A time to take stock....

[Stephanie]

And today is the 2nd Anniversary of his death.

Where are all his 'innocent' supporters now? Why aren't people voicing their opinions and concerns if they genuinely believe he was innocent? Where have all the doubts gone?

Or could it be they are too ashamed to admit they were wrong? They were conned.

Or was it egos at play? Did they already know he was guilty but the shame was too much to bare and openly admit to? Was it easier to blame others? Why did they blame others? What were they motivated by? What was their reasoning?

Why does it still appear questions (and answers) are being ignored?

Marty can you answer any of the above?

[Stephanie]

For what it's worth, if there is any suggestion that the confession and suicide are linked in any way, as you seem to suggest in your previous post, then it might not be a good idea for you to be discussing any of this publicly.

Where have I suggested that?

I take it you are choosing to ignore my post, as you often appear to do with difficult questions on various subjects.

Sandra, as I have previously pointed out, you are aware of some of the details relating to the confession and eventual death. With that knowledge - why didn't you answer Marty's post?

I don't care what you think my reasons are for posting. My doctorate is not in psychology - my first degree was in psychology and sociology, my paralegal qualification is a specialist qualification in Criminal Law, and my doctorate is in Criminology, so yes, let's not be silly about this, I'm perfectly aware of what an inquest is and what it entails. I'm not entirely sure what any of that has to do with my post, or why you thought it relevant to include my experience and qualifications.

Btw I wasn't being silly - I thought you were. You have a doctorate in criminology - so for a lay person - you are Dr Sandra Lean.

You have a degree in psychology.

And a further qualification as a paralegal....

Plus 10 + years experience working on the Luke Mitchell case.

I think your reason for posting what you have in support of who you have is/was to 'stir the pot."




Though you are already aware of this...

The confession made by SH was accepted by the prison authorities, the police, the CCRC etc as a fact.

He disclosed to me he was transferred back to a closed prison as the prison authorities deemed him a risk to the public - (and I reiterate - you were/are aware of this).


You accepted the confession as fact, and as I've previously pointed out; learned some of the details surrounding it etc..

So I'm sure you'll forgive me again when I make the suggestion that your posts on this thread appear to me to be of a goading nature and that you have an agenda or other motive for posting what you have?

[Stephanie]

Just to be clear, I am making no statement of belief regarding the confession

Why not? Why not state here you know the confession to have been fact? You accepted it as fact....

Stephanie, I could be miles out here. I know nothing about the case, I have read things on here and other websites posting on the case. Am I wrong in thinking that depression has paid a big part in the confession,then suicide? I genuinely know nothing, just my first impression.

I don't think that's entirely accurate - there were many people who shared Marty's view, or at least a similar version.
I also find it odd that Marty's original post is considered "irrelevant"

Can you please point me to where it was suggested SH confessed because 'depression has paid a big part in the confession' and WHO suggested this...

Who suggested 'depression?'

I haven't read this thread from the beginning, I noticed some new posts and was interested to see what had resurrected a thread which had been quiet for some time.

If you read the first couple of pages of this thread http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6640.0.html you will see where I have highlighted some of the views shared by various people, the same views I presume to which you have referred?

I've responded to most of these speculative claims. So maybe you will understand further why I believed Marty's post 'irrelevant' and why I strongly believe him/her to have an ulterior motive.

the confession and suicide are central parts of Simon's case - no discussion of the case can be had without them

Death in custody aside; Why not?

I think Marty's question is a reasonable one

I don't! Hence why I responded why I did and with the reasons why I responded the way I did.

[Stephanie]

http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/capel_st_mary_simon_hall_s_mother_s_shock_at_his_murder_confession_1_2323767

Mrs Hall said: “I’m absolutely shocked because I know he is innocent and I still believe he is.

“But it’s the system. If he had pleaded guilty in the beginning, he would be home now.

“I know he has been really low and in hospital recently. He’s given up.”

Mrs Hall added: “I believe he feels he can’t take any more after all the fight he has put up and how brave he has been.

“If that’s his decision, that’s his decision but I will never believe that.”

Other than Marty - This is the only person I am aware of who has suggested publicly that SH was depressed - or as she says 'low.'

And just to be clear - I do not know Marty, I do not care to know who Marty is nor do I care for Marty's motivations for posting what he/she has.

Mrs Hall may well have been in denial that her son was guilty?

Mrs Hall may well still be suggesting her son was innocent?

Let's look at the facts..

SH was guilty.

Mrs Hall gave SH an alibi.

Therefore Mrs Hall was either wrong in her timings and evidence she gave during trial or Mrs Hall was disingenuous with the truth?

Mrs Hall knew about the zenith burglary, at the earliest in 2002, but chose to remain silent about this.

She did however confirm in 2012 she had known about the burglary.

“But it’s the system. If he had pleaded guilty in the beginning, he would be home now."

SH confessed in a D- Cat prison.

He was on target with regards his tariff.

He was to serve 13 years before he was eligible for parole - minus time spent on remand.

So you see 'the system' played no part and Mrs Halls public statement makes no sense?

[Stephanie]

and no reason to trawl through months of posts in which I have zero interest in

I find this statement odd and contradictory in itself.

And another reason why I get a sense you have an ulterior motive/or personal agenda? ... I'm sure you'll forgive me for seeing why?

[sandra L]

I already stated, I don't care what your opinion of my reasons for posting is. Marty asked a question, you gave an answer I believed to be not entirely accurate, and I said so. That's it.

You said:

And just to be clear Sandra, you are fully aware of some of the details regarding SH's confession, why he confessed, when he confessed and the events leading up to the confession. You are also aware of some of the events leading up to his death. Therefore I'm sure you'll forgive me for thinking you too may have an agenda/ulterior motive for posting as you have.

It is perfectly clear that one of the events leading up to Simon's death, chronologically, was the confession, thus the apparent link between the two is made in this part of your explanation for not discussing certain matters.

And just to be absolutely clear, I am fully aware of what you said to me regarding all of the above - that's a vastly different thing from knowing the facts. And being fully aware of some of the details is a very dangerous platform on which to base a concrete conclusion, which is why I have not done so.

Many, many people discussed Simon's mental state at the time of the confession, and between the confession and his death, both privately and publicly (online).

[Stephanie]

And just to be absolutely clear, I am fully aware of what you said to me regarding all of the above - that's a vastly different thing from knowing the facts.

As usual, you aren't being entirely honest or indeed accurate with your statements Sandra.

You were read some of his letters word for word, many of which went into some detail of his crimes, history etc.

They were his words not mine! As you well know.

[Stephanie]

And just to be absolutely clear, I am fully aware of what you said to me regarding all of the above - that's a vastly different thing from knowing the facts. And being fully aware of some of the details is a very dangerous platform on which to base a concrete conclusion, which is why I have not done so.

And yes I'm very aware you have chosen to not publicly state he was guilty, even though you very much accepted it to be fact when we were last in contact.

For me, your current (public) position speaks volumes and it's why, I have done, and still do, question your integrity.

[Stephanie]

I'm of the belief JB lied to his solicitors the same way SH lied to his solicitor when he told him in 2012 that he had the full support of family and friends - when all he had back then was me!

I was told it was just a tick box exercise by both SH and his solicitor but I was uncomfortable with this. Bearing in mind this was an application to downgrade to a D-Cat from a C-Cat - the next stage - release.

I was concerned if SH got to a D-Cat prison and went up against the parole board in order to be released he would be knocked back due to the fact he had lied in his application for D-Cat status. He would not have been able to show he had support from family and friends.

And again for anyone who may be interested - One of the reasons SH blogged about and admitted publicly to the Zenith burglary was to ensure he didn't face a gate arrest following his eventual release from Hollesley Bay.

This is what SH did in 2012 to his then prison solicitor David McCorkill and I picked up on it, resulting in both SH and his solicitor turning on me and suggesting I didn't know what I was talking about or words to that effect..

I should add that it was over a small detail - which may be insignificant to some but a lie or half truth is a lie imo.

I believe the above resulted in the following article http://insidetime.org/honesty-no-longer-the-best-policy-4/
which should never have been allowed to be published imo as it caused more harm than good and is still doing so.

It's a factor for how and why prisoners like JB continue to exploit the public...

[Stephanie]

And just to be absolutely clear, I am fully aware of what you said to me regarding all of the above - that's a vastly different thing from knowing the facts. And being fully aware of some of the details is a very dangerous platform on which to base a concrete conclusion, which is why I have not done so.

Publicly you haven't no but privately you once did.

The only 'dangerous platform' I see is the metaphorical one you appear to have put yourself on by choosing to post as you have just recently.

By suggesting you've now changed your mind and because of that you no longer have a "concrete conclusion" my sympathies go out to all those individuals you may well be deceiving - whether that be knowingly or unknowingly... 

The real reason I believe you have not publicly supported the truth is because your reputation will be called into question and you aren't yet ready to face the truth and all that that entails. My opinion of course...

[Stephanie]

And just to be absolutely clear, I am fully aware of what you said to me regarding all of the above - that's a vastly different thing from knowing the facts.

As usual, you aren't being entirely honest or indeed accurate with your statements Sandra.

You were read some of his letters word for word, many of which went into some detail of his crimes, history etc.

They were his words not mine! As you well know.

Once the Inquest has concluded I could post one of the letters, to which I have referred, where your name was mentioned. I recall the telephone conversation I had with you about said letter like it was yesterday.

[sandra L]

One more time, as you don't seem to be getting this. I don't care what you think my reasons for posting are. I really, truly, don't give a flying whatsit. OK.

Sticking with the facts, you read some letters over the phone. I have no way of knowing if what you read was "word for word," and even if it was, I had no way of knowing, then as now, what mental state Simon was in when he wrote them. And again, some of his letters, only part of the whole picture.

By that stage, everything about Simon was relayed through the filter of Stephanie - Simon didn't "blog about" anything - he was in prison - Stephanie blogged on his behalf.

[Stephanie]

Publicly you haven't no but privately you once did.

The only 'dangerous platform' I see is the metaphorical one you appear to have put yourself on by choosing to post as you have just recently.

By suggesting you've now changed your mind and because of that you no longer have a "concrete conclusion" my sympathies go out to all those individuals you may well be deceiving - whether that be knowingly or unknowingly... 

The real reason I believe you have not publicly supported the truth is because your reputation will be called into question and you aren't yet ready to face the truth and all that that entails. My opinion of course...

[Stephanie]

Here is a list of some of those people who had seen all the paperwork

* The convicted
* The convicted parents
* According to the adopted mother of the convicted person, she invited all her friends to her house to go through the paperwork with a fine tooth comb following the guilty verdict
* Stephanie Bon
* Sandra Lean - though I have since learned much of what she wrote in her book 'No Smoke' relied on the hearsay of Miss Bon, the convicted person and his adoptive parents
* Bristol Innocence Project
* the BBC - prior to the Rough Justice documentary
* numerous solicitors and barristers - including Campbell Malone, Michael Mansfield, Danielle Cooper
* a family in the village of Capel

And it should be reminded that I did not start publicly campaigning until 2009, prior to that the brother of the convicted (Shaun), Miss Bon and the adoptive mother campaigned on behalf of the convicted and ran numerous websites and blogs to support this.

At one point prior to me getting involved, the family of the convicted and Miss Bon had a falling out. They only 'made up' on the night of the CCRC referral in October 2009. I believe now, the reason for the 'fallout' is significant - though I won't be going into details here.

So there were many others who had seen all the paperwork, long before I came on the scene.

Incidentally the police initially believed the murder had been sexually motivated. The convicted and the family of the convicted knew of this in 2002, as did most of us.

[Stephanie]

"11 Feb 2013
The Real Mrs H ?@The_Real_Mrs_H
Mr's H to be the new Pope!!!! Basing your life on a lie and attempting to convince people that you are right, no matter what! That's me!!!!"[/b]

Look at the date this person posted what they did.

And, again, here's a copy of one of the blogs they wrote.