A time to take stock....

[Stephanie]

"Now that Simon Hall has apparently taken his own life it is perhaps pertinent to view his “confession” in this new light. I am sure that some will say that his suicide is a certain sign of his anguish over his guilt. I say that, on the contrary, his death may have been through pure despair.
That despair most likely stemmed from the failure of his final appeal.Where was he to go from there? No more new evidence to rely on…the end of the road.
His confession was more than likely sparked by the inevitable realisation that those who are deemed IDOM are unlikely to ever be considered for parole. I don’t need to spell out the treatment IDOM prisoners face compared to those who realise their guilty status and play the game to prepare them for release.
I am not concerned by the kerfuffle over his so called confession. The bald facts of the case are that the conviction of Simon Hall was a miscarriage of justice. There was and still isn’t any evidence on which he should have been convicted. The DPP agreed, yet the court of appeal in 2011 disgracefully usurped the role of the jury by not ordering at the very least a re-trial.
Any notions that some may hold that British justice is something to behold with respect are being naive in the extreme. If British justice was ever a shining beacon of hope for the many then it has been extinguished for a long long time.
Bar the confession, there are echo’s here of Gordon Park and the lady in the lake case.
In addition, as shown in the Victor Nealon case, our whole CJS is in crisis and the CCRC is as culpable as any public body in the prolonging of injustice."

http://thejusticegap.com/2013/09/simon-hall-confession-a-time-to-take-stock/

The above was written by someone called Steve Sinclair.

While extremely misleading information like this remains in the public domain, it only goes to serve other guilty prisoners maintaining innocence and causes more harm than good imo.

SH conviction was NOT a miscarriage of justice! His conviction was wrong in that the eventual details he disclosed of his crime and his motives for the crime were not consistent with his eventual conviction and tarif handed down.

Had the police stuck to their original belief that the murder was sexually motivated and carried out their investigations in this belief and presented evidence at trial of this instead of suggesting it was a burglary gone wrong - SH would have received a much higher sentence than he did.

Only the police can answer why they chose to go for the motive of a burglary gone wrong as opposed to their original belief (which turned out to be true) of it having been sexually motivated.

[Stephanie]

I'm beginning to feel your pain Stephanie

What does this mean Marty? And why did you post it?

[Stephanie]

Rock and a hard place spring to mind

And why would you write this?

Why would I be caught between a rock and a hard place?

[Stephanie]

"If Hall had been intending to commit a burglary would he have got drunk so much so that he had to spend time walking around Ipswich and drive more slowly than if he had been sober? If the crime was committed after 06:00, as the prosecution allege, then he would have exposed himself to the possibility of being seen in the vicinity of the crime scene. Someone intending to commit a crime would be unlikely to take a risk, especially when there was no reason for Hall to commit that crime on that specific day. He could have waited until another occasion to break in. Of course, it can be argued he did not plan the crime, with it being a spontaneous action or one only thought of during the journey from Ipswich to Capel, but this seems difficult to believe. Why would someone with no history of burglary suddenly decide to take a detour on his way home to commit a burglary or murder? Yes, he had been under the influence of alcohol, but he was sobering up by the time he allegedly committed the murder."


For anyone who may be interested - I have never met with or spoken to Scott Lomax. His article was written before I had even seen the case papers.

I was of the belief SH had never committed a burglary until I learned about the Zenith burglary on 5th November 2012.

Following the omission/admission - we learned others appear to have also known about the burglary but chose to remain silent for whatever reason?

http://www.mojuk.org.uk/Portia/archive%2012/hall.html

SH didn't take a detour on his way home. He disclosed that he had parked in Snowcroft and has then proceeded to walk through the ally to Boydlands. He said he had been listening to a tape by a group called DMX. According to SH this tape was left behind by the previous owner of the car he had just purchased.

SH said the lyrics of the song reminded him of *events from his past which made him angry as he had not been protected from these events and believed he should have been.

* I have changed the wording of the disclosure (from the point of the asterisk) so as not to identify the individuals he referred or give details.

Incidentally this tape was seized by police and listed as an exhibit but didn't form part of the trial evidence.

The song SH referred to was - X is coming. He had apparently listened to this on his drive home to Capel.

WARNING - OFFENSIVE LYRICS
http://www.2kmusic.com/en/webvideo/dmx/1u4tByLgcrc/dmx-x-is-coming

[sandra L]

I'm afraid you are on your own in that belief Marty. The confession has been accepted as a fact.

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" - the confession and suicide are central parts of Simon's case - no discussion of the case can be had without them and questions about a person's mental state just prior to suicide are, I think, extremely pertinent. Indeed, one of the first questions asked when someone commits suicide is often "why?"

Just to be clear, I am making no statement of belief regarding the confession or suicide directly, only that I think Marty's question is a reasonable one, and that other people shared  similar concerns. Also, as far as I can see, Marty did not state a belief, he/she merely asked a question about an observation he/she had made.

I do not know Marty, I have never met Marty, I am simply posting my own observations and opinions about these recent posts.

[Stephanie]

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" - the confession and suicide are central parts of Simon's case - no discussion of the case can be had without them and questions about a person's mental state just prior to suicide are, I think, extremely pertinent. Indeed, one of the first questions asked when someone commits suicide is often "why?"

Just to be clear, I am making no statement of belief regarding the confession or suicide directly, only that I think Marty's question is a reasonable one, and that other people shared  similar concerns. Also, as far as I can see, Marty did not state a belief, he/she merely asked a question about an observation he/she had made.

I do not know Marty, I have never met Marty, I am simply posting my own observations and opinions about these recent posts.

If you read this thread from the beginning, you will no doubt see I was very aware of peoples views following the confession - http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6640.0.html

Whilst I fully appreciate it would make things clearer for genuinely interested posters if I were to say, start a new thread and tell the story from the beginning, I have chosen not to do so at this time for various reason. I fully appreciate this may course some posters to be confused.

However, as I believe is clear from my last posts to Marty, I believe he/she to have an agenda, therefore do not agree with you when you suggest his/her post is "reasonable."



With regards the suicide, as I have already stated, the Inquest is forthcoming and as I posted to Marty -

You will need to follow the Inquest Marty.

Sandra, an inquest is a judicial inquiry to ascertain the facts relating to an incident. SH died in prison custody therefore the investigation into his death "should be independent, open to public scrutiny and involve the family of the deceased."

http://www.inquest.org.uk/help/handbook/section-1-3-what-is-an-inquest

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.

I'm sure with your extensive history as a researcher and having obtained a doctorate in psychology and also having been involved with the Luke Mitchell case http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/criminologist-withdraws-from-fight-to-free-luke-mitchell-1-3478153 and indeed the SH case http://www.innocent.org.uk/books/NSreview.html you will have some idea of why it is pertinent I do not discuss certain details publicly until the inquest has been heard.

I must say I find it difficult to believe you haven't kept yourself abreast of the various news articles regarding the SH inquest?

I am simply posting my own observations and opinions about these recent posts.

You'll also forgive me that I find it strange for someone with your qualifications and experience to have only made observations and formed opinions from my recent posts. I would have thought with your expertise and background you would have made observations and opinions based on all my posts as opposed to a handful?

Am I wrong to presume you've read all of Marty's posts, both on this thread and on the Luke Mitchell thread? And am I wrong in thinking after reading Marty's posts you haven't put them into some kind of context?

[sandra L]

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.

I made it clear that I was not stating any personal opinion regarding the confession or the suicide, merely that I understood why Marty or other people might ask questions such as the ones asked by Marty - I didn't suggest you should discuss these matters, I was just pointing out that these are reasonable questions from people who may not know all the facts of the case - you could have explained to Marty the reasons why you can't discuss them, as you have done in your last 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.

However, I have not kept myself abreast of recent developments in this case, and yes, you are wrong in the assumptions you have made about what I have and haven't read.

My post was, quite simply, an observation about some posts made in the last few days on a thread which had been silent for months. That's all. No agenda.

[sandra L]

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.

[marty]

Stephanie, all the quotes you have highlighted in previous posts to me are of someone who was feeling a bit of compassion for you where no one else does. You were posting basically to yourself. No one replies until now, and look, it's me again. Obviously I have a hidden agenda because I want to talk to you about a case I know nothing about. You drag through months of posts to find something you think is relevant but really sounds weird. You have been led up the garden path before, but, not everyone is trying to do this to you.
Pick your battles in life, good luck.

[Stephanie]

For anyone who may be interested - it may be worth reading from here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.3540.html onwards... I get the distinct impression I may have hit a point of contention...

SANDRA what is it you know about the Mitchell's that you told Stephanie about that is so bad it changed her mind.

You were bound to know that this would happen when you told her anything.

Sorry, I missed this. I can tell you exactly what changed Stephanie's mind about Luke (and about others maintaining innocence whom she'd previously supported) - Simon's confession.

When Simon confessed, Stephanie leapt to the conclusion that, since Simon had been so convincing that he'd "taken everybody in" then all of the others must be doing the same. She wasted no time contacting people (including family members of convicted persons) to tell them why their support of people maintaining innocence was misguided.

So it wasn't anything I said that changed Stephanie's mind, whatever she may want to claim now. I haven't spoken with Stephanie in more than 19 months

You make me laugh Sandra and are full of xxxx and a lot of people know it - thank goodness!

It had nothing to do with the confession and had everything to do with you telling me about the xxxxxxxxxxx in the Mitchell family. My opinion of Luke Mitchell's innocence changed mainly after what YOU TOLD ME!

Who exactly did I phone to tell them they were misguided? There's only one person I recall talking to and she had already told me she believed her partner to be guilty after all. It's clear you are attempting to suggest it's because of 'sour grapes' on my part. For the record - it's not!

Again, it's based mainly on the things you told me and also your behaviours in the years prior to this.

I already thought Luke Mitchell was guilty prior to the confession of SH - others can confirm this.

However continue to spread your disingenuous assumptions - I will set the record straight when I am ready.

I just feel sorry for the people you continue to xxx xxx and clearly tell xxxxxxxx to!

Oh and one other thing Sandra -

After the confession of SH I asked you about your book 'No Smoke.' I was of the belief you had done your homework. You told me you had not xxxx xxxx xxxxxx and only took the xxxx xx xxxxxx in order to produce what you did.

You also told me you would be having the book xxxxxxxx xxxx xxxx, as it's quite xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx. Did you xxxxxx xx xxxx xxxx? And if not, why not?

Finally for now, this is xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx on your part, something which is now clear, you have mastered over these years.

How can you know what you have written about my xxxxxxxx to be fact?

This is another reason I would advise people to not be taken in by xxxxx xxxxxxx, even though you can appear quite convincing. And as I've said before, love a good argument. 

Sounds about right

[Stephanie]

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.

However, I have not kept myself abreast of recent developments in this case, and yes, you are wrong in the assumptions you have made about what I have and haven't read.

Might be worth doing your homework before jumping on the bandwagon so to speak..

[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 don't think that's entirely accurate - there were many people who shared Marty's view, or at least a similar version.

Can you point me to where it had been suggested SH made the confession because he was 'depressed.'

[Stephanie]

1. Stephanie, all the quotes you have highlighted in previous posts to me are of someone who was feeling a bit of compassion for you where no one else does. 1.a You were posting basically to yourself. No one replies until now, and look, it's me again. 2. Obviously I have a hidden agenda because I want to talk to you about a case I know nothing about. 3. You drag through months of posts to find something you think is relevant but really sounds weird. 4. You have been led up the garden path before, but, not everyone is trying to do this to you.
Pick your battles in life, good luck.

1. I'm not here for your compassion Marty - sorry to disappoint you - nor am I of the belief your post to be sincere.

1.a - That may appear to be the case but since you made your observation the thread has been viewed over 300 times! So people may not be replying, for whatever reasons, but people are taking an interest.

2. My point Exactly!

3. I'm sure you've referred to me as weird before Marty - here's some of the nonsense you've posted about me - to me - and why I believe you to have an agenda -

Your post don't seem coherent Stephanie, posting newspaper reports to questions you have bee asked. I don't have to attack you, honestly.
You seem a little confused. Posting pictures with no relevance. Maybe if you explained what you were posting it would help. All it seems to me is a personal thing between you and sandra.

Only one person who harrasses anyone on here with utter drivel..
Is this the same information you claim to know but refuse to divulge . Is that because if it came from xxx xxxx xxx xx xxx xxxxx xxxxxxx xxx.
Wonder why?.
Why would anyone believe you? I mean really

I'm not interested in time wasters who call people this and that but are no better themselves.
Baz was right, don't feed the troll.

You are evading questions, which is what you claim others are doing and leading people like me a merry dance. Which, is what you are claiming, others are doing.

And your a saint?

Surprise surprise. You claim in earlier posts that sandra had lost all credibility. You also claim she is not answering all the questions you pose. Then the first question you are asked about information you claim to possess, you pass the buck onto someone else and won't answer. Who has just lost all credibility? Bitter and twisted is what comes to mind

Am I just being cynical here, but having read the old wap forum about this case. Did john and Stephanie change their minds about luke only after they had fallen out with everyone on that forum, especially sandra it would seem. John seemed to come back onto that forum still believing innocence but under false names, is that correct? Then when he inevitably fell out with everyone again, he turned against luke. Or more turned against sandra and billy middleton rather than luke mitchell. Is that about right?

4. Yes I was 'led up the garden path before' - I made a mistake and have learned from my mistake.

[sandra L]

Might be worth doing your homework before jumping on the bandwagon so to speak..

I commented on your response to Marty's post - no bandwagon there, and no reason to trawl through months of posts in which I have zero interest in order to comment on that response.

[Stephanie]

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,

My mistake.

You have a doctorate in criminology.