| "Wherever he steps, whatever he touches, whatever he leaves, even unconsciously, will serve as a silent witness against him. Not only his fingerprints or his footprints, but his hair, the fibers from his clothes, the glass he breaks, the tool mark he leaves, the paint he scratches, the blood or semen he deposits or collects. All of these and more, bear mute witness against him. This is evidence that does not forget. It is not confused by the excitement of the moment. It is not absent because human witnesses are. It is factual evidence. Physical evidence cannot be wrong, it cannot perjure itself, it cannot be wholly absent. Only its interpretation can err. Only human failure to find it, study and understand it, can diminish its value." Paul L Kirk - PhD|
'Unlike others before him, Kirk understood the limits of the principle and argued for caution in the interpretation of exchange evidence.'
An Innocent mans life destroyed all for the sake of the integrity of the British judicial system - a conviction at any cost!
Joan Albert’s killer(s) remain AT LARGE over 11 years on!
The main plank of the prosecution's case is that black flock fibres and green polyester fibres found in addresses and vehicles associated with Simon were said to be "indistinguishable" from those found on the deceased and at the crime scene.
The fibres that were said to be green, by the Crowns ‘experts,’ were actually carbon black!
Read more about the fibre evidence here - https://sites.google.com/site/thecaseofsimonhall/documents
Suffolk police and the Forensic Science Services (FSS) failed to follow the correct fibre trail!
We now know that the killer(s) was wearing something made of grey sweatshirt material.
If Suffolk police & the FSS can get the colours of fibres wrong, then they almost certainly would have eliminated priority leads, which could have led to the apprehension of the person(s) responsible!
Suffolk police & the FSS made numerous mistakes from beginning to end, also failing to follow correct procedural guidelines throughout the entire murder investigation.
Infact, ALL evidence found at the murder scene pointed away from Simon and toward others. Glass particles, paint fragments, soil samples and any fibres found at the murder scene and all other trace evidence such as carpet fibres, fibres from Joan Albert’s dressing gown, blood, hairs etc were not found at any location attributed to Simon!
Simon had no motive!
Simon had a solid alibi for the night in question save for the time when he dropped his friend home in Ipswich at 6am and drove back to his parents house in Capel St Mary, arriving at approx 6.15am.
The prosecution concocted a theory to place the time of death to coincide with this 'window of opportunity' when Simon was travelling home but the stomach contents, combined with knowledge of Joan Albert’s habitual nature, and the noises heard by over a dozen villagers living near Boydland's, all pointed to a much earlier time of death (approx 2am)!
There is a link to a burglary in Higham (a small village approx 9 miles South West of Capel St Mary) in which the MO (modus operandi) was the same:
* both were elderly residents
* both properties were entered via a kitchen window, which was smashed to gain entry
* both residents collected antiques and lived alone
The Higham burglary is where it is believed the knife which was used to murder Joan Albert was stolen.
A size 5 trainer style sole footwear mark was recovered from the burglary in Higham.
Witnesses from the village of Capel St Mary have said that Suffolk police were originally looking at teenagers with a size 5-6 trainer shoe size.
A size 5 trainer style sole footwear mark was also recovered from 15 Boydlands but was not processed by the police or FSS, therefore not investigated!
Suffolk police failed to attend reports of a disturbance at another property in Capel St Mary on the same night as the murder.
The owners of this property were woken at around 2am after their dogs alerted them by barking loudly to noises in the garden.
The following morning the owners of the property found evidence to suggest someone had been in the garden - footwear marks and a broken fence.
By the time Suffolk police attended, some 2 weeks later, the footmarks had been washed away by the rain.