18 September 2012
Following to a meeting with the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), the University of Bristol Innocence Project has made a second submission to the SCCRC on behalf of Mr William Beck.
19 August 2011
University of Bristol Innocence Project submit response to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission on behalf of William Beck.
University of Bristol Innocence Project asks: Is William Beck a victim of mistaken eyewitness identification?
21 January 2011
Extract from Private Eye (Jan 2011: Issue 1278, page 32) on Simon Hall's appeal.
13 December 2010
6 December 2010
University of Bristol Innocence Project (UoBIP): Simon Hall appeal heard in the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division).
15 October 2009
Extract on Simon Hall's referral back to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) from Private Eye, 1249, November 2009, page 29
‘The Commission [Criminal Cases Review Commission] says it has new scientific evidence that casts doubt on the only forensic evidence that was said to have linked Hall, now aged 31, to the fatal stabbing ? fibres found at the scene.
In fact there is another crucial piece of evidence which points to Hall’s innocence. It had been buried in a mass of unused material, handed over to Hall’s the defence team just days before his trial, and it has recently been unearthed by law students working on Bristol University “Innocence Project”.
The students found a statement from a care worker who looked after an elderly man living 10 minutes away from Mrs Albert in Capel St Mary and who was also the victim of a burglary on the night Mrs Albert was stabbed. The care worker reported that immediately after the burglary she noticed that two kitchen knives she regularly used to prepare the man’s meals had gone missing. Later, when shown a picture of the murder weapon, she identified it as “similar to the one stolen. It appears to have the same colour handle and length of blade. It also has the same rivets on the handle.”
The students also found a “schedule of unused material” which showed that DNA was recovered from the knife from “more than one person” but “the results are believed to be of no practical use.” Could this be because, just like the fingerprints found above Mrs Albert’s body, footprints found in the garden and DNA on her body, it didn’t match Hall’s?
If it is established that the murder weapon was, as the care worker believed, stolen during the house raid, it proves Hall could not possibly have been the killer.’
University of Bristol Innocence Project (UoBIP) submissions to the CCRC on behalf of Simon Hall.