Simon Hall Confesses To Murder Of Joan Albert

[Neil]

See if this works.

http://www.roughjusticetv.co.uk/index.htm

Sorry! It doesn't seem to be on that page.

[nugnug]

lots of other good stuff on there though thanks for finding it.

[sandra L]

Apologies, the dpp did not use those words, he said " Simon Hall's case is really peculiar because there is no particular reason to believe he is guilty of this offence. The one crucial link is the fibre evidence - break this and the case disappears."
So essentially only one piece of evidence. However, the science of fibre evidence has been repeatedly challenged - microscopically indistinguishable does not mean "the same" - last time I checked, it was still impossible to say a particular fibre definitely came from a particular garment. To compound the issue, there was no source garment in this case - I don't think that constitutes reliable or incontrovertible evidence at all, and since it's  the only evidence there was, the conviction remained questionable, evidentially.
I got the above quote by googling keir starmer simon hall fibre evidence - can't do the link with my phone, sorry!

[Lugg]

Apologies, the dpp did not use those words, he said " Simon Hall's case is really peculiar because there is no particular reason to believe he is guilty of this offence. The one crucial link is the fibre evidence - break this and the case disappears."
So essentially only one piece of evidence. However, the science of fibre evidence has been repeatedly challenged - microscopically indistinguishable does not mean "the same" - last time I checked, it was still impossible to say a particular fibre definitely came from a particular garment. To compound the issue, there was no source garment in this case - I don't think that constitutes reliable or incontrovertible evidence at all, and since it's  the only evidence there was, the conviction remained questionable, evidentially.
I got the above quote by googling keir starmer simon hall fibre evidence - can't do the link with my phone, sorry!

That is what makes his confession so confusing. I've known people to confess to a crime just to get everyone off their back. I'm still in doubt for some reason as to whether he is really guilty or not?

[nugnug]

i think the same as you lugg as far as i can see the only convincing evidence is the rather long drive home if you go with the official timings.

[Bridget]

Apologies, the dpp did not use those words, he said " Simon Hall's case is really peculiar because there is no particular reason to believe he is guilty of this offence. The one crucial link is the fibre evidence - break this and the case disappears."
So essentially only one piece of evidence. However, the science of fibre evidence has been repeatedly challenged - microscopically indistinguishable does not mean "the same" - last time I checked, it was still impossible to say a particular fibre definitely came from a particular garment. To compound the issue, there was no source garment in this case - I don't think that constitutes reliable or incontrovertible evidence at all, and since it's  the only evidence there was, the conviction remained questionable, evidentially.
I got the above quote by googling keir starmer simon hall fibre evidence - can't do the link with my phone, sorry!

I agree. This is a massive over simplification but for anyone who hasn't followed the fibre evidence the position at appeal was that the defence expert could detect differences in the fibre populations and the prosecution experts' opinion was that there will always be differences in any population of fibres - the defence were looking too hard for them. So the position is that in a case where there is no other evidence a defendant's freedom rests on an expert's opinion on whether or not fibres found are within an acceptable range of differing fibres. However, that was NOT how the evidence was presented to the jury, they were told the fibres were indistinguishable from one another (in other words identical). Now add into that equation the fact that the fibres in Simon Hall's case were from a mass produced material which had been used to make garments for sale in Tescos. The case would have been very different had the police have searched a larger number of properties than they did and found some elsewhere.

Simon Hall's conviction was clearly correct in light of his confession, and I hope that if nothing else good comes of it the issues raised surrounding fibre evidence will allow it to be properly evaluated in future.

[guest154]

Interesting post Bridget and good to see you.

[nugnug]

even if you could the fibbers were exactly the same that only links to his house not him.

[sandra L]

I managed to log in via the laptop!!!!!

Bridget, I agree, I simplified my post partly for ease of reading for anyone who hasn't had the chance to study fibre evidence generally, and partly because I was posting from my phone, which takes me forever at the best of times 

The confession, strange as it is, doesn't alter the fact that this conviction was obtained on extremely tenuous evidence - as nugnug points out, even if it could be proven that the fibres from the crime scene and Simon's wardrobe, car etc, were identical (which it can't!) it would still only link the fibres to the car and the wardrobe, and not to Simon himself.

My concern, as always, is that we need criminal cases to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, on solid, verifiable evidence. Invariably, at this stage, I'm asked if I'm suggesting we should let murderers go free, just because we can't prove conclusively that they actually committed the crime. My response to that is, I'm not suggesting it - it's the way our justice system is set up, and for good reason, in my opinion.

However tempting it might be to massage a few facts here and there to nail someone that the police "know" has done/is doing bad things, that opens the door for the same to be done to someone who has done nothing wrong - it's a slippery slope.

At the same time, it allows those who have done bad things to challenge their convictions on the basis that investigations/forensics/legal procedures were flawed, so those people, ultimately, have the chance of walking anyway - I reckon, if we get it right in the first place, we all benefit.

As Bridget pointed out, cases like this come down to expert opinion - the two expert arguments weren't before the jury, so the appeal judges, in effect, second guessed what the jury might have thought, had they heard both arguments. The debate about expert evidence and testimony has been going on for some time, but nothing ever seems to be done about it. We've heard of so many "discredited" experts, and one or two of the cases in which their involvement has resulted in convictions being overturned - usually, there's some statement about looking into the dozens/hundreds of other cases, and that's the last we hear of it.

There were calls a couple of years ago to appoint some sort of gatekeeping role to monitor expert opinion - unfortunately, the suggestion then was that judges become the gatekeepers, which doesn''t seem to be any sort of solution at all!

[nugnug]

well i think the clue in the word  opinion.

if its an opinion its not a fact.

[Neil]

I managed to log in via the laptop!!!!!

Bridget, I agree, I simplified my post partly for ease of reading for anyone who hasn't had the chance to study fibre evidence generally, and partly because I was posting from my phone, which takes me forever at the best of times 

The confession, strange as it is, doesn't alter the fact that this conviction was obtained on extremely tenuous evidence - as nugnug points out, even if it could be proven that the fibres from the crime scene and Simon's wardrobe, car etc, were identical (which it can't!) it would still only link the fibres to the car and the wardrobe, and not to Simon himself.

My concern, as always, is that we need criminal cases to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, on solid, verifiable evidence. Invariably, at this stage, I'm asked if I'm suggesting we should let murderers go free, just because we can't prove conclusively that they actually committed the crime. My response to that is, I'm not suggesting it - it's the way our justice system is set up, and for good reason, in my opinion.

However tempting it might be to massage a few facts here and there to nail someone that the police "know" has done/is doing bad things, that opens the door for the same to be done to someone who has done nothing wrong - it's a slippery slope.

At the same time, it allows those who have done bad things to challenge their convictions on the basis that investigations/forensics/legal procedures were flawed, so those people, ultimately, have the chance of walking anyway - I reckon, if we get it right in the first place, we all benefit.

As Bridget pointed out, cases like this come down to expert opinion - the two expert arguments weren't before the jury, so the appeal judges, in effect, second guessed what the jury might have thought, had they heard both arguments. The debate about expert evidence and testimony has been going on for some time, but nothing ever seems to be done about it. We've heard of so many "discredited" experts, and one or two of the cases in which their involvement has resulted in convictions being overturned - usually, there's some statement about looking into the dozens/hundreds of other cases, and that's the last we hear of it.

There were calls a couple of years ago to appoint some sort of gatekeeping role to monitor expert opinion - unfortunately, the suggestion then was that judges become the gatekeepers, which doesn''t seem to be any sort of solution at all!

So, all expert evidence should be in admissible?

Points of appeal should be judged by a jury?

[nugnug]

what they have suggested is testing wether the expert really is an expert before hes allowed to give evedence.

as some of thse experts are really nothing of the sort.

[Denn15]

what they have suggested is testing wether the expert really is an expert before hes allowed to give evedence.

as some of thse experts are really nothing of the sort.

This ^^^^^^^^^^

[sandra L]

So, all expert evidence should be in admissible?

Points of appeal should be judged by a jury?

I'm sorry if that's the impression my post gave - it's certainly not what I meant. There have been some excellent resuts, in terms of proper justice, on the basis of expert evidence. But there's a great deal of so-called expert evidence, which, as nugnug points out, is nothing of the sort - it's that evidence, and the quite deliberate manipulation of some expert testimony, which needs to be addressed.

Unfortunately, the problem with the gap between appeals and jury decisions is that they are both dealing with different things! Juries are asked to decide whether an accused person is guilty or not guilty on the basis of the evidence before them (and, of course, with the proviso that everyone has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.)

If all of the evidence is not before the jury, then a finding of guilty or not guilty is not as reliable as it could be. Far too many cases are constructed in such a way that the selection of evidence before the jury is heavily weighted towards the prosecution case, and that strategy often makes it impossible for significant defence information to be heard by juries.

But appeals are not about reviewing whether all of the evidence that was before the jury is all of the evidence that could have been before it, or eveen whether the convicted person is innocent or guilty. The legal definition of "New Evidence" excludes a large amount of information which was not heard at trial, from forming the basis of an appeal. Only when evidence has met the strict definition of "new evidence" does it come before the appeal courts, and then, the appeal judges make a decision on the basis of whether or not they think the jury would have returned a different verdict, had they heard the "new evidence."

But, if our justice system is based on guilt or non-guilt being decided by a jury of our peers, then is it right or fair that new evidence, which may have influenced that decision, is not actually considered by a jury of our peers? Is it right or fair that judges try to guess what they think jurors may or may not have made of the new evidence, especially when, in the UK, no-one is allowed to ask jurors how they came to their decision in the first place?

I don't know what any of the answers are - these are questions I have chased around in my head for many years. Rather than leaping fom one extreme to another, I think there are areas that are definitely open to improvement, and the real debate is about how we go about trying to influence those improvements.

In the context of the current discussion, the wider debate about what is being allowed to pass for expert or "scientific" evidence, and what should be done to try to improve the reliability and quality of that evidence, is a welcome one. Two Scottish cases which highlight the extent of this problem very well are the Shirley McKie case involving fingerprint evidence, and the Lockerbie Bombing case involving a number of extremely dubious areas of "expert" evidence.

[nugnug]

i think it might be better if trial and appeal were done the other way around.