House of Commons London SW1A 0AA

Name Address Email: justice4simon[at]koncept07[dot]net Web: www.justice4simon.co.uk

17 November 2005

Subject: MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – Simon Hall

Dear (Your MP's NAME),

I am writing in relation to Justice4Simon, the campaign to free Simon Hall, who has been wrongly imprisoned. The campaign has the full backing of Chris Mole MP, Private Eye magazine, Dr Peter Bull of Oxford University and hundreds of members of the public.

As a supporter of Mr Hall, and residing within your constituency, I am writing to ask that you also consider using your position to help free an innocent man. We are simply pushing for reconsideration of the evidence. Whilst I realise that Parliamentary protocol prevents you from making representations on Simon's behalf, I am requesting that you act on my behalf. There are three things you can do immediately-

1. Sign the Petition

2. Announce publicly that you support the campaign

3. Place a link from your website to justice4simon.co.uk

Finally, please contact Mr Mole and let him know if you are prepared to help Simon Hall get the appeal he deserves.

I enclose a 1 page brief for your information, and detailed evidence can be found at: www.justice4simon.co.uk .

I hope that I will hear back from you soon with some indication of what you intend to do.

Yours Faithfully,

Your Name

In Brief

Joan Albert, 79, was found dead in her home on the morning of December 16th 2001 . She had been murdered. The police carried out months of forensic tests, and came up with four possible pieces of evidence.  

1. Polyester fibres and black 'flock' fibres from clothing  

2. A pubic hair found in the bathroom.  

3. 2 foot-prints in the mud outside at the point of entry/exit  

4. Two fingerprints inside  

The pubic hair was eliminated as evidence after it emerged that it had come from one of the Police Officers investigating the case. The clothing fibres, the footprints and the fingerprint were left.  

The prosecution and defence were in agreement that neither the fingerprints nor footprints belonged to Simon.

Simon didn't own any clothing matching the fibres. Unbelievably, the prosecution case relied upon the fact he was capable of buying clothing with matching fibres (along with most other people in the UK). It also relied upon testimony from a pathologist currently under investigation for misadvising the jury in other cases. In this case, the failure of the pathologist to accurately determine the time of death allowed a ‘window of opportunity' between 5 and 6AM during which Simon did not have an alibi.

The prosecution alleged that, in one hour, Simon drove drunkenly from Ipswich to Mrs Albert's village 7 miles away, hid his car, changed his clothes, traversed two gardens with fences, smashed a window where the widest breakage point was 14 inches across without getting any minute glass dust on himself, climbed through it without cutting himself, stabbed Mrs Albert without leaving any DNA or forensic trace whatsoever, sneaked back out at 6.00 AM, recovered his car, changed his clothes and drove to his mother's house for a cup of tea.  

Aside from the fact that Simon would have no motive to do this, just what we know about the basics of the case paint this scenario as highly improbable. It is conjecture, not fact. The facts, including the mystery fingerprints and the fact that several of Mrs Albert's neighbours were awoken by a crashing noise at around 2AM- when Simon was caught on CCTV 7 miles from the scene- point to a very different story.  

This is why Simon's case has received so much support. His MP, Private Eye and the local media have all examined the evidence in detail, and Dr Peter Bull, a forensics expert from Oxford University is in the process of proving the prosecution's case is physically impossible.

Simon didn't kill anybody. Check it out for yourself and, if you agree, join us today to set an innocent man free.