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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It also has the same rivets on the handle”.

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

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

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

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

‘Shady’ & Malicious Manipulation, Distraction Tactics & Lies

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

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

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

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

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

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

In reality Michael Naughton and his students had either;

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

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

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

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

Why The About-Turn?

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

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

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

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

“I knew this was dynamite”

Michael recounts excitedly.

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

We knew that we were absolutely onto this”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When Will Michael Naughton Address His Innocence Fraud?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another Example Of The Innocence Fraud Phenomenon

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

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

The ends cannot justify the means when the means are fraudulent

John M Collins

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

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

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

John Collins also stated;

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

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

John M Collins Jr (Source here)

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

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

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

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

Shawn Rech

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

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

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

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

Chicago watched it unfold on the local news.

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

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

Link to Part 19b here