Defence

Defence counsel showed the court that although Simon did have small debts, they were manageable and also that if he ever did need money, his family and friends would help him out. The burglary aspect seemed to be pushed to the back – even the judges summing up didn’t mention burglary. In fact no motive was ever really given, the Judge saying the reason for Simon to be in the house “may never be known.”

Evidence

The prosecution alleged that Simon was wearing a pair of velvet trousers, which possibly could have been bought that morning from Tesco’s Copdock, Ipswich. Whilst it is true that Simon withdrew some cash from the ATM at Tesco’s, he did not enter the store itself. In fact, he was caught on the ATM camera withdrawing cash from the ATM but the entrance CCTV did not capture Simon entering the store itself.

Simon stated that on that night, he was wearing a pair of dark blue jeans, a jumper with a number 4 on it, a leather jacket, a pair of brown ankle boots, nothing black velvety or green.

Gareth Hampson also gave evidence in the court that broadly stated that Simon was thought to have been wearing dark blue jeans and a close fitting jumper.

In fact, whilst there were a number of contradictions and confusions in all the statements that the police took, not one person thought he was wearing black velvet trousers as the prosecution alleged. As a matter of fact, those closest to Simon have no recollection of him ever wearing a pair of black velvet trousers, or indeed any other type of clothing made of the same fabric. The nearest anyone could come up with was a pair of moleskin type trousers, but they were tan, not black.

Mrs Justice Rafferty, in summing up, suggested that the fibre evidence was not disputed.

However, it must be noted that Judith Cunnison, the crown’s expert witness, established that there were innumerable chains of supply in respect of the black flock fibre, but in the court case, only one supply chain was concentrated on; an Italian manufacturer called Wonder SRL. Over the relevant period of time, 30,000 garments were produced for the UK market by this one manufacturer referred to by the crown. It can be deduced that it is in fact a quite common material, and this is without recourse to all the other potential supply chains in the world.

At the time there were a significant number of stores in Ipswich and the surrounding area that had garments on sale made with the flock material in question. (Topshop, Topman, Debenhams) In fact, taking Tesco as a reference point, 5 relevant garments were sold in the Copdock store in the day or two leading up to the murder.

While this seems to be compelling evidence, it is only circumstantial. It must be stressed that even though fibres were recovered, which were described as “indistinguishable” from places common to Joan Albert and Simon Hall, no source garment was ever recovered. In court, it was described how circumstances dictate the possibility that these fibres might have originated from a garment once owned by Lynne Hall, who used to have her own fashion business.

In fact the wardrobe in the bedroom where the core substance of the fibres was recovered was once used for storage of garments from this clothes business.

Lynne Hall had been in and out of Joan Albert’s home, Simons cars, and her own home innumerable times, so there is every chance that Mrs Hall could have been the unwitting secondary carrier of the fibres which served to incriminate Simon.

During the summing up, the correct definition of “indistinguishable” as used by the crown’s expert witness was omitted. The word means from a similar source as opposed to identical (as the judge surmised). Therefore, whilst the garment that potentially shed the fibres in Joan Albert’s property and the garment that shed fibres at sites common to Simon Hall might have been similar, it does not mean it was the same garment.

It is known that the assailant broke into Joan Albert’s home by smashing the kitchen window, possibly with enough force to wake several neighbours. This would have generated microscopic window shards from window glass. However, no glass shards or paint fragments were found at the sites linked to Simon Hall and where the fibres were recovered.

Both sources of fibres in Simons house and his car, Mrs Cunnison (fibre expert), felt were probably from indirect contact. This means that you can sit where the garment has been and get fibres on you or brush your own clothes up against the same fibres, transferring them onto you. It was also shown that fibres found at “point a” and “point b” can never conclusively be attributed to the same garment.