Category: The Forensic Institute

Killer Simon Hall: Bristol University’s Michael Naughton Aka “Empowering The Innocent”, Heather Mills, Private Eye Magazine, Higham Burglary, TIE Suspect, Lynne & Phil Hall, Suspicious & Conflicting Accounts, Vanishing Clothing & Shoes & More Bare Faced Lies, Concoctions, & Malicious, Manipulative & Distractive Innocence Fraud Phenomenon Tactics – Part 19b©️

Michael Naughton

As stated in Part 19a of this blog series Michael Naughton, and in turn Heather Mills from Private Eye magazine, lied in 2009 about the “fingerprints found above Mrs Albert’s body” and “DNA on her body”.

Photo of Heather Mills and Ian Hislop from Private Eye in 2011 here

The November 2009 Private Eye article (Referred to in Part 19 here) also stated;

Eye readers will recall that Hall was only put in the frame because his mother used to care for Mrs Albert and had a key to her house.

He had a firm alibi for all but about half an hour on the night Mrs Albert was killed.

He was pubbing and clubbing with friends in Ipswich, dropping one off at his house between 05:30 and 6am, before arriving home to his mother, Lynne, at round 6.15am.

As it was, it was unlikely he could have broken in to Mrs Albert’s home, killed her and arrived back home.

But there was absolutely no way he could have burgled one old person’s home and then moved on to Mrs Albert’s.

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

Heather Mills following statement;

But there was absolutely no way he could have burgled one old person’s home and then moved on to Mrs Albert’s.

was pointless and was yet another innocence fraud distraction tactic.

As already mentioned in Part 19a here the Higham burglary “was formally linked to a series of antique thefts” and the “two crimes were not formally linked”, ie: killer Simon Hall’s murder of Joan Albert in Capel St Mary was not related to the antiques theft of “the old person’s” home in Higham.

Crime scene photo of broken kitchen window

The fact killer Simon Hall’s adoptive mother Lynne Hall had a key to Joan Albert’s home was irrelevant because Simon Hall broke Joan Albert’s kitchen window (Pictured above) to gain access to her and her home.

If Simon Hall had of had a “firm alibi” as suggested by Heather Mills for Private Eye magazine (courtesy of Michael Naughton), it’s unlikely Simon would have been “put in the frame” in the first place.

TIE (Trace/Interview/Eliminate) Suspect

There were numerous reasons why killer Simon Hall was “put in the frame” for his murder, some of which have already been highlighted throughout this blog series, which begins here.

For example, as referred to in Part 2 here due to the fact Simon Hall had previous criminal convictions for violence, and because he had in the past lived nearby and knew the area well, Simon Hall’s name was quickly flagged by the HOLMES information technology system used by police for investigations.

Simon Hall was automatically categorised as a TIE suspect (trace, interview, eliminate) in relation to Joan Albert’s murder.

Therefore Suffolk police may have known when they first began interviewing Lynne Hall on the 18th of December 2001, that her youngest adoptive sons name had already been flagged up by HOLMES.

Lynne Hall’s behaviour and statements in particular gave numerous suspicious and conflicting accounts from the very beginning of her contact with the police.

Lynne Hall – 2011
Photo courtesy of BBC

This was clearly done by Lynne Hall in an attempt to deflect away attention and cover up for her adoptive guilty killer son Simon Hall.

More on Lynne Hall and her evidence can be read by tapping on the button below;

PART 7 Lynne Hall, The Cover Up & Attempting To Rewrite History

By Tuesday the 18th of December 2001, just two days after Joan Albert was discovered to have been murdered, Lynne Hall was offering up two possible suspects.

Lynne Hall told Suffolk police she had seen two youths/men in the village of Capel St Mary “on the Monday or Tuesday of the previous week the 10th and 11th December”.

Lynne Hall also stated on the same day;

I thought about ringing the barman Trevor ***** who is a builder in the village, in fact I didn’t do that.

That roof is quite high with a flat roof.

I believe from that roof Joan’s house could be seen

It is not known what Lynne Hall thought “ringing the barman Trevor ***** who is a builder in the village” would have achieved exactly, but many other houses would have been “seen from that roof”.

If Lynne Hall had had genuine concerns about the two youths/men, including the one who she said had “a pleasant face” but who gave her “the impression they seemed guilty”, why didn’t Lynne tell someone at the time or contact the police?

It appears Lynne Hall’s choice of words were a Freudian slip or her psychological projections perhaps, or a combination of the two?

Were Lynne Hall’s unconscious emotions about the men she had allegedly seen the week before, really all about her adoptive killer son Simon Hall and what Lynne had witnessed just two days earlier?

Questions For Lynne & Phil Hall

Was it really killer Simon Hall with his “pleasant face” who gave Lynne Hall the “impression he seemed guilty” when he arrived at her and Phil Hall’s home at 6.30am, after having committed his murder of Joan Albert?

Lynne Hall went on to state in November 2013 (Read more in Part 10 here) that she had seen the “microwave size” locker her adoptive son Simon Hall, and Jamie Barker, had stolen from the Zenith Windows burglary, allegedly in her garden on the morning of her sons murder of Joan Albert.

Why did Lynne Hall really choose to omit to tell Suffolk police about this fact at the time, and what else did Lynne Hall lie by omission to Suffolk police about?

Lynne Hall said she had apparently asked her adoptive son Simon what the stolen “microwave size” locker was and had then apparently told him to “get rid” of said stolen locker as she “did not want it in her garden”.

Photo of an example of industrial waste bins

Killer Simon Hall claimed he got “rid of” the stolen “microwave size” locker in an industrial waste bin (Along with the clothing, shoes and leather jacket he wore when he committed his murder of Joan Albert) early on the morning of Monday the 17th of December 2001.

Rather than telephone his line manager to ask for a few days off work in order to “look after” his adoptive mother Lynne (Which was the reason he gave for asking for a few days off work) Simon Hall used the excuse to drive to State Chemicals in Colchester to dispose of all incriminating evidence.

Suspicious Behaviour & Vanishing Clothing & Shoes

What exactly did Lynne Hall make of her adoptive son driving all the way to Colchester to ask for a couple of days off, when a quick telephone call could have been made instead?

Did Simon Hall behaviour strike Lynne Hall (or any of the Hall family members) as suspicious or unusual or was Lynne Hall actually aware of the fact Simon needed to “get rid” of incriminating evidence?

It is not known if Lynne and/or Phil Hall saw Simon Hall put the “microwave size” locker in his car, or if either of them saw Simon carrying the clothing, shoes and bulky leather jacket he had been wearing when he carried out his murder of Joan Albert, down the stairs from bedroom 3 and out of their home on that Monday morning.

It is also not known if a conversation was ever had between Simon and Lynne, and/or Phil Hall, about why Simon’s clothing, shoes and leather jacket had suddenly vanished.

Lynne & Phil Hall’s Lies & Concoctions

Simon Hall had purchased a brand new pair of mole skin type jeans/trousers from Tesco’s the day before.

He then drove straight to his adoptive parents home in Capel St Mary with his new jeans/trousers and had spent a maximum of an hour at their house, before heading out for the night.

Lynne Hall claimed to the police on the day her adoptive son was arrested;

On Saturday the 15th of December 2001 I was ill in bed all day.

I seem to think that Simon was around during the day and he put his head in to make sure I was okay.

I may have popped down to make a drink.

The Sunday we were off to Stoke Rochford in Lincolnshire which is a stately home, it was a family get together.

Simon told me at some stage that Saturday that he was going out and would probably not be back that night.

I told him to be back because we were leaving early.

I wanted him home at five or six am as I wanted to make sure he was okay and dressed properly

Excerpt’s from Lynne Hall’s 25th July 2002 police witness statement
Phil Hall

Also on the day his adoptive son was arrested, Phil Hall stated;

On the 15th December 2001 my wife was upstairs unwell in bed, I don’t know when Simon left the house or even if I saw him at all that day.

I do not know what he was wearing that day at all.

I recall that Lynne had asked Simon to make sure he was back in time to leave for Stoke Rochford in Lincolnshire where we had a family do

Excerpt from Phil Hall’s police witness statement dated 25th July 2002

Did Lynne and Phil Hall really not recall seeing Simon Hall wearing his ‘larey black shirt with red splashes over it’?

Nicola, who referred to her diary entries recalled seeing Simon wearing this particular shirt a week earlier.

Tap on the button below to read more about Nicola’s evidence;

PART 5 The Missing Black “Larey or Loud” Shirt With “Red Splashes Over It” Evidenced By A Photograph 

Nicola had stated in her evidence that she recalled “laughing at” the shirt because “it was a bit larey’ or loud”

I do recall laughing at Simons shirt which was black with red splashes over it

It was a ’bit larey’ or loud

Excerpts from Laura T’s friend Nicola’s police witness statement dated 27th August 2002

Link to Part 19c here

Killer Simon Hall: When Will Bristol University’s Michael Naughton Address His Innocence Fraud, Heather Mills, Private Eye Magazine, The Higham Burglary Which Was Formally Linked To Series Of Antique Thefts, John M Collins Jr, Mark Godsey, Ohio Innocence Project, David Protess, Northwestern University & Psycho Killer & Gang Member Anthony Porter – Part 19a©️

Michael Naughton

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)
Photo of Heather Mills from Private Eye magazine from 2011 here

‘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;

The Criminal Cases Review Commission’s Statement of Reasons On Their Referral Of Simon Hall’s Murder Conviction To The Court Of Appeal Dated 14th October 2009

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

Copies from bottom of page 34 and top of page 35 of the criminal cases review commission statements of reasons here

The Higham burglary, as referred to by the criminal cases review commission, and as noted in the above excerpts from the Private Eye magazine article, “was formally linked to a series of antique thefts” and the “two crimes were 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.

PART 6 Killer Simon Hall: Power & Control

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.

David Protess with his arms and legs wrapped around the actual, factual, guilty psychopathic killer, and violent gang member, of Marilyn Green (19) and Jerry Hillard (18)

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

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

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

Stephanie Bon, Andrew Green & Michael Naughton

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

Stephanie Bon

Hello Andrew

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Innocence Fraud Of Sadistic Killer Kevin Nunn

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

Sadistic killer Kevin Nunn

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

The June 2014 supreme court judgement can be read here.

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

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

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

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

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

Screenshot of Andrew Green’s twitter bio

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

Screenshot of Andrew Green’s Linkedin bio

Claire McGourlay & Defunct Innocence Network UK

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

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

Claire McGourlay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

University of Sheffield School of Law December 2008 newsletter

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

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

Screenshot taken from The Forensic Institute website

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

Screenshot taken from The Forensic Institute website

and next to a photograph of Michael Naughton it stated;

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

Screenshot taken from The Forensic Institute website

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

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

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

Andrew Green

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Hall Family’s Concoctions & Stills From CCTV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to Part 17f here