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.
Simon was a regular visitor to his Mother's house; his mother was a regular visitor to Mrs Albert's house. Despite not possessing clothing made from the type of fibre under investigation, Simon was interviewed along with everybody else who lived nearby.
On the night of the murder, Simon was out drinking in Ipswich , 7 miles away. A barman, he was used to staying up all night. He spent that night going between clubs with a late licence. He dropped off his friend at around 5.30 in the morning in Ipswich after they had spent some time sobering up and drove back to his mother's house in Capel St Mary, arriving at 6.30. It is this hour-long, 'window of opportunity' in which Simon is alleged to have killed Mrs Albert.
The prosecution alleged that, in one hour, Simon drove drunkenly to Mrs Albert's village 7 miles away, hid his car, 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 6.30 AM, recovered his car and drove to his mother's house for a cup of tea.
This scenario is improbable. It is conjecture, not fact. The facts point to a different story.
It was proven by an independent expert in court that the foot-prints outside could not possibly have been made by Simon.
The fingerprints found in the house were not Simon's.
We believe that the killer of Joan Albert is still at large.
Simon had no motive, there was no forensic evidence directly linking him to the scene of the crime, and there are tens of thousands of people who had garments made of the same fibre but not Simon. The evidence should not have stood up in court.
But it did.
Despite the judge reminding the jury that the evidence was patchy and circumstantial.
Despite the fact that Mrs Albert's body had been mutilated after she died (suggesting a long, drawn-out attack, not possible in the time Simon was alone).
Despite the fact that it is possible to buy clothing with fibres matching the murderer's from the local Tesco.
What the evidence from the trial does suggest is that the murder occurred much earlier in the morning- about 2AM , when several of Mrs Albert's neighbours were awoken by what they describe as a crashing noise.
Although the Judge attempted to pass this off as the noise made by 'clumsy cats', is it far more probable that this was the time that the owner of the footprints and/or fingerprints was breaking Mrs Albert's window?
Due to the Home Office Pathologist failing to attend the scene of crime, none of the necessary tests were carried out and as a result it was impossible to estimate a time of death.
The post mortem only took place some 10.30hrs later, diminishing the chances of other essential details being recovered as part of the investigation.
However, an earlier attack would be consistent with an assault that started with a violent stabbing and continued with further lacerations once the victim was dead and the cuts no longer bled.
Simon, at this point, was several miles away in the Liquid nightclub.
Simon is still awaiting his sentence in jail for a crime he did not commit.