Constabulary respects this ruling and instruction of the Court, it should also be noted that the ruling stated that the task of the court was not to say whether or not Mr Blackburn committed these offences, but whether the convictions against him were unsafe.
Following the ruling the Constabulary undertook a comprehensive review of all the available evidence in the case and spoke to the victim concerned and we are satisfied that we do not need to reopen the investigation.
An independent investigation into the conduct of the officers involved in this case was also undertaken in 1996 which concluded that there was no evidence of any misconduct nor was there any evidence to pursue criminal proceedings against the officers concerned.
This case was investigated more than 40-years-ago at a time when the procedures and rules around the questioning of suspects and the submission of evidence were very different to that of today. The 1986 Police & Criminal Evidence (PACE) Act introduced fundamentally changed the way we treat and interview suspects.
Paul Blackburn received compensation even though he never proved his actual, factual innocence. In May 2005 MP Barry Sheerman called for an inquiry and demanded ‘largecompensation’;
Barry Sheerman said: “It is an obscene miscarriage of justice that Paul Blackburn spent 26 years in prison because of lies told by police.”
Mr Sheerman has tabled a Commons motion welcoming the Appeal Court’s overturning of Mr Blackburn’s conviction.
Mr Blackburn, of Warrington, Cheshire, was wrongly convicted at the age of 15 of the attempted murder of a nine year old boy.
The Commons motion also congratulates solicitor Glynn Maddocks, who has spent 12 years fighting for Mr Blackburn. It also demands large compensation.
Glyn Maddocks had apparently previously worked as Barry Sheerman’s research assistant.
In 2017 Barry Sheerman hosted a meeting in parliament, attended by some of the cult-like wrongful conviction movement people like Dennis Eady, Emily Bolton, Marika Henneberg, Louise Shorter and included Teresa Halbach’s killers lawyer Dean Strang (Read more here).
Most of the media stories which reported on killer Simon Hall’s “confession” to his murder of Joan Albert were extremely poor, speculative, misleading and in many instances completely false.
Killer Simon Hall only confessed to prison authorities after first admitting his crime to someone else – believing his dark secret would never come out.
The details emerged after The Star yesterday revealed the 35-year-old had confessed to the December 2001 murder in Capel St Mary.
The Star understands Hall had secretly confessed killing Mrs Albert to a third party.
But that information came to the attention of the prison authorities and Hall then formally admitted committing the murder.
It is not known why Lauren Everitt wrote and published that killer Simon “Hall had secretly confessed”.
Simon Hall’s “confession” to his murder of Joan Albert was never made in “secret” to anyone – at least not whilst he was in prison.
Archive photograph of Joan Albert’s home in Capel St Mary, Suffolk
Self Serving Lies
However evidence does suggestkiller Simon Hall’s “dark secret” was known by his immediate family members from the very beginning.
Shaun Hall, Simon Hall’s older brother, stated on a public Internet forum in early 2013;
Shaun Hall older brother of killer Simon Hall
Simon had every chance to confess to his actions on the night of Joan’s death, however he decided to keep this quiet.
Saying that anyone else should go to the police is ridiculous as they wouldn’t want Simon to get in to further trouble
Shaun Hall
Killer Simon Hall’s adoptive mother Lynne Hall told numerous self serving lies from the very beginning of the police investigation.
Lynne Hall continued to lie over the years that followed Simon Hall’s conviction for his murder during the Hall family’s (Lynne, Phil and Shaun) and Stephanie Bon’s fraudulent public relations spin campaign.
It was therefore no surprise when Lynne Hall chose to tell a reporter more self serving lies once the innocence fraud was exposed.
Lynne Hall’s self serving statements of I’m absolutely shocked because I know he is innocent and I still believe he is and I believe he feels he can’t take any more after all the fight he has put up and how brave he has been were only ever made by Lynne Hall in an attempt to save face.
The Evidence Tells A Different Story
Killer Simon Hall received a 13 year life sentence tariff for his murder of Joan Albert (minus time spent on remand) and he had also been moved to a D-Category prison at the end of 2012, earlier than many life sentenced prisoners, in part because the C-Category prison he was moving from was due to close.
Therefore Lynne Hall’s statement “But it’s the system. If he had pleaded guilty in the beginning, he would be home now” was, and is, nonsense.
13 years for a sexually motivated murder was a low tariff and had Simon Hall pleaded guilty for his murderous crime(s) it’s likely his life sentence tariff would have been considerably higher than the tariff he ended up being ordered to serve.
Simon Hall was in hospital in February 2013 following a suicide attempt because his factual guilt to his murder was being exposed – in the main by his older brother Shaun Hall.
As already referred to in Part 11a here Shaun Hall wrote to his brother Simon after he learned he had been in hospital and stated;
I have just found out about the events in February which led to you being in Ipswich hospital
I really want to put all the past behind us and move forward for your sake
Sometimes I only see the Simon that everyone else believes is you but I know that is not the real you. You are a the (sic) selfish person deep down, you have been a victim from day one where you are and that your situation led you to act in a way out of character
It’s a disgusting situation and should never have happened and I hold my hand up as I have before and admit I am to blame for our situation but I’m sure in the right light both of us would hold our hands up and admit we both have let anger or hurt motivate our actions
Excerpts from Shaun Hall’s letter to his brother Simon Hall dated the 7th June 2013
Shaun Hall has never confirmed whether or not his statements to his brother Simon about putting the past behind us and,‘I hold my hand up as I have before and admit I am to blame for our situation’, were anything to do with the allegations of abuse Simon Hall made to Suffolk police against Shaun just prior to Simon admitting to his murder of Joan Albert. (Read more in Part 13 here)
Following the exposure of Simon Hall’s actual, factual guilt to his murder of Joan Albert and less than a month before his suicide, he stated;
I always took girls home for Lynne’s approval and it was always the same.
I don’t know why I did that.
I remember she used to call one girl, who I got on really well with “Horseface”.
Yeah, imagine that.
“Oh you can do better than that flat-chested horse face girl”.
I liked her but Lynne’s disapproval or anyone’s disapproval in some cases got in the way of what I wanted.
I’ve always done that.
That links to my cowardice and lack of back-bone, but I’ll come back to that.
Simon Hall – 28th January 2014
In another letter Simon Hall stated;
It’s hard to swallow that my family, who were fighting for credits when I was “innocent” are nowhere now that the truth is out.
A fairweather family?
I know Shaun f**ked me up.
I know he knows it too but I bet he plays that down to whoever he has told.
Remember Lynne said it was 6 of one, half a dozen of other?
I think Shaun’s abuse delayed my physical maturity, as well as my emotional growth.
This book I’ve got is really laying it all out for me.
Bernie and David.
The Hall’s.
There’s quotes from conversations with convicted prisoners that strikes as similar.
One guy hates his mother so much but could never hit her because of the hold she had, so he transferred it to others.
That is me.
It explains something else doesn’t it?
Simon Hall – 9th February 2014
Lynne Hall
Stephane Bon told the police that she first met Simon Hall “around August or September 2001”.
However Simon did not start working at State Chemicals in Colchester until the 24th of September 2001.
Stephanie Bon also told the police that when she first met Simon she was “seeing a colleague from” her officebut that she and Simonwould “flirt with each other too”.
Also according to Stephanie Bon’s evidence, Simon often told Stephanie how he was allegedly having “problems with his relationship which at the time was to a girl called Zoe”.
Stephanie Bon also claimed that Simon and Zoe “often had arguments over the phone, if Simon was late or had not called her”.
It is not clear from Stephanie Bon’s evidence on what dates and times exactly she was referring to.
Although Stephanie Bon’s evidence suggests the reason Simon Hall “often had argumentsoverthe phone and was late or had not called Zoe” was because Simon was with Stephanie Bon at the time.
Did Stephanie Bon Loan Simon Hall Money
On the 9th of October 2001 Simon Hall contacted his car insurance company to change cover from his Volkswagen Golf insurance to a Ford Fiesta 1.1 popular plus car.
According to the evidence, this change would have reduced Simon’s policy cost and “the difference being approximately sixty pounds (£60) in his favour but the refund would take up to six weeks to process and that in the interim he would still be required to continue his direct debit payments”.
The evidence of the car insurance agent was that Simon Hall had asked for the £60 refund to be paid to him “immediately”, suggesting Simon was either low on money or had no money by the 9th of October 2001.
The evidence was that Simon Hall contacted the insurance company “the following day and instructed that the policy revert back to the Volkswagon Golf”.
Again Stephanie Bon’s evidence to the police was;
Around October 2001, Simon and I became an item.
He used to stay at my house in Colchester, regularly, as it was so much more convenient for work.
Over time he left various items at my house, so he (sic) changes of clothes and wash things.
I would describe our relationship as generally good, we did argue occasionally, but nothing significant
Excerpts from Stephanie Bon’s police witness statement dated 4th September 2002
Stephanie Bon made no mention to the police of a Ford Fiesta 1.1 popular plus car but she did mention Simon “buying a black Audi”.
Stephanie Bon stated;
Both working for the company we were insured to drive the company cars.
I had not passed my test and was having difficulties with my instructor, so Simon offered to give me some driving lessons.
I remember he originally had a Volkswagen Golf, which he sold.
He then got a company white Saxo car, which we both drove.
Simon used to encourage me to drive and we would go out at lunch times, or after work when I would drive him back to my house.
I also remember Simon buying a black Audi, although I think he had problems with thar car too, and didn’t drive it much
Excerpts from Stephanie Bon’s police witness statement dated 4th September 2002
Stephanie Bon however omitted to tell the police that she had been with Simon Hall on the Wednesday the 12th of December and that the pair of them had driven to Haverhill in Suffolk to view and pay for Simon’s new black Audi motor vehicle.
The police asked Simon during his interview following his arrest how much he had paid for the car and Simon had stated £450.
After Simon Hall was charged by Suffolk police for his murder of Joan Albert, he did go on to clarify via his proof of evidence statement, that the man he had sold his Volkswagen Golf car to “had already given Simon a cash payment” which “in turn” he had used to pay for the Audi on the Wednesday.
It is not known if Stephanie Bon had also loaned Simon Hall some money around this time to go towards buying the car on the Wednesday (12th December) because Simon told the police he was not due to receive his wages until the 15th.
Why Didn’t Simon Hall Telephone Stephanie Bon Until Monday?
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 askedLynne, 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
It is still not known if the reason Simon Hall went back to Lynne and Phil’s home for an hour on the Saturday to shower and change his clothes, was because Simon and Stephanie Bon had argued on the Friday and Stephanie had possibly booted Simon, as well as his belongings, out of her Colchester home.
Below are extracts from one of killer Simon Hall’s police interviews, where the police were asking him who he had contacted on Saturday the 15th of December (Read more in Part 9a here);
Dc 1023 Alright, yeah. Alright. Was there anybody else you contacted that evening at all? You talked about previously er text facilities and things like that
Simon Yeah. I may have contacted Scott at the Woolpack, that may have led me to want to go there
Dc 1023 Right
Simon Would have been a karaoke because they are good. Phew! Top of my head I can’t think about. No, I’d spoken to Stephanie as well
Dc 1023 Hmm mm
Simon Or Oli, Olivier (inaudible)
Dc 1023 Yeah
Dc 1023 Was that Stephanie Bon?
Simon Erm
Simon Yeah
Dc 1023 And that will, and that. And you would have used your mobile phone again on that night?
Simon Yeah
Dc 1023 It’s obvious we’re talking about the same night. I apologise for that. So you would have rung them on their mobile or landline?
Simon Their mobile
Dc 1023 Their mobile
Simon I don’t know whether I did or I didn’t so
Notice how Simon Hall initially told the police he had “spoken to” Stephanie Bon, then stated “or Oli, Olivier” (Stephanie Bon’s brother) but then added “I don’t know whether I did or I didn’t so”.
Phone call logs show Simon Hall did not telephone Stephanie Bon at all on the Saturday or Sunday (Read more in Part 9a here) which further points to the pair of them possibly having had an argument on Friday the 14th of December.
The fact killer Simon Hall had indicated to the police he was “a single man” by the Saturday adds yet further weight to this.
When Exactly In December Were Simon Hall’s Clothes Predominantly At Snowcroft & Why?
Following Simon Hall’s murder of Joan Albert, his girlfriend Stephanie Bon stated to the police that she and Simon “began to visit his parents quite regularly, taking over flowers and chocolates and checking up on his mum”.
Stephanie Bon stated;
Simon was very close to his mum, and I think he was quite worried about how she would cope, as I believe she was on anti depressants prior to the murder.
He talked about the incident, but mainly about concern for his mum
We began to visit his parents quite regularly, taking over flowers and chocolates and checking up on his mum.
Simon was quite emotional person (sic) and seemed upset by the incident, which I would expect him to be
I didn’t notice any dramatic change in Simon after the murder.
He was obviously upset, shocked and concerned for his mother but this did not seem out of the ordinary.
Excerpts from Stephanie Bon’s police witness statement dated 4th September 2002
Stephanie Bon’s evidence was that “following their redundancies” (Simon Hall was made redundant on the 22nd January 2002) is when their relationship began to “fizzle out”.
It was claimed in judge Anne Rafferty’s summing up to the jury, that Simon “split his time between” his adoptive parents Lynne and Phil’s home in Capel St Mary “and the home of a friend, Stephanie Bonn (sic) but by December 2001 his clothes would be predominantly at Snowcroft rather than at her home”.
Stephanie Bon also stated that Simon Hall “gradually collected all his belongings” but she then went on to state “following” the break up of their relationship was when Simon collected “all his belongings”.
It is not known on what date exactly Simon Hall and Stephanie Bon broke up.
According to Simon Hall he was in a new relationship with a woman called Phoebe Grant by January 2002.
Therefore the break up Stephanie Bon gave evidence to Suffolk police about, could well have occurred the day before Simon Hall referred to himself as “a single man” – on Friday the 14th of December 2001.
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
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 askedLynne, 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
It is not known if Stephanie Bon spoke to and colluded with killer Simon Hall prior to and/or following his arrest for his murder of Joan Albert before Stephanie gave her evidneve to the police – via her September 2002 witness statement.
It is also not known if Stephanie Bon spoke to and colluded with Lynne, Phil and/or Shaun Hall or others – like Jamie Barker as one example or Simon’s then girlfriend Phoebe Grant as another example, prior to and/or following Simon Hall arrest.
Security van taking convicted murderer Simon Hall to prison
However a media article stated that Stephanie Bon had attended killer Simon Hall’s trial in February 2003 and that Stephanie Bon was apparently the “first person to speak to” Simon “after he was convicted”, as can be read in the below excerpts;
Stephanie Bon became close friends with Simon Hall when they worked at a chemical company in Colchester’s East Hill.
He even taught her to drive, but they lost touch when the firm closed down.
Then, Hall was charged with the murder of pensioner Joan Albert at her home in Capel St Mary.
Stephanie attended the murder trial with Hall’s family, confident he would be cleared.
“I was the first person to speak to him after he was convicted. He was absolutely distraught
According to judge Anne Rafferty’s summing up at the end of Simon Hall’s trial, Stephanie Bon was also portrayed as “a friend” of killer Simon Hall, as opposed to his girlfriend.
Tap on the button below to read the judges summing up in full;
Stephanie Bon told the police she was Simon Hall’s girlfriend at the time of his murder of Joan Albert not merely “afriend” of Simon’s.
Again, Simon Hall told police during his first interview (following his arrest) that Stephanie Bon had been his “girlfriend” prior to Phoebe Grant (Read more on page 30 here);
Below are a few statements Stephanie Bon made to the police six weeks after Simon Hall’s arrest;
Around October 2001,Simon and I became an item.
He used to stay at my house in Colchester, regularly, as it was so much more convenient for work.
Over time he left various items at my house, so he (sic) changes of clothes and wash things.
After a few weeks of being together, Simon introduced me to his parents Lynn and Phil. Lynn was really friendly, and it was obvious she thought highly of Simon.
Phil always chatted to me too, I think they saw something quite serious in me and we all got on so well
Excerpts from Stephanie Bon’s police witness statement dated 4th September 2002
Although Stephanie Bon appeared to think Lynne and Phil Hall “saw something quite serious in” her and because they “all got on so well”, the evidence tells a different story.
Why Did Lynne, Phil & Shaun Hall Pretend Stephanie Bon Did Not Exist?
As already pointed out in previous Parts of this blog series, all of the Hall family members (Simon, Lynne, Phil and Shaun) withheld evidence from the police relating to Stephanie Bon.
Lynne, Phil and Shaun Hall all pretended in their evidence to the police that Stephanie Bon did not exist.
Lynne, Phil and Shaun Hall were all asked by the police about previous girlfriends Simon Hall had had, but Stephanie Bon’s name did not appear in any of their statements at all.
Also Simon, Lynne, Phil and Shaun Hall all attempted to give the impression via their evidence that “home” for Simon Hall in December 2001 was his adoptive parents house at 8 Snowcroft, Capel St Mary.
The evidence also tells a different story.
How Did Stephanie Bon Feel Knowing The Hall’s Had Pretended She Did Not Exist?
When Simon Hall went for his first interview with State Chemicals in Colchester in July/August 2002 whereby he was unsuccessful on that occasion, he was in a relationship with a woman called Zoe.
Simon Hall then had another interview with the same company, in which he was offered a position as a purchase ledger clerk and started working for State Chemicals on the 24th of September 2001.
Excerpts from Simon Hall’s line managers evidence read;
About a month after Simon started working there he started seeing the Managing Director’s PA Stephanie Bonn, (sic) I don’t know exactly when their relationship became more than friends but it did become apparent that it was so after a while
…Simon was made redundant and he left the company in January 2002
His relationship with Stephanie Bonn (sic) I think was very on/off
Looking back his work did start to suffer in November/December 2001 when his relationship with Stephanie Bonn started to break up
I did see some of the E-mails they were sending each other on the company systems which were really only the sort of romantic boyfriend/girlfriend type messages
Excerpts from police witness statement of Simon Hall’s line manager from State Chemicals dated 13th September 2002
Simon Hall told the police following his arrest that he met Stephanie Bon when he “was interviewed for the job at State Chemicals”, which would have been September 2001.
Simon Hall also indicated to the police that he had “just split up” with Zoe by the time he met Stephanie Bon.
Obscuring & Embellishing The Truth
By the time Simon Hall eventually started working at State Chemicals in Colchester it appeared that he had already moved back to his adoptive parents Lynne and Phil’s home in Capel St Mary, because his previous girlfriend had booted him out of her home.
Stephanie Bon, who was not called to give evidence during killet Simon Hall’s February 2003 trial, told police;
Around the end of September2001, Simon informed me that Zoe and him, had broken up.
Simon then moved back to his parents house in Snowcroft, Capel St Mary.
We were still really good friends at this time.
Excerpts from Stephanie Bon’s police witness statement dated 4th September 2002
Lynne Hall told the police:
Simon did stay last year between October and the end of December when I say stay I mean had a key to our house, it was often the case he would stay at friends houses
Excerpt from Phil Hall’s police witness statement dated 25th July 2002
It is not known why Lynne Hall chose to also lie to the police by pretending her adoptive son Simon was still in a relationship with Zoe up “until just before Christmas 2001”.
The evidence demonstrated that by October 2001, Simon Hqll was already in another relationship with Stephanie Bon.
Referring to Zoe, Lynne Hall told police;
That relationship began in March or April 2001
That relationship lasted until just before Christmas 2001, I had even bought presents for Zoe and X
Excerpts from Lynne Hall’s police witness statement dated 25th July 2002
Judge Anne Rafferty also appeared to have been under the impression that Simon Hall’s relationship with Zoe had ended by “bonfire nightish” 2001.
Again the evidence strongly suggests Simon Hall was living with Stephanie Bon “regularly” by this time.
In reality, while Stephanie Bon was being “introduced” to Simon Hall’s adoptive parents Lynne and Phil Hall, and thinking Lynne and Phil “saw something quite serious in” herbecause they “all got on so well”, Zoe and Stephanie Bon were being abused by Simon Hall and the abuse appears to have been enabled by Lynne and Phil Hall.
In early November 2001, while in a new relationship with Stephanie Bon and apparently living with her “regularly” in Colchester, Simon Hall met up with his ex girlfriend Zoe for a “bonfire night” in the village of Capel St Mary.
Lynne Hall stated;
As far as Zoe is concerned I remember they had one particularly bad argument on the Saturday night last year when the village celebrated bonfire night.
In fact just prior to that Saturday night last year they had argued and split up and Simon was living back home.
They went to the village bonfire night with me to attempt a reconciliation, the night went well and everything was OK
Simon ended up taking Zoe home and coming back by himself to our house.
After that he went round to a friends house, I can’t remember where or to who, he did get home late.
Zoe rang the following morning and because Simon was late up she got very angry about his lack of commitment
Excerpts from Lynne Hall’s police witness statement dated 25th July 2002
The “one particularly bad argument” referred to by Lynne Hall occurred in September when Simon and Zoe “split up”, not on “bonfire night”.
Lynne Hall would have no doubt known the “friendshouse” was Stephanie Bon’s.
Lynne Hall lied once again to both Zoe and the police when she stated her adoptive son Simon had been “homelate” and was “late up”.
In reality, Simon Hall did not go back to Capel St Mary and enabler Lynne Hall would not have known what time he got up the next day, because he was with his girlfriend Stephanie Bon in Colchester.
Simon Hall told the police about the night as follows;
Simon And when trying to reconcile, everything was great, she said ”OK we’ll give it a go” and then that was Fireworks Night, she came down to the little Fireworks in Capel
Dc 1023 Yes
Simon With X her son, and everything was great and then she went home and she, her mate was with her, and her mate felt a bit ill. So I, I felt a little bit ill so I decided to go home and then on the way I felt a little bit better, so I just thought I’d go out and see my mates in Colchester
Dc 1023 Ah OK. Right. Sorry to hear that. OK. When, just to go on a stage further from there really, I’m just trying to, I just want to sum up. Stephanie BON wasn’t a serious relationship, it was just what they call an ’off and on relationship’ but Zoe was almost a permanent relationship
Simon Mmm
Dc 1023 Etc and the relationship was terminated due to the fact you went off to Colchester etc and you said that you were ill and you went home, but you didn’t go home you went to Colchester, so it was..
Simon She was very paranoid
Zoe was not “paranoid”.
Zoe was in a toxic relationship with an abusive man, Simon Hall, who had an enmeshedrelationship with his toxic and abusive adoptive mother Lynne Hall.
As stated in Part 19a of this blog series 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”.
Photo of Heather Mills and Ian Hislop from Private Eye in 2011 here
The November 2009 Private Eye article (Referred to in Part 19here) also stated;
Eye readers will recall that Hall was only put in the frame because his mother used to care for Mrs Albert and had a key to her house.
He had a firm alibi for all but about half an hour on the night Mrs Albert was killed.
He was pubbing and clubbing with friends in Ipswich, dropping one off at his house between 05:30 and 6am, before arriving home to his mother, Lynne, at round 6.15am.
As it was, it was unlikely he could have broken in to Mrs Albert’s home, killed her and arrived back home.
But there was absolutely no way he could have burgled one old person’s home and then moved on to Mrs Albert’s.
Excerpts from page 29 of Heather Mills article for Private Eye magazine published on the 13th of November 2009 (Edition number 1249)
Heather Mills following statement;
But there was absolutely no way he could have burgled one old person’s home and then moved on to Mrs Albert’s.
was pointless and was yet another innocence fraud distraction tactic.
As already mentioned in Part 19ahere the Higham burglary “was formally linked to a series of antique thefts” and the “two crimes were notformally linked”, ie: killer Simon Hall’s murder of Joan Albert in Capel St Mary was not related to the antiques theft of “the old person’s” home in Higham.
Crime scene photo of broken kitchen window
The fact killer Simon Hall’s adoptive mother Lynne Hall had a key to Joan Albert’s home was irrelevant because Simon Hall broke Joan Albert’s kitchen window (Pictured above) to gain access to her and her home.
If Simon Hall had of had a “firm alibi” as suggested by Heather Mills for Private Eye magazine (courtesy of Michael Naughton), it’s unlikely Simon would have been “put in the frame” in the first place.
TIE (Trace/Interview/Eliminate) Suspect
There were numerous reasons why killer Simon Hall was “put in the frame” for his murder, some of which have already been highlighted throughout this blog series, which begins here.
For example, as referred to in Part 2 here due to the fact Simon Hall had previous criminal convictions for violence, and because he had in the past lived nearby and knew the area well, Simon Hall’s name was quickly flagged by the HOLMES information technology system used by police for investigations.
Simon Hall was automatically categorised as a TIE suspect (trace, interview, eliminate) in relation to Joan Albert’s murder.
Therefore Suffolk police may have known when they first began interviewing Lynne Hall on the 18th of December 2001, that her youngest adoptive sons name had already been flagged up by HOLMES.
Lynne Hall’s behaviour and statements in particular gave numerous suspicious and conflicting accounts from the very beginning of her contact with the police.
By Tuesday the 18th of December 2001, just two days after Joan Albert was discovered to have been murdered, Lynne Hall was offering up two possible suspects.
Lynne Hall told Suffolk police she had seen two youths/men in the village of Capel St Mary “on the Monday or Tuesday of the previous week the 10th and 11th December”.
Lynne Hall also stated on the same day;
I thoughtabout ringing the barman Trevor ***** who is a builder in the village, in fact I didn’t do that.
That roof is quite high with a flat roof.
I believe from that roof Joan’s house could be seen
It is not known what Lynne Hall thought “ringing the barman Trevor ***** who is a builder in the village” would have achieved exactly, but many other houses would have been “seenfrom that roof”.
If Lynne Hall had had genuine concerns about the two youths/men, including the one who she said had “a pleasantface” but who gave her “the impression they seemed guilty”, why didn’t Lynne tell someone at the time or contact the police?
It appears Lynne Hall’s choice of words were a Freudian slip or her psychological projections perhaps, or a combination of the two?
Were Lynne Hall’s unconscious emotions about the men she had allegedly seen the week before, really all about her adoptive killer son Simon Hall and what Lynne had witnessed just two days earlier?
Questions For Lynne & Phil Hall
Was it really killer Simon Hall with his “pleasant face” who gave Lynne Hall the “impression he seemed guilty” when he arrived at her and Phil Hall’s home at 6.30am, after having committed his murder of Joan Albert?
Lynne Hall went on to state in November 2013 (Read more in Part 10 here) that she had seen the “microwave size” locker her adoptive son Simon Hall, and Jamie Barker, had stolen from the Zenith Windows burglary, allegedly in her garden on the morning of her sons murder of Joan Albert.
Why did Lynne Hall really choose to omit to tell Suffolk police about this fact at the time, and what else did Lynne Hall lie by omission to Suffolk police about?
Lynne Hall said she had apparently asked her adoptive son Simon what the stolen “microwave size” locker was and had then apparently told him to “get rid” of said stolen locker as she “did not want it in her garden”.
Photo of an example of industrial waste bins
Killer Simon Hall claimed he got “rid of” the stolen “microwave size” locker in an industrial waste bin (Along with the clothing, shoes and leather jacket he wore when he committed his murder of Joan Albert) early on the morning of Monday the 17th of December 2001.
Rather than telephone his line manager to ask for a few days off work in order to “lookafter” his adoptive mother Lynne (Which was the reason he gave for asking for a few days off work) Simon Hall used the excuse to drive to State Chemicals in Colchester to dispose of all incriminating evidence.
Suspicious Behaviour & Vanishing Clothing & Shoes
What exactly did Lynne Hall make of her adoptive son driving all the way to Colchester to ask for a couple of days off, when a quick telephone call could have been made instead?
Did Simon Hall behaviour strike Lynne Hall (or any of the Hall family members) as suspicious or unusual or was Lynne Hall actually aware of the fact Simon needed to “get rid” of incriminating evidence?
It is not known if Lynne and/or Phil Hall saw Simon Hall put the “microwave size” locker in his car, or if either of them saw Simon carrying the clothing, shoes and bulky leather jacket he had been wearing when he carried out his murder of Joan Albert, down the stairs from bedroom 3 and out of their home on that Monday morning.
It is also not known if a conversation was ever had between Simon and Lynne, and/or Phil Hall, about why Simon’s clothing, shoes and leather jacket had suddenly vanished.
Lynne & Phil Hall’s Lies & Concoctions
Simon Hall had purchased a brand new pair of mole skin type jeans/trousers from Tesco’s the day before.
He then drove straight to his adoptive parents home in Capel St Mary with his new jeans/trousers and had spent a maximum of an hour at their house, before heading out for the night.
Lynne Hall claimed to the police on the day her adoptive son was arrested;
On Saturday the 15th of December 2001 I was ill in bed all day.
I seem to think that Simon was around during the day and he put his head in to make sure I was okay.
I may have popped down to make a drink.
The Sunday we were off to Stoke Rochford in Lincolnshire which is a stately home, it was a family get together.
Simon told me at some stage that Saturday that he was going out and would probably not be back that night.
I told him to be back because we were leaving early.
I wanted him home at five or six am as I wanted to make sure he was okay and dressed properly
Excerpt’s from Lynne Hall’s 25th July 2002 police witness statement
Phil Hall
Also on the day his adoptive son was arrested, Phil Hall stated;
On the 15th December 2001 my wife was upstairs unwell in bed, I don’t know when Simon left the house or even if I saw him at all that day.
I do not know what he was wearing that day at all.
I recall that Lynne had asked Simon to make sure he was back in time to leave for Stoke Rochford in Lincolnshire where we had a family do
Excerpt from Phil Hall’s police witness statement dated 25th July 2002
Did Lynne and Phil Hall really not recall seeing Simon Hall wearing his ‘larey black shirt with red splashes over it’?
Nicola, who referred to her diary entries recalled seeing Simon wearing this particular shirt a week earlier.
Tap on the button below to read more about Nicola’s evidence;
Femicide or feminicide is described as a hatecrime 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
Prior to Private Eye magazines publication of their insensitively headed articleA Stabin 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;
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 notformally linked”.
Furthermore, and as referred to in previous Parts of thisongoingblog 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 “buriedin 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 “didnot 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.
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.
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”
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 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
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 August1982 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.
..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
INNOCENCE FRAUD WATCH 