On the 2nd February 2023 Bill Robertson who apparently “has researched alleged miscarriages of justice for around 20 years” had a blog published on Michael Naughton’s “CCRC Watch” website page.
Michael Naughton was involved in the innocence fraud phenomenon scam of self-confessed killer Simon Hall.
Bill Robertson is involved with mass murderer, child killer, rapist and coercive controller Jeremy Bamber
Convicted rapist & passport fraudster Andrew Malkinson
Rapist Andrew Malkinson Was Described As Being “Forensically Aware”
Convicted rapist and passport fraudster Andrew Malkinson from Grimsby attacked his victim in the early hours of 19th July 2003.
He was subsequently found guilty for his crimes at Manchester crown court on 10th February 2004.
Andrew Malkinson’s trial solicitor had himself served a prison sentence for fraud.
A Bolton media article reported the following;
The judge described 38-year-old Malkinson as a “sexual predator” and a danger to women when he was sentenced at Manchester Crown Court on Tuesday.
He was found guilty of attempting to choke, asphyxiate or stangle with intent to rape the 33-year-old woman as she walked home alone through Little Hulton following a row with her boyfriend.
She was dragged down a motorway embankment in Cleggs Lane and attacked in the early hours of July 19 last year.
Sentencing, Judge Michael Henshell, said:
“This is amongst the most serious cases of this type and these circumstances make you out as a sexual predator, and a man who is prepared to use extreme violence against a defenceless victim.
“I have no doubt that you pose a high risk to women that at present cannot be accurately assessed.
“The effect of this attack on your victim will live with her for the rest if her life.”
He recommended that Malkinson would be eligible for parole after 14 years and would serve a minimum of seven years, including the nine months he has been in custody already.
During February’s seven-day trial at Manchester Crown Court the victim — who cannot be named for legal reasons — told the jury how she thought she was going to die at the hands of her attacker.
On the 24th January 2023 the criminal cases review commission (CCRC) made a statement here.
Excerpts from the CCRC’s statement read:
CCRC Chairman Helen Pitcher OBE said:
“This referral highlights the importance of the CCRC to our criminal justice system. New evidence can come to light years after a conviction, and in this case years after our first review of Mr Malkinson’s application.
“Following Mr Malkinson’s application, we used our special powers and expertise to re-examine this case, instructing experts to undertake state of the art DNA testing.
The new DNA evidence found by the CCRC does not prove that the man on the DNA database committed these or any offences.
The CCRC has, however, passed the new DNA evidence to Greater Manchester Police for them to consider further.
Excerpts from the CCRC’s 24th January 2023 statement including comments made by Helen Pitcher – chair of the CCRC
Wasn’t it premature of the CCRC to pass their alleged ‘new DNA evidence’ to Greater Manchester police when convicted rapist Andrew Malkinson’s conviction(s) have yet to been deemed ‘unsafe’ by the court of appeal?
Amd wasn’t it equally premature for greater Manchester police to make an arrest whilst Andrew Malkinson remains convicted for his crimes?
According to a 3rd May 2023 BBC article a man was ‘arrested and released under investigation’;
Greater Manchester Police confirmed in January a man had been arrested and released under investigation in light of the new information, but no decision has yet been made on whether he will be charged.
…in October, the sample was found to be a partial match for another man, who the court ordered can only be identified as “Mr B”, and forensic investigations were ongoing, with a final report due later this month.
According to a May 2023 media article here it claimed saliva had been identified on the victims bra.
Excerpts from the article, apparently referring to 2009, read;
A forensic review done for the CPS in December that year had identified saliva on the bra.
It revealed a mixed DNA profile – the majority that of the victim – but it showed the prescence of at least two persons.
He said Mr B was consequently identified as someone who could have been identified by that DNA.
Excerpts by Neal Keeling for Manchester evening news article dated 3rd May 2023
As in the case of Scottish killer Luke Mitchell, saliva could have already been present at the scene of crime when Andrew Malkinson attacked his victim.
Or in the case of killer Kevin Nunn, where the circumstantial DNA of another man was found on his victim.
DNA evidence is circumstantial evidence and cannot be dated.
Convicted rapist Andrew Malkinson fled the area following his attack on his victim, who incidentally identified him during a police identification parade.
The victim had said to rapist Andrew Malkinson when he began to strangle her that she would “never forget his face”
Two other people also identified him following his victim just prior to his attack.
The CCRC made no reference in their January 2023 statement to all the circumstantial evidence which convicted Andrew Malkinson in 2004.
Have the CCRC managed to magic away this evidence, like they did in the case of self-confessed killer Simon Hall in 2009, when they referred to his murder conviction to the court of appeal?
And to literally get into bed (pardon the pun) with child killer Billy Middleton,
They say you know a person by the company he/she keeps.
A hobbyist who works off the tabloids she proclaims to hate, and gets her followers to hate them as well.
A self-proclaimed Criminologist who has never worked as a criminologist says she’s the sole person in Scotland who has seen and knows everything about the case, even though she wasn’t at the trial, what a weird thing to say.
Joan Albert’s Killer Photograph of Simon Hall taken whilst at large and wanted by Suffolk police for a sexually motivated murder
As stated in the previous Part 18h of this blog series; Stephanie (Hall) was not aware of the fact she had been/and was being groomed, conned and exploited by actual, factual guilty killer, sexual deviant, predator and dangerous, psychopathic innocence fraudster Simon Hall (And others – which included Sandra Lean), as well as the very real innocence fraud phenomenon.
Stephanie (Hall) wrongly believed Simon Hall was actually, factually innocent and A N others were responsible for his murder.
It wasn’t until around early 2011 that Stephanie (Hall) glimpsed an extremely cold, inconsiderate and manipulative side to Simon Hall, and she wrongly dismissed this at the time – making excuses and putting this behaviour down to the fact Simon Hall had just lost his appeal.
But by the November 2012 when Stephanie (Hall) learned Simon Hall (and the Hall family members and people like Stephanie Bon) had lied by omission about the Zenith windows burglary (Read more by tapping on the links to Parts 10, 10a and 10b below), Simon Hall’s cold, inconsiderate and manipulative character came out more frequently.
And it was during this time that Simon Hall’s older brother Shaun Hall was exposing his brother Simon, and the Hall families, various types of lies – as was Stephanie Bon, who dated Simon Hall at the time of his murder.
Read more in Parts 9, 9a, 11,11a and 11b by tapping on the links below;
Following the exposure of killer Simon Hall, and his enablers innocence fraud, which again included Sandra Lean as well as un-convicted baby killer, sexual deviant and abusive predator Billy Middleton, Billy wrote and published a blog he headed What now for MOJs following Simon Hall’s confession?
It is not known if Sandra Lean aided con-artist and fraudster Billy Middleton with any of the contents of the blog, or if Sandra Lean proof read it (like she did with Billy’s 2010 ‘United Against Injustice’ speech) but the blog was published on the WAP website on the 13th of August 2013 and read as follows;
Unsurprisingly, the MOJ community has been damaged with many feeling bitter and betrayed as they stand up for those they believe are innocent.
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 Middleton – 11th August 2013 (Originally published here)
Billy Middleton last tweeted out a link to the above blog in 2017 – as can be seen by tapping on the link below;
Following killer Simon Hall’s suicide a few months later, abuser and con-artist Billy Middleton posted the following to his WAP website claiming “he may well have been innocent after all”;
Next Part to Sandra Lean’s Fabricated ‘PhD’ ~ Dropping Soon
Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.
Joseph Goebbels
Actual, Factual, Guilty Killer Simon Hall (& Sandra Leans) Innocence Fraud Was Exposed In 2012/13
Con-artist Sandra Lean’s first book was published in 2007 and again in 2008.
It included seven chapters on seven guilty murderers and Sandra Lean weaved her tales using the seven murderers cases, two of which were guilty killers Luke Mitchell and Simon Hall.
Con-artist Sandra Lean’s misleading and fabricated narratives, pushing out the innocence fraud of killer Simon Hall has been copied and published on this website and can be read by tapping on the following link;
Tap on the link below to start reading this blog series and to see with your own eyes some of the FACTS con-artist Sandra Lean left out of her 1st discredited book;
After killer Simon Hall’s actual, factual guilt was exposed Sandra Lean continued to troll online and pretended to anyone who would listen to her that actually, factually guilty killer Simon Hall’s numerous admissions (to numerous people) to his murderous crime(s) weren’t genuine.
On the 10th of January 2017, some 4 years after the innocence fraud of actually, factually guilty killer Simon Hall and his enablers (including charlatan Sandra Lean) innocence fraud was exposed, con-artist Sandra Lean published a brief summary of what she said her revision in her now discredited 1st book No Smoke would be.
Sandra Lean’s ‘revision’ read;
In August 2013, it was reported that Simon Hall had confessed to the murder, in what many considered questionable circumstances, after ten years of maintaining his innocence. Some observers (including Simon’s family) expressed concerns about Simon’s mental health immediately prior to, and at the time of, the confession (a suicide attempt in the months before, for example.)
The confession and the circumstances in which it was made, have never been made public. There were other suicide attempts, the last being in February 2014, when he was found dead in his cell. The confession, whether reliable or not, does not alter the fact that the case on which the conviction was founded was extremely weak, and fell far below the standards most of us would expect when a life sentence is the potential outcome of proceedings.
There can be no doubt that the confession shocked those fighting claimed cases of Miscarriage of Justice, and raised serious questions about whether those fights should continue. However, where the fight is based on the evidence of the case as used at trial and in subsequent appeal proceedings, and that evidence is not robust enough to justify the convictions obtained, then the fight must continue, in the name of true justice.
We will never know if Simon Hall’s confession was genuine, or the confused utterings of a crumbling sanity. The decision about whether to take up, or continue to carry, the baton for claimed Miscarriages of Justice is a matter for the person deciding to do so, and their own conscience.”
Sandra Lean – 10th January 2017
Con-artist Sandra Lean did not attend actually, factually guilty killer Simon Hall’s February 2003 trial and therefore did not hear all of the evidence presented. Nor did she attend killer Luke Mitchell’s trial.
Con-artist Sandra Lean was also not privy to the police investigation nor was she privy to legal arguments agreed on before and during Simon Hall’s trial and why these legal argument’s may have been made. The same applied with regards killer Luke Mitchell’s trial and legal arguments.
Con-artist Sandra Leans chapter 5 of her 1st discredited book relied mainly on even more lies and concoctions of actually, factually guilty killer Simon Hall and his deceitful family members. And a deceitful ex girlfriend called Stephanie Bon, who was Simon Hall’s girlfriend at the time of his murder.
Shane Mitchell hiding from cameras in 2005
All of these people colluded and conspired (to a greater or lesser degree) to cover up actually, factually guilty killer Simon Hall’s murderous crime(s) and to cover up his true character and behaviours. Very similar to the cruel and callous mother of guilty killer Luke Mitchell, liar Corinne Mitchell and his lying brother Shane Mitchell*.
*When will liar Shane Mitchell explain exactly what he was doing on the night of the 30th June 2003, where exactly he went that evening and why? And when will con-artist Sandra Lean tell the people she is duping what questions the police asked Shane Mitchell about his killer brothers other missing bikeand what exactly Shane Mitchell told the police?More on the missing bike can be read in Part 127 by tapping the link below;
..projection refers to unconsciously taking unwanted emotions or traits you don’t like about yourself and attributing them to someone else.
Like a lot of aspects of human behavior, projection comes down to self-defense. Koenig notes that projecting something you don’t like about yourself onto someone else protects you from having to acknowledge parts of yourself you don’t like.
It is believed con-artist Sandra Lean is aware of her numerous projections and conscious of the fact that she attempts to project her undesirable character traits onto others.
In the past week con-artist Sandra Lean has published the following to one of her social media accounts;
A search of the internet will show that con-artist Sandra Lean has never admitted she got it wrong in the case of actually, factually guilty killer Simon Hall and con-artist Sandra Lean has never addressed how and why she got it all so wrong.
Part 13 of this blog series, which includes statements made by con-artist Sandra Lean about actually, factually guilty killer Simon Hall can be read by tapping on the link below;
In early 2014 Sandra Lean stated she had wasted 10 years of her life having been duped by the innocence fraud of sadistic and psychopathic killer Luke Mitchell and his toxic, abusive and compulsive liar of a mother Corinne Mitchell.
But rather than admit to this publicly Sandra Lean decided to attempt to cause further distress and trauma to Jodi Jones loved ones and all the other innocent people caught up in the never ending nightmare of this innocence fraud. Which began from the point of Luke Mitchell’s murder of Jodi Jones on the 30th June 2003.
Malevolent Betrayal
Sandra Lean’s second book was written and published with malevolent intent. And the fact Sandra chose to not revise or withdraw her first book ‘No Smoke’, which was completely discredited, demonstrated she lacked integrity and was (and is) morally duplicitous.
Replacement parka – 15th August 2003
Reverse Psychology ~ All In A Bid To Set Out To Confuse People
This was the reason why Corinne Mitchell replaced her killer son Luke Mitchell’s original khaki green parka jacket.
It is not known whose idea it was to ensure Luke was photographed wearing the replacement parka jacket by waiting media photographers. But it is evident Ruby Guetta (Corinne Mitchell’s adoptive mother) and/or the Mitchell’s conjured this up “all in a bid to set out to confuse people”.
Ruby Guetta contacted the media in 2007 attempting to sell them a story about her killer grandson and wanted ‘between £8,000 and £10,000’ but the media weren’t interested.
And around three years after, Corinne Mitchell attempted to put the blame of her own (and/or her mother’s or Luke’s) conjured up story about the replacement parka jacket onto the police;
The parka was a theory conjured up by the police. According to them, Luke was “seen”……in three different jackets….One…..a parka…..two a german army shirt…..and three….a green bomber jacket……the latter is what Luke was wearing and the police took it when they stripped him that night. The Police claimed I had burnt the Parka jacket in my log burner. then replaced it with another. The Parka Luke was photographed in, in the Press was bought after the murder…..and the police have that as well. To think I had burnt the parka in my log burner is a complete joke. Its diameter is approx 14 inches and about 10inches high. Fine for burning small logs but thats it. Anything other than that would be impossible. Even cutting the parka into smaller sections its rediculous. Zips, buttons, studs etc would have been left and the police took the ash that was in it away……and surprise, surprise…….nothing was found. When ,later, the police asked people if they had seen Luke in a Parka before the murder, a few said they had but by then he was in the press on a daily basis…wearing the parka…….all in a bid to set out to confuse people.
Corinne Mitchell – 5th May 2010
Ruby Guetta and Corinne and Luke Mitchell knew how to court the media and they knew a photo opportunity of Luke being seen wearing his replacement parka jacket could hinder the police investigation and potentially confuse witnesses. But it failed.
In reality killer Luke Mitchell was seen wearing two jackets on the night he committed his murder. The jacket he wore during the commission of his sadistic and murderous crime and the jacket he changed into.
Fires So Nothing Was Found
Fires in the Mitchell’s back garden on the night of the 30th of June 2003 were started early and by all accounts there were at least two fires in the garden that night, or one fire that was kept going for several hours.
The parka jacket and other items of clothing and shoes worn by killer Luke Mitchell may have been put on the lid of the log burner (instead of inside it) and the “Zips, buttons, studs etc” referred to by Corinne would have been disposed of elsewhere, once the parka had burned down, which wouldn’t have taken long as the above video shows.
No one knows exactly where Corinne and Shane Mitchell went on that night because Sandra Lean has purposely chosen to deflect attention away from the pair of them and their exact movements – as have the Mitchell’s. Very similar to what was done during the innocence fraud campaign of killer Simon Hall and his immediate family members.
Stephanie Bon, who was Simon Hall’s girlfriend at the time of his murder of Joan Albert helped launch the Innocence fraud campaign alongside Simon Hall’s adoptive parents Lynne and Phil and older brother Shaun. And not unlike the Mitchell family and Sandra Lean, many people were duped by the innocence fraud – including Sandra Lean (who wrote a chapter in her book ‘No Smoke’ on Simon Hall).
Shane or Corinne, or both of them apparently went out in a car that night.
But Sandra Lean has chosen not to include details of their exact movements that night, so no one knows exactly what Corinne and Shane Mitchell were doing.
Luke Mitchell had already blamed his fires on his mother and brother, by the time his choreographed photo session, wearing his replacement parka had been accomplished;
The appellant agreed that his mother and brother had had a fire.
Collusion Between July, August & September & Further Attempts To Pervert Course Of Justice
The photograph(s) of Luke Mitchell seen wearing his replacement parka was taken in August 2003, after his second police interview. And other than looking a bit red in the face, which may have been due to him feeling overheated from wearing such a heavy jacket in late summer/early autumn. Luke didn’t appear perturbed by the photographer who snapped him wearing his new jacket – like he would go on to appear in future photos.
Luke’s interview with James Matthews took place on the day of Jodi Jones funeral – the 3rd of September 2003.
Attention seekers killer Luke Mitchell and his mother Corinne went out of their way to use the media in an attempt to re-write history and cause as much confusion to the viewing public, and potential jury pool and witnesses as possible.
For example, during his interview with James Matthews, Luke already knew he had told the police in July and/or August, his mother and brother Shane had had a fire in the back garden on that night. So Luke knew he needed to tell a different story on camera in the September interview;
JAMES MATTHEWS: Do you feel that the finger has been pointed at you as the person responsible? LUKEMITCHELL: I feel it has been left to the media and public to decide. It is trial by media. They haven’t actually come out and totally accused me, apart from in interviews, the police have accused me but I feel it has been left to trial by media to see what the public decide, who’s guilty and who’s not. The way the police are handling it, they have searched other houses and they have other suspects but I seem to be really the only person they are mentioning by name in specific detail.
JAMES MATTHEWS: This burning of clothes keeps getting mentioned and there is also the subject of a missing knife, is that your missing knife? LUKEMITCHELL: No. The burning clothes that wasn’t us. They just stated that a female relative of the suspect admitted to burning clothes.
JAMES MATTHEWS: Was that you or anyone connected to you? LUKEMITCHELL: No, not that we know of.
Again Luke Mitchell had already told the police his mother Corinne and Shane had had a fire in the garden that night, so he was tasked with attempting to re-write history by telling the public he hadn’t. And Corinne was tasked with reassuring him their orchestrated and staged interview would help him. But it backfired!
Luke & Corinne Mitchell Are Compulsive Liars & Sandra Lean Knew This By 2014
Corinne Mitchell said of the police family liaison officer DC Lindsay, who didn’t go to the Mitchell’s house until about 11 o’clock on the Wednesday the 2nd of July;
Every time she opened her mouth she lied
Corinne Mitchell to James English (May 2019)
But in reality this statement described Corinne Mitchell to a tee and may have also described Corinne’s adoptive mother Ruby Guetta.
When Sandra Lean initially became involved with the Mitchell family, their stories about that nights events were different than what they have become now. This is also what happened with the Hall families innocence fraud campaign.
The Mitchell’s stories weren’t different because of any new evidence that may have emerged (as Sandra Lean pretends to anyone who will listen to her) but because the Mitchell’s continued lies and concoctions never made any sense. And because their continued lies and concoctions never made sense their stories needed to be changed in an attempt to make them make sense.
Another point of Sandra Lean putting out as much confusing, misleading and distracting information as possible, was done in the full knowledge that anyone reading Sandra’s book would never be able to find the answers they needed (or would go looking for) because the case files aren’t in the public domain. And because Sandra Lean isn’t an expert on the case like she wants the unsuspecting public to believe her to be.
Sandra Lean doesn’t have all the facts of the case, instead she chooses to manipulative what she does have to create as many distractions as she possibly can.
Sandra Lean also hoped the content of her book would gaslight the Jones and Walker families into some kind of negative knee jerk reaction, which Sandra could then go onto manipulate and use against them to portray them in a poor light. But that too backfired.
It also backfired in relation to all the other innocent people she wrote about in an attempt to make them appear like alternative viable suspects.
The same has happened with warped minded abuser and gaslighter Scott Forbes and his book.
Sandra Lean and Scott Forbes’ continued deflection keeps the attention away from the Mitchell family lies and concoctions, and keeps the unsuspecting followers of the innocence fraud going round in circles asking the same questions about people who were, and are irrelevant to Luke Mitchell’s murder of Jodi Jones.
Jigsawman AKA Sandra Lean
In August 2005 Sandra Lean registered on an Internet forum called Luke Mitchell Fact and Myth using the pseudonym Jigsawman.
The Luke Mitchell Fact and Myth forum was being put together by bobbiedog aka psychology student Colin Bowman. Read more below;
Jigsawman (Aka Sandra Lean) made a post about timings she had been told by the Mitchell’s which included a lie about Luke speaking to his grandmother Ruby Guetta;
Timeline Monday June 30th 2003. 4.05pm Jodi returns home from school 4.34 4.38pm Series of texts between Lukes phone and Judys phone (Jodis phone was broken, so Jodi borrowed her mothers) 4.39pm (approx) Judy plays a Rod Stewart track which lasts more than 5 minutes to Jodi and Joseph, leaving just 4 minutes for Jodi to get ready and leave in order for Bryson to have spotted her at 4.48 4.48-4.54pm Andrina Bryson sees a girl and a youth on the entrance to the path 4.55pm Luke phones his mothers work and speaks to his grandmother
Jigsawman Aka Sandra Lean
What Did Shane Mitchell Tell Police About Speaking To His Gran
Killer Luke Mitchell did not phone his mothers work nor did he speak to his grandmother Ruby. If a phone call was made to his mothers work it would have been Shane Mitchell who made the call, because again Luke was not home.
And police knew Ruby Guetta lied about speaking to Luke, as did Luke’s defence team. Ruby Guetta was given a wide berth because she too appears to have been a compulsive liar.
No phone call was ever made by Luke asking his mother what was for dinner at 4.55pm. And Luke had most probably had a snack before he left the house, if he bothered to eat at all.
Jigsawman Aka Sandra Lean also stated;
Luke then decides to go out with the search party, in order to appear normal, but then leads the family directly to the body. Given that we are to believe that Corinne aided and abetted Luke to dispose of all of the evidence, is it really feasible that she would then happily send him off to the very scene shed worked so hard to distance him from? As it happened, she received the call to make her way to the police station less than two hours after this fire was first noted by the neighbours.
Jigsawman Aka Sandra Lean
Corinne Mitchell did aid and abet Luke, as did Shane Mitchell and Ruby Guetta.
Some murderers family members will go to great lengths, and for many years at a time, in order to cover up for a killer in the family – as is evidenced in the Simon Hall innocence fraud case and campaign.
And there was a reason why Corinne and Shane didn’t go with 14 year old Luke to look for Jodi Jones. They already knew what Luke had done and were instead figuring out how to plot their next move.
Sandra Lean Doesn’t Care About Jodi Jones🌻 & Never Had
A recent post (24th October 2022) by Sandra Lean on the cult-like Facebook group (below) is yet further evidence Sandra doesn’t care about Jodi Jones or ‘Justice for JodiJones’. It’s all a facade.
Sandra Lean’s above statement is shameful and pathetic and shows how desperate she is to be believed.
Ronnie Mothersole
The same applies to Sandra Lean’s flying monkeys who still don’t have a clue (for example) what Shane Mitchell told the police via his police witness statements before and following his arrest;
William Ramsey @WilliamRamseyIn of the “William Ramsey Investigates” podcast returns to the Roberta Glass True Crime Report @RobertaGlassPod to discuss Jodi Jones’ killer- Luke Mitchell and his similarities to Damien Echols.
William Ramsey Wrote & Published Abomination: Devil Worship and Deception in the West Memphis Three Murders, Children of the Beast: Aleister Crowley’s Shadow over Humanity & Prophet of Evil: Aleister Crowley, 9/11 and the New World Order..
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 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
But evidence does suggestSimon Hall’s dark secret was known by his immediatefamily members from the very beginning.
Shaun Hall older brother of Simon Hall
Shaun Hall, Simon Hall’s older brother, stated on a public Internet forum in early 2013;
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
Lynne Hall’s Self Serving Lies
Lynne Hall
Lynne Hall told numerous self serving lies from the very beginning of the police investigation into Joan Albert’s murder, and over the years that followed Simon Hall and the Hall families (and Stephanie Bon and others) fraudulent PR 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 factual guilt to his murder of Joan Albert and less than a month before his suicide, Simon 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. But Simon did not start working at State Chemicals in Colchester until the 24th of September 2001. Stephanie also told the police when she first met Simon that 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. Although it’s not clear from Stephanie Bon’s evidence on what dates and times exactly she was referring to.
But Stephanie Bon’s evidence suggests the reason Simon often had arguments over the 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 person, was that Simon 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 is 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
However Stephanie Bon ommitted 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 car.
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 car on the Wednesday.
However it is not known if Stephanie Bon had also lent Simon some money around this time to go towards buying the car on the Wednesday (12th). 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 Simon’s belongings, out of her Colchester home.
Below are extracts from one of Simon Hall’s police interviews where the police were asking Simon 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 the Friday the 14th.
And the fact 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 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 by judge Anne Rafferty, in her summing up to the jury, at the end of Simon Hall’s February 2003 trial, 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 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.
And 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 the 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.
Simon Hall’s mask began to slip following the Zenith Windows burglary revelation and his guilt to his murder of Joan Albert, along with the lies and concoctions of those closest to him at the time he chose to commit murder, began to be exposed.
Simon Hall was transferred to an open prison just under a month after his lies about his movements in the early morning hours of Sunday the 16th December 2001 were made known to Stephanie (Hall).
Prior to his trial in February 2003, a forensic psychologist collated a pre-sentence report and concluded Simon Hall presented with a dissocial personality disorder.
But by early 2008, Simon duped another forensic psychologist into disagreeing with the original psychologists findings.
Then by early 2008 the original findings were seemingly all but cancelled out, with Simon Hall no longer having a personality disorder or any mental health issues.
This new clean bill of mental health aided Simon Hall to fabricate a Guittard application, assisted by a willing prison solicitor called David McCorkle.
Not long before the Zenith Windows burglary revelation, Simon Hall had applied for a downgrade in his prison status and an early move to open prison conditions, by-passing the parole board in the process.
Prison solicitor David McCorkle aided Simon Hall’s deception in completing the Guittard application, which Simon’s then wife had strongly objected to at the time.
David McCorkle and Simon Hall had indicated in their Guittard application, which was subsequently signed off by a representative for the then secretary of state for justice, that Simon had the support of his family.
But in reality Simon Hall had not seen his adoptive parents Lynne and Phil Hall and older brother Shaun Hall for several years by this point. And neither of them had been supportive during this time.
The successful but deceptive Guittard application allowed Simon Hall to be downgraded to a D-category status prisoner on the 1st of November 2012, 4 days before his then wife Stephanie (Hall) learned he and others had lied about the Zenith Windows burglary.
Simon Hall moved to an open prison on the 30th of November 2012, which was quicker than most other lifer prisoners, in part because the prison he was moving from, HMP Kingston was closing down.
Simon Hall’s prison move took 4 days due to there being no spaces available at HMP Hollesley Bay open prison until the 3rd of December 2012, so Simon was required to spend a couple of nights in HMP Chelmsford in between the move.
Simon Hall had originally received a life sentence for his murder of Joan Albert, which was eventually calculated to work out at 13 years, minus time spent on remand, although the 2011 Court of Appeal judgment wrongly stated;
The appellant was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment and ordered to serve a minimum period of 16 years
Had Simon Hall been rightly convicted for the crimes he actually committed ie; a sexually motivated murder, it is likely his starting sentence would have been set at a minimum of 20 years or more.
Throughout the time the Hall family and Stephanie Bon publicly campaigned on Simon Hall’s behalf, they all claimed Simon had never committed a burglary before.
Scott Lomax, who refers to himself as a ’campaigner and true crime author’, and who also promoted other guilty killers innocence fraud, wrote and published a blog on Simon Hall’s false protestations of innocence stating;
Why would someone with no history of burglary suddenly decide to take a detour on his way home to commit a burglary or murder?
Excerpt from Scott Lomax’s public blog reproduced here
Scott Lomax
It is not known who Scott Lomax’s source was for this false claim, however following the publication of a blog on the 28th January 2013, written by Simon Hall, in which he gave his first public explanation for why he chose to not tell Suffolk police about the burglary, an orchestrated, malicious and ferocious smear campaign, focused on Simon Hall’s then wife, intensified.
The two main protagonists of this smear campaign were Simon Hall’s older brother Shaun Hall and Stephanie Bon, who were by this point boyfriend and girlfriend.
Shaun Hall and Stephanie Bon made numerous statements on internet forums, websites and social media and it was through their numerous statements where Simon Hall’s, the Hall family and Stephanie Bon’s lies and concoctions were exposed.
Stephanie Bon
Following the publication of Simon Hall’s blog on his (and Jamie Barker’s) burglary of Zenith Windows, Simon’s brother Shaun Hall made the following public statement aimed at h Stephanie (Hall), in relation to his (Shaun’s) deceptive girlfriend Stephanie Bon;
She’s just going to put her side to your story finally…
Just remember, it’s YOUR show, YOU made this happen because YOU love the attention so now you have attention from people who actually know what goes on behind closed doors.
Public statement by Shaun Hall made on the 28th January 2013
Shaun Hall
Shaun Hall also stated in relation to his girlfriend Stephanie (Steph/Steffie) Bon;
I did indeed speak to Steph yesterday and she’s putting something together just for you so keep checking
Statement made by Shaun Hall dated the 28th January 2013
Shaun Hall was referring to public statements Stephanie Bon was putting together to publish on her now defunct website called ‘Inside Doubt’,
Screen grab of Stephanie Bon’s ‘Inside Doubt’ website
some of which read as follows;
My only interest in Simon’s case is and always has been to see justice be done for Mrs Albert
I feel that malicious gossip and bad press did not help Simon when he was first arrested and to replicate it on a website to help free him just doesn’t make sense to me
It is a shame that J4S had to be taken down as it had a lot of supportive messages from people to Simon as well as a lot of good press showing support and progress and also the turnaround of people’s opinion back then, despite the allegations made by mrs h, it did help Simon and brought attention to his case
I am disappointed that Simon didn’t feel he could share his latest revelation with me at the time I started J4S or during my work campaigning as I would definitely have advised him to seek the best advise and own up to the appropriate people as opposed to being speculated and gossiped about until it got leaked on a public forum
Despite mrs h’s allegations, Simon did not disclose this information to me as he well knows
Some of the public statements made by Stephanie Bon in February 2013
When Stephanie Bon was interviewed by Suffolk police in September 2002, she chose to make no mention of the stolen CD players Simon Hall had taken to her house
Screen grab – Dated 4th February 2013
but in a private message (PM) to Stephanie (Hall), after her public statements where she claimed she did not know of the burglary revelations, Stephanie Bon stated;
If you ask your husband, he will tell you that he brought 2 cd players to my house when we were going out after he had disappeared for a weekend and noone knew where he was. He’d been nicked for the night but this was way before Joan was murdered, nothing to do with the case, so do you want to add another robbing to the list? maybe he’s lying to you? My brother was there and other people saw them, I went mental and threw them out! You stupid cow, are you going to announce another fuck up of his publicly? Shall i? unlike you, its not Simon i want to damage, its you! (sic)
Message from Stephanie Bon dated 4th February 2013
The weekend Stephanie Bon was referring to, where she claimed Simon Hall had ‘disappeared’ and ’been nicked for the night’ was the weekend of the 15th and 16th December 2001, the weekend Simon Hall had chosen to murder Joan Albert and the same weekend he had travelled to Lincolnshire with his adoptive parents Lynne and Phil Hall for a family Christmas meal.
Stephanie Bon’s brother Olivier Bon also made no mention to Suffolk police about ’being there’ when Simon Hall had taken the stolen Zenith Windows CD players to his sister Stephanie’s house in Colchester (the night after his murder of Joan Albert) and Olivier Bon also made no mention about his sister Stephanie Bon going ’mental’ on that night.
INNOCENCE FRAUD WATCH 