On 8th January 2002, Lynne Hall was let into 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 at his friend Stephanie Bon’s house in Colchester, no forensic tests were ever carried out despite Stephanie herself telling to 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 vehicles were secondary. She does have garments closely resembling the material described in reports.
The police never took fingerprints from Shaun Hall, Simon’s brother during the 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, D.S. Lambert (head of the investigation) assured the court under oath of a foolproof system regarding forensic evidence.
The police spent a lot of time investigating a pubic hair found at Joan’s, in the upstairs toilet, only to find it was one of their officers who had left it. To our knowledge, it is not common practice for police officers to remove their anti-contamination suits while carrying out forensic tests.
Dr Heath, the police pathologist did not attend and carry out certain tests at the scene (which is outlined in Home Office guidelines) which would have provided a time of death or at least some idea. There have been other complaints/allegations of misconduct concerning Dr Heath.
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 who 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 the gastroenterologist report (see stomach content). This was kept as unused evidence, it was only found by the diligence of the Solicitor for Simon who was reading files each night during the case.
It is also alleged that whilst trying to contact a member of Mrs Hall’s family (her brother) at his work place, that while he was out of his office 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 not 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.
At the murder scene, no fingerprints or DNA that could be attributed to Simon were ever found. In fact there were two sets of fingerprints in significant places that still haven’t been identified. One set on the kitchen door at about shoulder height, just above where Joan Albert was found and the other on the push plate of a door upstairs.
Crucially, the post mortem showed that an additional number of wounds found on Joan Albert were committed after her death. The Crowns pathologist gave evidence to the court that these wounds had been inflicted a significant amount of time after death, up to 30 minutes.
It thus become’s apparent, on the Crowns own time scale and within the postulated “window of opportunity,” that Simon would not have had the time to commit this crime.
Lynne Hall testified at the trial that when her son came home from his night out, there was nothing out of the ordinary in his character, and certainly no blood or any evidence of violence on him.
It is accepted that the killer climbed over 2 fences to get to the rear garden of Joan Albert’s house and then smashed the kitchen window in order to gain access. This could have been the loud noises referred to by the 2 neighbours as mentioned earlier.
There were 3 footprints found at significant locations along this route. They were professionally determined, by a forensic scientist called on behalf of the Crown, to have been made by town or office shoes, where the heel had small raised squares and a groove around the edge of the sole. At the time Simon didn’t own any shoes of this description and had to borrow his fathers on occasion. The Crowns expert could only give the size as between 6 to 10. Simon had size 9 tan boots which were determined not to have made any of the footprints.
Returning to the broken kitchen window, the widest part point in the gap made was measured to be approximately 14”. Simon is over 6 foot tall and quite well built so to have fitted through that gap without even drawing blood or damaging his clothing would have been quite a feat.
It must be mentioned, as confirmed by Crown witness in court, that the windows were locked as were the front and back doors, so the broken hole in the kitchen window was the only means of entry or exit.
Although entry and exit was through a broken window, no glass was ever recovered from Simon’s clothes, homes or cars.
No forensic evidence from Mrs Albert’s house were brought back to the Hall’s family home, yet if he had been guilty, fibres from her house would have been recovered from chairs, beds, 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 parents house.
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.
It was never unusual for neighbours keys to be kept at his mothers home, as she 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.