Since the exposure of killer Simon Hall’s actual, factual guilt to his murder of Joan Albert and the exposure of his fraudulent public relations spin campaign, most of the people and organisations who were once involved with the case and campaign (With the exception of Simon Hall’s former wife) have never publicly held their hands up and said they were wrong.
These people and organisations have never acknowledged or addressed the very real innocence fraud phenomenon as opposed to the outdated “miscarriage of justice” phenomenon, which Simon Hall’s claims of innocence and fraudulent public relations spin campaign turned out to be.
Killer Simon Hall married at the end of 2008, coincidentally to another woman named Stephanie, who he had worked with in 2002.
Stephanie (Hall) was duped by a lot of the propaganda related to the miscarriage of justice phenomenon.
Stephanie (Hall) was also naive to psychopathic personality disordered people, which made her an easy target for someone like killer Simon Hall to groom, con and exploit.
She also wasn’t aware of just how many people were prepared to lie, deceive and grift on behalf of actually, factually guilty killers like Simon Hall.
It is not known who Sandra Lean was allegedly “compelled to help” in 2002 but the About page of Sandra Lean’s online bio for her 2008 website here (and reproduced at the foot of this blog) was written by someone called P Hughes.
P Hughes stated of Sandra Lean;
Since 2002 Sandra has felt compelled to help innocent victims who have suffered a major injustice.
Without payment, she has spent thousands of hours going through evidence and trial transcripts with a fine toothed comb, helping the legal teams out with her time and expertise.
She does this because she is passionate about helping these falsely accused and wrongfully convicted people in any way she can, and because she is appalled that the British Judicial system is as flawed as it is, letting so many people down.
Retired Roy Catchpole, formerly of St Paul’s Church in Sherborne, said he didn’t understand why the victim made the accusations which have led to him facing three counts of sexual assault and one of exposure on a series of occasions between August 2013 and June 2014.
Jurors were told about the collapse of his first marriage in 1994 which was reported at the time in the national press.
Catchpole told the hearing yesterday he and his then wife became estranged over how to treat their schizophrenic son before he left the family home and started seeing another woman – a then member of his congregation – and his second wife of 17 years.
Propagandist Sandra Lean & Her First Discredited Book
Actual, factual guilty killer Simon Hall was not falsely accused, he was always guilty as charged!
And killer Simon Hall’s family members (Lynne, Phil and Shaun), and many other people chose to lie and concoct stories in an attempt to pervert the course of justice.
Many of them also committed perjury.
It is not known exactly how Sandra Lean came to be involved in killer Simon Hall’s fraudulent public relations spin campaign.
It is also not known who spoke to Sandra Lean in order for her to put together a chapter in a book she wrote and had published.
Cover of Sandra Lean’s book ’No Smoke’ published in 2007 by Diggory press
Sandra Lean’s first discredited book called No Smoke: The Shocking Truth About British Justice, was first published in 2007 by Diggory press (Read more here).
Cover of Sandra Lean’s book ’No Smoke’ published in 2008 by Stephen T Manning/Checkpoint press
Sandra Lean’s first discredited book was published again in 2008 by Stephen T Manning.
Tap on the button below to read about some of the fiasco regarding Sandra Lean’s first discredited book;
Sandra Lean claimed in her first book No Smoke on page xiii in her introduction (Read more here):
Until two years ago, I had no idea that anything was broken.
I believed in the justice system, although I knew it had its faults.
A chance meeting with someone who believed that a family member was a victim of a miscarriage of justice was to change all that.
Excerpt from page xiii of Introduction of Sandra Lean’s first discredited book NoSmoke: The Shocking Truth About British Justice
Which suggests P Hughes claim on Sandra Lean’s About section of her website where PHughes stated “Since 2002 Sandra has felt compelled to help innocent victims” is another bare faced lie.
Tap on the button below to read more on Sandra Lean’s “until two years ago” statement;
Sandra Lean & Stephanie Bon & The Stolen Items From Zenith Windows
Stephanie Bon
It is thought Sandra Lean came into contact with Stephanie Bon during Stephanie’s fraudulent public relations spin campaigning for actual, factual guilty killer Simon Hall.
Stephanie Bon is referred to throughout this blog series, the index for which can be found by tapping on the button below;
It is not known if Stephanie Bon ever told Sandra Lean about the stolen items from the Zenith windows burglary, which killer Simon Hall took to Stephanie’s house in Colchester on Monday the 17th of December 2001.
It is also not known if Stephanie Bon ever spoke to Sandra Lean about her relationship with Simon Hall, and of any, or all, of the details regarding the Christmas family meal in Lincolnshire.
Tap on each of the buttons below to read more about the Zenith windows burglary and the Hall family Christmas meal in Lincolnshire;
Sandra Lean & Fraudster & Convicted Criminal Stephen T Manning
In 2007 Private Eye Magazine (Edition 1202) published an article headed Diggory Pockery which referred to Sandra Lean and Stephen T Manning. who was referred to here as ‘the evil liar”.
Fraudster and convicted criminal Stephen T Manning was named in the article by one of his many pseudonym’s Jack Havana.
Below is a copy of the Private Eye article;
Stephen T Manning stated of Sandra Lean’s first discredited book;
Sandra Lean’s NO SMOKE offers a vitally-important contribution to British social awareness.
Stephen T Manning
Already the subject of much debate within the judicial system, this book reviews seven specific real-life cases and in doing so exposes some truly shocking practices within the UK justice system.
The cases are exhaustively researched and documented in an easy-to-read contemporary style, and the conclusions presented in an articulate and professional format.
Review copies have been highly praised, and the book has already been recommended by sitting judiciary as an insightful (if rather disturbing) guide to the inner workings of British justice.
Sandra Lean’s book was not “exhaustively researched” as Stephen T Manning claimed because Sandra never had access to all the case files.
Sandra Lean did not attend any of the murder trials of any of the 7 killers she wrote about in her book.
In the case of actually, factually guilty killer Simon Hall, Sandra Lean relied on media articles and the word of liars like Stephanie Bon and the Hall family members (Lynne, Phil, Simon and Shaun).
There is also no evidence anywhere that Sandra Lean’s book was “recommended by sitting judiciary”.
This was yet another bare faced lie.
Jodi Jones killer’s mother also attempted to suggest something similar in April 2010 on an Internet forum here.
Liar Corinne Mitchell stated in part;
It also comes recommended by the c.c.r.c.!.
Sandra received an e~mail from a female saying the c.c.r.c. had recommended her book and could she get a copy.
Corinne Mitchell – 9th of April 2009
Someone contacted the CCRC (criminal cases review commission) around the same time to ask if Sandra Lean’s book had been recommended by them and their reply (Which can be read here) is reproduced in part below:
I asked:
“Could you please tell me if CCRC recommends a book named No Smoke by Sandra Lean to its clients?”
The answer to your question is no, the Commission does not recommend this book to its applicants.
Justin Hawkins
Stephanie Bon commented underneath Stephen T Manning, stating in part;
Justice 4 Simon, Justice for all
Miscarriages of justice are happening all around us, everyday, it’s fact!!
Sandra Lean eloquently explores various areas of the legal system and details a few cases amongst so many others.
The current British legal system does not allow people to maintain their innocence without paying the price:- bullying and abuse, “psychological reports” claiming an “in denial” attitude and refusal to admit guilt therefore take responsibility for their actions ending ultimately with no chances of parole.
DON’T make the mistake of thinking that you can rely on the system to put things right, you will be waiting a very long time.
Thank you Sandra for your hard work (sic)
Stephanie Bon
As stated in Part 17here manipulative killers who falsely claim to be innocent and who choose to launch fraudulent public relations spin campaigns, utilise a plethora of psychological tactics like coercive persuasion, the illusory truth effect and gaslighting to help promote their propaganda – as do many of their enablers.
It was not only the ruthless lies and deception of Joan Albert’s killer Simon Hall that allowed his innocence fraud to begin and continue on for as long as it did.
It was also because he was enabled by many other deceptive people, including charlatan and fraudster Sandra Lean.
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.
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”.
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 InnocenceNetworkUK (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.
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.
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.
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 “expertoncriminal 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.
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.
INNOCENCE FRAUD WATCH 