Why is Simon Innocent
Table of Contents
1- Lack of motive
2- Observations on Simon at the time of the murder
3- Errors and misconduct by the Police
4- Personality profile
5- Obvious dismissal of forensic evidence or lack of
6- Discounted facts
7- Judge's summing up
1- Lack of motive:
a) Burglary
According to the police, this murder was the result of a burglary gone wrong however; nothing was missing from the house. Why was Simon targeted considering he has never been connected with burglary?
Although Simon had a debt as shown in court, it was fairly small and he had the opportunity to go to his parents, friends or work for help should he have needed it so therefore he had no reason to steal from anybody.
Why would any burglar choose between 5.30 and 6.30 am to break in when he would know people were about? Dog walkers, paperboys, etc, surely he would have picked an earlier time when people are deeply asleep.
b) Knowledge of deceased
Although Lynne Hall, Simon's Mother was a friend of Joan and helped to look after her and her dog, Simon was never formally introduced to Joan and although he may have recognised her in passing, when near her house or with the dog, he had no knowledge whatsoever regarding her personal life. The friendship was kept between Lynne and Joan and mostly throughout the friendship Simon didn't live at home anyway.
c) Opportunity
Why would Simon who is an intelligent individual go to burgle and run a risk of being caught when he could have simply waited for his mother to go out with Joan and taken the spare key kept at his house to let himself in and burgle freely at a convenient time?
Simon knew that Joan had been having trouble with youths during that summer and therefore it wasn't unusual for her to call Lynne over at any time day or night. Why would he have chosen to enter her property when he may have come face to face with his Mother?!
It was never unusual for neighbour's keys to be kept at his home as his mother did favours such as looking after their homes, animals, plants etc, and yet at no time were any such incidents recorded implicating Simon in 22 years.
d-1) Timing
The crown has presumed that the murder took place at around 6am on the Sunday morning, a time where the village would be awakening and activities such as paper rounds, dog walkers, joggers, paper shop opening etc.
Why would Simon choose such a time to go and burgle a house when he had spent the night in town drinking and partying and had promised to be home in time to prepare Christmas presents and get ready for a family party in Grantham?
Assuming that the timing used in court is correct, i.e. leaving Ipswich at 5.30am and arriving home at approximately 6.15am, it is still quite an accomplishment for him to have driven drunk from town, to Capel, parked his car somewhere (prosecution never proved where) , walked to Joan's and climbed through 2 gardens, break the window, enter and commit the crime, stay around to afflict late cuttings discovered on the body (these were inflicted up to 30 mins after death), then climb back out of the window, through the 2 gardens, walked to wherever the car was left and drive home. NOT POSSIBLE!!!
d-2)We dispute the accuracy of the timings because:
• In her first statement, Jamie Barker's mother had no recollection of the time at which her son came home
• However, in court, her second statement was used in which she recalls hearing him being dropped off at 5.30am
• Jamie Barker mentions nearer to 6 when he was first questioned and even Simon felt timing was nearer to 6 which would have made it impossible.
• Dropping Jamie off at 5.30 does not mean that Simon drove off at this time
• Jamie recall that on the night in question, after walking around town to try and sober up, Simon drove very slowly (28mph), how long would it take to get from Ipswich (Myrtle rd to Capel St Mary at this speed?)
• Simon was having problem with his headlights meaning that he had to get out of the car and adjust them every time he stopped and started the car. This may have caused another delay
• Simon may have also been delayed by traffic lights against him driving out of town (at least 8 sets of traffic lights from the tower ramparts bus station in Ipswich to the A12)
• There is a possibility that Simon was smoking roll ups at the time meaning he would have had to stop to make them, another delay
• Before going back into his home, Simon would have possibly finished his cigarette (no smoking in the house), gathered his belonging (jacket, phone, cigarettes, money, etc), checked his car (headlights), locked his car, all mounting up to extra timing, obviously shortening the window of opportunity
• Although Simon mentioned noticing a time of 6.28am on the microwave when he arrived home, utilities are rarely accurate in households and in this instance, the clock was rarely used and it wasn't unusual for Lynne to use it for cooking and omit to clear the timing counter, therefore this may have shown 6 minutes and 28 seconds as opposed to the time.
• Lynne's observations on the time were taken from her clock on her video recorder in the bedroom. At the time she couldn't sleep due to illness and recalls getting up all through the night until at 6am she thought she could no longer go back to sleep and may as well get on with her day. She therefore got up and started to make a drink which is when Simon came home. There was no way half an hour could have passed between her getting up and Simon entering the house.
• How could someone who had consumed alcohol all night be so agile and accurate by that time in the morning to drive and carry out the break-in leaving no evidence behind?
• Witnesses' statements that they had heard loud noises at around 2am were dismissed and were flippantly described as being clumsy cats. These could have been window breaking and therefore change timing.
• Joan was wearing her watch still (she didn't sleep in it) and her dressing gown was buttoned up which indicates to us she may not actually have retired to bed to sleep, when she went down to let the dog out.
2- Observations on Simon at the time of the murder:
• His friends on the night described Simon has happy and confirmed that a large of alcohol was consumed.
• The first person to have seen Simon upon his return was his mother, she recalls no unusual behaviour, and he sat and had a drink with her and chatted generally. He then went upstairs to relax and proceeded with the family day at which he was his usual smiley entertaining self.
• The next person, apart from his family to be in close contact with Simon, professionally and privately was a close friend Stephanie Bon and she recalls no changes to his behaviour.
3- Errors and misconduct by the Police:
• On January the 8 th , Lynne Hall (mother of the defendant) was let in to the victim's house without protective clothing with 2 officers also not wearing protective clothing to ascertain whether anything was missing from the house. Whilst in the property, things were touched and broken glass trodden in. This means the house may have been contaminated by Mrs Hall who then returned to her home which had not yet been forensically tested. It is therefore possible for any fibres found in her house (Mrs Hall's) to have been transferred on that day.
• Although Simon often stayed and kept some of his clothes during and after the murder at Stephanie Bon's house in Colchester , no forensic tests were ever carried out despite Stephanie herself telling the police when she was interviewed. Also, Simon was teaching Stephanie to drive at the time and did so in his vehicles, none of her clothes were ever analysed and yet the fibres found in one of the vehicle were secondary, she does have garments closely resembling the material described in reports.
• The police never took finger prints from Shaun Hall, Simon's brother during their investigation despite them trying to eliminate everyone.
• 4 bags of forensic evidence were left at Shaun's flat at the time by the police even though at the trial, they assured us of a foolproof system regarding forensic evidence.
• The police spent a lot of time chasing up pubic hair found at Joan's in the upstairs toilet to find it was one of their own officer whom had left them. To our knowledge, it is not common practice for police officers to use scene of crime for such activities.
• Police Pathologist did not attend and carry out certain tests at the scene (which are outlined in Home Office guidelines) which would have given us a time of death or at least some idea.
• When interviewing people, it was noted by certain potential witnesses that confidential information regarding Simon Hall and details of the case were disclosed by the police which could have influenced their statements or opinions.
• We feel that quite a substantial amount of evidence was held back from the defence prior and during the trial, such as Gastroenterologist report (see below, stomach content) this was kept as unused evidence. It as only found by the diligence of the solicitor for Simon who was reading files each night during the case. There were also evidence found from people stating that they had heard a loud noise around 2am , again in unused evidence files.
• Whilst trying to contact a member of Mrs Hall's family (her Brother) at his work place, as he was out of the office at the time, information was given to his colleagues regarding the case, this was even prior to Simon's arrest and is surely a case of gross misconduct.
• Mrs Hall recollected a jacket which may have been made of the same fibre and that had been borrowed from a work colleague so to help the police this garment was made available but when produced in court, the prosecution used it to accuse her of trying to mislead them as it was made of the wrong material.
• Although it was proven by other witness statements that Mrs Hall once had a clothes business run from home, the prosecution accused her of lying about it and not telling the police earlier on in the investigation. The defence were not given time after this accusation to prove otherwise.
4- Personality profile:
• Whilst growing up, Simon was known as a happy, easy going individual and even throughout his adolescence years, never showed any evidence of violence to his family and friends. Even as a teenager, during arguments with his mother, although showing anger at times, it never progressed beyond verbal disagreements.
• There was a period in his life when Simon had left home where the life he led meant that he may have had to stick up for himself and he did get involved in disputes but always with males of his own age as most teenagers do.
• Past girlfriends and other female friends have also described Simon as caring and gentle and never has any violence been mentioned. A friend, at the time of the crime describes him as kind and never saw a violent side to him.
• Simon had not had a history of breaking into people's houses, why would he start now?
• All the way through the investigation and also the trial, Simon remained helpful and calm and surely at such a traumatic time one would expect temper and frustration to show if naturally there. Also throughout all his time in prison, on remand and now, Simon is described by the prison staff as a model prisoner.
5- Obvious dismissal of forensic evidence or lack of:
a) No time of death
Considering that no time of death was ever given, it seems that the whole case was built around Simon's drive home in the early hours of the morning where he was alone and therefore would not have an alibi.
b) Stomach content ignored (timings)
Initially the analysis of the victim's stomach was never mentioned by the police. It was kept under unused evidence and found by the defence team during the trial.
Result showed that the content in the stomach of the victim was still recognisable.
According to the gastroenterologist, it was said in court that;
* Food digestion for an average adult having a normal digestive system (which she was described as having takes usually 2 to 5 hours for a full meal
* Food digestion for an average adult having a normal digestive system (which she was described as having takes usually 3 hours or even less for a snack
It was showed by Joan's family and friend that she was a very habitual person and it was also mentioned that she was in the habit of having a "midnight snack" as she was often up to see to her dog. If we believe that this happened (relying on her close family's evidence) on that specific night then there is no way that any traces of a sandwich could have been recognisable at pathology stage at the time the crown presumes she was killed. (if she ate at 12 then she must have been murdered around 2 ∼ 3 am latest)
However, if we choose to ignore the theory of the "midnight snack" and rely purely on u evidence regarding her earlier meal (around 6-7pm), which we know she had because she had spoken to people about it and also had said that she did not like it, then there is no way such content could have been recognised after such a long time. (if she ate at 7pm then she must have been murdered by around 12-1am maximum)
Also
• No finger prints related to Simon
• 2 sets of fingerprints still unidentified
• No DNA
• Foot prints not matching Simon's in the garden and unidentified
• The main substance of the case was fibres found here and at Joan's (1/4 of a tea spoon) being indistinguishable from each other, however it was ignored that the same indistinguishable fibres were found in other houses in Capel
• Although entry and exit was through a broken window, no glass was ever recovered from Simon's clothes, home or cars
• No forensic evidence from Mrs Albert's house were brought back to 8 Snowcroft, yet if he had been guilty, fibres from her house would have been recovered from chairs, bed, anything he came into contact with that morning
• No blood samples belonging to Joan were ever found on Simon, or his clothes/cars/home or parent's home.
• We also have to bear in mind that black fibres found were as dust (not visible to the human eye) and only ¼ of a teaspoon altogether
• Both sources of fibres in Hill house and the Audi, Mrs Cunnison (Fibre Expert), felt were probably from indirect contact. This means that one can sit where the garment has been and get fibres on you or brush your own clothes up against the same fibres, etc.
• How can the fibres recovered from the wardrobe in 8 Snowcroft be from direct contact (primary) when the alleged garment is supposed to have been purchased and disposed of on the night, therefore not making it into the house.
6- Discounted facts:
• A large amount of garments were produced with the fibres in questions and yet none were recovered in Simon's wardrobes. It was established that around 30000 garments were produced over the relevant time and this only by one chain of supply put forward by the crown whereas we know that they were innumerable chains of supply in respect of the black flock fibres.
• Simon was accused of purchasing the garment supposedly worn during the crime at Tesco's on the morning of the murder yet none of the CCTV cameras show Simon entering the store on that morning, however he appears on the video of the cash machine which he admits using. So why even mention that he may have entered the garment when there is proof that he didn't.
• One crucial fact not highlighted during the trial and not mentioned at all in the sum up was that the size of the largest part of the breakage in the window was 14 inches across. No reconstruction was shown to give visual support to this which could have shown that Simon at 6"1 and under the influence of drink would have had trouble climbing through and back out again without suffering cuts or leaving blood marks or other forensic behind.
• An ex girlfriend's statement was used during the trial and reiterated in the summing up, however, other witness statements had already shown to the police that this witness was unreliable and had been known to lie.
7- Judge's summing up:
JUDGE RAFFETY SAID:-
"What is Simon Hall's defence? It is alibi; he says that he was not at the scene of the crime when it was committed".
WE SAY: -
When was the crime committed?! THERE IS NO TIME OF DEATH
We feel the Judge did not show impartiality in her summing up due to the following:
- Failed to highlight the lack of forensic evidence in Simon's defence (See paragraph 5)
- Dismissed witnesses evidence pointing to potential time of crime (See paragraph 1, d1-2) which shows earlier
- Raised issues and placed undue emphasis on the prosecution's case repeatedly I.e. Mother's evidence put in doubt even thought she was telling the truth
- She talks about the alleged murder weapon and the lack of marks on it. She says:" The more one finds absence of evidence, there are no marks, there is no trace, the more confidently one can say that care was taken by the intruder. This completely dismisses the possibility that if you have no evidence, you simply have the wrong person AND SIMON WAS NEVER THERE!