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 timings 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.

The “window of opportunity” arises from Mrs Barker’s statement in which she is adamant that Jamie was dropped off at home at 5.30am and Simon’s statement in interview when he recalls the microwave display reading 6.28. Jamie Barkers statement that he was dropped off at sometime between 5.45am and 6.00am was ignored and put down to too much alcohol, also Simon’s mothers statement that he arrived home at 6.15am was ignored because it doesn’t help the prosecutions case by decreasing the time unaccounted for by ½ hour to 45 minutes and could prove it impossible for Simon to be the killer.

If Jamie and Lynne are to be believed, then Simon dropped Jamie at home between 5.45am and 6.00am, and then returned home at 6.15am. Then there is no time to have been the killer.

It is worth mentioning at this point that police had obviously encouraged Mrs Barker to believe that the murder had taken place at around 6.00am- her statement mentions that time of day with no reason as to why she would bring up 6.00am. Defence counsel believed that her recollection of Jamie returning at 5.30am made sure that her son had an airtight alibi for 6am, but she refused to be drawn further on the matter.

In fact, it would appear that the prosecutions case was effectively built up around the “window of opportunity,” without discourse to any other evidence that might indicate otherwise.

Various neighbours provided statements to the police, and subsequently gave evidence to the court, that they were woken at around 2.00am by a “loud noise” coming from the direction of Joan Albert’s home. Unfortunately, the jury was rather facetiously directed by the judge to regard these noises as possibly coming from a “clumsy cat.” One of these neighbours has since been asked if it could have been “a clumsy cat.” He said, “I would find that laughable.”

This is particularly unfortunate as the Crown’s Pathologist could not give a time of death and the fact there was no time of death should have been highlighted as significant during the summing up, but it was barely mentioned.

Statements from family and close friends describe Joan Albert as being a very habitual person, very set in her ways. One habit frequently mentioned was that Joan Albert was known to have a midnight snack. Rusty the dog was old and unwell and needed to be let out several times during the night. Therefore it wasn’t unusual for Mrs Albert to have a snack such as a sandwich at around midnight whilst waiting for Rusty to do his business.

Indeed, forensic photographs taken of the kitchen showed dirty plates and implements in the kitchen, suggesting a snack of some sort had been consumed at sometime during the night of the murder.

In court, the defence called Gastroenterologist to give evidence regarding an analysis of Joan Albert’s stomach contents, removed during the autopsy. The food traces found were consistent with the idea that Joan Albert had consumed a “midnight snack.”

According to scientific research, studies have shown that traces of digested food can still be found in the stomach up to 3 hours after eating a light meal. In a normal person with no digestive problems, a complete clearing of a stomach contents would take place after about 6 hours. Joan Albert did not have any digestive problems at the time.

Putting this into context, if Joan Albert did indeed have a midnight snack, by the time Simon Hall is alleged to have committed the crime at around 6.00am, digestion would have been completed and no food traces would have been found.

The Gastroenterologists actually came to the conclusion that whenever Joan Albert’s last meal was eaten, she would have died within about 3 ½ but probably less, of consuming it.

If that meal had indeed been an habitual “midnight snack” then the time of death could have been no later than 3.30am possibly even as early as 2.00am, a time which is broadly consistent with the time the neighbours heard the loud noises.