Philip Joseph found Barry George far more competent than he made himself out to be to.
A media article stated;
Dr Philip Joseph, another leading psychiatrist who was called by the prosecution, said George was “far more competent” than tests would suggest and capable of lying in police interviews.
While some of his behaviour could be attributed to his epilepsy and cognitive impairment, his stalking of women appeared to stem from an “intense anger” caused by rejection, Dr Joseph said.
On the day he murdered Jill Dando, killer Barry George was seen by Julia Moorhouse at around 12.33pm.
Julia Moorhouse said that Barry George had crossed the road to talk to her around an hour after he had committed his murder.
Excerpts from a Guardian article read;
Mrs Moorhouse said she had been standing on the corner of a street close to the murder scene at 12.30pm on April 26 when a man approached and started talking to her about the helicopters hovering overhead.
“He said they were police helicopters. He gave details of what kind they were. He appeared to have technical knowledge… I turned to go. He came with me. I did not expect that.
“The whole situation struck me as slightly odd. He mentioned the Territorial Army. I think he may have said he had done training or was associated with it… either as an instructor or something”
Uncle Mike Burke referred to a conversation he had with his nephew Barry George’s barristers William Clegg and Jeffrey Samuels and stated;
Uncle Mike Burke
Outside the courtroom I spoke with Mr Clegg and Samuels.
We discussed Julia Moorhouse, the women who described being spoken to by a man who could have been Barry approx an hour after Jill Dando’s murder.
I felt her description of the man was too like Barry to be coincidence, and as she reported the meeting to the police straight away on that day it sounded genuine.
We agreed the man she met probably was Barry but disagreed as to whether they met before of after he had visited HAFAD.
The Crown claimed before, which would support their case
Excerpts from Mike Burke’s book Mike’s Story: The Battle to Clear Barry George of the Jill Dando Murder first published in June 2011– Source here
Barry George admitted he had spoken to Julia Moorhouse when he spoke to the media following his retrial.
As previously referred to in Part 18 of this blog series here, Mike Burke also highlighted this fact stating;
In their ‘World Exclusive’ he was quoted as saying ‘After leaving HAFAD I bumped into a woman who was later a prosecution witness and said I was stalking her…That was at 12.33pm…’
That was obviously a reference to Julia Moorhouse who he had always denied meeting.
Excerpts by uncle Mike Burke
One Of Umpteen Innocence Fraud Red Flags
Michelle Diskin Bates chose to ghost Julia Moorhouse and her evidence from a book she had published in 2018, preferring instead to refer to the actress Julia Roberts.
Yet she repeatedly claims;
When he was released from custody in August 2008, Barry George publicly stated he had met with Julia Moorhouse. He stated;
I walked with her for a bit and, from her perspective, maybe it was unwanted attention. But she didn’t make that clear.
It didn’t seem like she was telling me to go away.
If she’d told me to leave I’d have done so straight away.
That was at 12.33pm.
I know because just a minute before I’d made a call from my mobile to check how much credit I had left.
Statements by Barry George on 1st August 2008 – Source here
Michael Naughton, who was involved in the innocence fraud of killer Simon Hall, wrote the foreword for Michelle Diskin Bates.
On the 2nd February 2023 Bill Robertson, who says he has apparently “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.
Tap on the button below to read more about actual, factual guilty killer Simon Hall and his deceitful enablers;
Bill Robertson is involved with mass murderer, child killer, rapist and coercive controller Jeremy Bamber’s innocence fraud public relations spin campaign.
Convicted rapist & passport fraudster Andrew Malkinson
Violent Rapist Andrew Malkinson Described As Being “Forensically Aware”
Convicted rapist and passport fraudster Andrew Malkinson, originally 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 Shah Ali had himself served a prison sentence for fraud and had been struck off the solicitors roll by the solicitors regulations authority (SRA).
A 2004 Bolton news article reported the following in relation to Andrew Malkinson’s trial;
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?
And 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.
A further excerpt from the BBC article, referring to the undated circumstantial DNA found on Andrew Malkinson’s victims clothing, read;
…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.
A May 2023 Manchester evening news article by Neal Keeling stated;
Mr Henry said Greater Manchester Police were on notice about this matter from 2009 as to other DNA.
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, the alleged saliva could have already been present at the scene of crime before Andrew Malkinson attacked his victim.
Or like in the case of killer Kevin Nunn, where background circumstantial DNA of another man featured in the case.
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 photographic identification parade.
The victim had said to rapist Andrew Malkinson before he rendered her unconscious she would “never forget his face”
Two other people also identified him following his victim just prior to his attack and rapes.
The CCRC made no reference in their January 2023 statement to all the circumstantial evidence which convicted violent rapist 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 his murder conviction to the court of appeal.
Tap on the button below to read more on The Fraud of the Criminal cases review commission;
Fraud involves the false representation of facts, whether by intentionally withholding important information or providing false statements to another party for the specific purpose of gaining something that may not have been provided without the deception.
Often, the perpetrator of fraud is aware of information that the intended victim is not, allowing the perpetrator to deceive the victim.
At heart, the individual or company committing fraud is taking advantage of information asymmetry; specifically, that the resource cost of reviewing and verifying that information can be significant enough to create a disincentive to fully invest in fraud prevention.
As already stated in Part15 of this ongoing blog series, which can be read by tapping on the button below, the criminal cases reviews commission (CCRC) made the decision to refer actual, factual guilty killer Simon Hall’s conviction for his murder of Joan Albert to the court of appeal (on the 14th of October 2009) based on what they claimed was “new evidence relating to fibre evidence”
Innocence Fraud Is Very Real As Is Evidenced By The Simon Hall Case & Campaign
In reality the CCRC committed fraud, which if the three court of appeal judges picked up on – they chose to not address or comment on in their judgement.
What was however stated by the court of appeal judges in their 11th of January 2011 judgement was that;
The Crown acknowledged that the central feature of its case against the appellant was the evidence of fibre analysis
Excerpt from court of appeal judgement dated 14th January 2011[2011] EWCA Crim 4
Simon Spence
Simon Spence was instructed by Suffolk’s crown prosecution service (CPS) at the time of the December 2010 appeal.
It is not known if it was Simon Spence’s decision alone to make this false acknowledgement, or if he consulted with other people at the CPS who also agreed to go along with this.
However Simon Spence does not appear willing to address these serious matters.
How many other cases of the innocence fraud phenomenon has Simon Spence and the CCRC been involved with?
Prosecutor Graham Parkin made it clear in his closing speech* during killer Simon Hall’s February 2003 trial for his murder of Joan Albert, the “central feature” of the case were Simon Hall and the Hall families (Lynne, Phil and Shaun) lies and concoctions “woven into the general framework of the case”.
*The closing speech of a prosecution or defence lawyer is a summary of evidence heard during a trial and is the final attempt to address the court.
Graham Parkin stated;
Simon Hall was wrong in our submission when he said that this case is all about those fibres
Graham Parkin
Although Graham Parkin went on to state;
True it is that the finding of fibres is central to the prosecution case and of course without them there would be no case.
Graham Parkin
Graham Parkin also made it clear when he stated;
But it doesn’t rest simply on your assessment and your decision based on those fibres in Mrs Cunnison’s evidence.No it does not.
Graham Parkin
Graham Parkin also went on to state;
In fact I’ll go so far as to say this, the prosecution now have more evidence in this case for you to consider than we could ever possibly imagined we were going to have when I stood up to open it to you to outline it to you in other words just over a fortnight ago.
Now members of the jury we did not know nor indeed could we know that Simon Hall’s case was to develop well beyond what he had ever said before.
More particularly during the course of long detailed sensible interviews concluded by police officers in the presence of his solicitor throughout.
We did not know that his defence would include some material, and I’m going to say this, I’ll use the word deliberately and explain to you why I say it in a moment.
We couldn’t know that his case was going to involve material, which has been concocted.
Made up.
If you find it so to be you’ll have to ask yourselves the question why has it.
Because concocted means deliberate and dishonest.
To be woven into the general framework of the case, the general framework of his movements on that particular weekend of his lifestyle and those of his family generally. It is a serious submission that I make to you.
That Simon Hall aided by members of his family his rehearsed story, which they know in important parts not to be true.
He’s done it for an obvious reason the Crown say to escape proper justice. To stave a conviction for murder.
Others in his family have done it for a perfectly understandable reason, wrong though it is in the result.
Perfectly understandable isn’t it?
Mrs Hall said as you would have expected to, they can’t she can’t begin to believe that he Simon could do the thing which he is accused of.
And I’ll add to that what mother could?
Excerpts from the prosecutions closing speech by Graham Parkin starting at the bottom of page 16 continuing onto page 17 here
The CCRC & John Curtis Have Not Addressed Their Role In The Fraud
John Curtis – ‘head of legal’ for the criminal cases review commission
John Curtis who was the case review manager responsible for investigating killer Simon Hall’s conviction stated in January 2015;
The Commission’s contribution to society is important.
Miscarriages of justice remain a reality, as are the challenges to the organisation charged with their investigation.
Excerpt by John Curtis for Counsel magazine article headed Righting Wrongs dated 12th January 2015
What about the very real innocence fraud phenomenon?
How and why did John Curtis and the three CCRC commissioners James/Jim England, Julie Goulding and Ewen Smith ignore all the evidence against killer Simon Hall, and his family members (and others) who lied for him, in order to make their referral in October 2009?
What logic and reasoning did John Curtis and the three CCRC commissioners use during their review, investigation and decision making which allowed them to ignore all of this, and other evidence?
Exonerations Are Extremely Serious
A few months after John Curtis’s article was published the annual symposium of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) was held at the Wardman Park Marriott in Washington, D.C.
Collins told the audience of approximately 150 guests on the final day of the symposium.
“For our criminal justice system to go back and say that the decision of a judge or jury who decided to put a particular individual in prison [was wrong] . . . and suddenly say that the individual shouldn’t be there – and is therefore free to return to life in the public – is very, very serious”
Although the three court of appeal judges did not exonerate killer Simon Hall and upheld his murder conviction in January 2011, the CCRC were reviewing his murder conviction for a second time and were seemingly still focusing on the fibre evidence and were not perturbed by the Zenith burglary and other revelations around this time.
So whilst killer Simon Hall’s actual, factual guilt to his murder of Joan Albert was unravelling and being exposed, the CCRC were wasting further time, money and resources still looking for a route back to the court of appeal in an attempt to discredit the fibre evidence.
John M Collins spoke to Roberta Glass via her True Crime Report podcast in 2019 about how/why forensic science is being denigrated and challenged by the Innocence movement;
John M Collin wrote and published the Crime Lab Report: An Anthology on Forensic Science in the Era of Criminal Justice Reform in October 2019.
Crime Lab Report compiles the most relevant and popular articles that appeared in this ongoing periodical between 2007 and 2017. Articles have been categorized by theme to serve as chapters, with an introduction at the beginning of each chapter and a description of the events that inspired each article. The author concludes the compilation with a reflection on Crime Lab Report, the retired periodical, and the future of forensic science as the 21st Century unfolds. Intended for forensic scientists, prosecutors, defense attorneys and even students studying forensic science or law, this compilation provides much needed information on the topics at hand.
Part 20a of The Fraud Of The Criminal Cases Review Commission ~ Dropping Soon
INNOCENCE FRAUD WATCH 