If there are men, and women, like Simon Hall who are conning others (some for years and decades at a time) claiming innocence and using things like the circumstantial evidence in their trials/cases that convicted them;
How do people like Sandra Lean decipher the con artists from the genuinely factually innocent?
It should be noted Simon Hall also conned forensic psychologists during his time behind bars.
A positive to take out of a negative here, IMO is, for every 1 person who focuses on false and inaccurate information, there are hundreds more who don't. A very low % of the population take the time to base any opinion via media tactics, what are the odds therefore when narrowed down to forums and books?
Through my years of study ( in 3 different subjects) nothing has moved forward in this case, if anything it has become less of a topic of interest. A POA that is no more, a major break down of communication between the author and the subjects.
IMO through study into the mind and shock, recollection of events within this, it is pushed to the back with no insight at all. So blatantly obvious for anyone to take real time, to see this was perhaps the laddies greatest downfall. Precision, on everything, as was his mams. What study did Dr Lean do in regards to the workings of a mind in shock, I would guess, Just a guess, none.