So when does Dr Michael Naughton plan to embrace his errors and learn from them and what impact does the ‘progressive dynamic element’ have on the public, the criminal justice system and the ‘wrongful conviction’ arena?
The ‘progressive dynamic element’ Dr Michael Naughton refers to has appeared static to me for years and is evidenced by not only his behaviour but by the behaviour of many within the moj arena
Man wrongly convicted of murder fails in bid to get police officer prosecuted
Excerpt:
“Crucial to their conviction was testimony given by Detective Inspector Stuart Lewis, who claimed he overheard a shouted conversation between Mr O’Brien and Mr Sherwood while they were in cells at the city’s Canton police station. The conversation appeared to amount to a confession that they had committed the murder.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/michael-obrien-man-wrongly-convicted-6350640
Dr Michael Naughton phoned me after Simon Hall confessed. He and Gabe Tan appeared to have accepted Halls guilt. Gabe Tan was really upset according to Michael. He said he never wanted to hear the name Simon Hall again.
So what changed for Michael Naughton between then and now?
‘
Dr Michael Naughton told how he received a letter last week from Hall's wife Stephanie telling him her husband had admitted the murder and asking him to close the case down.
"We are not shocked - we are alive to the possibility that a lot of people who say they are innocent are not.
"We are looking for needles in haystacks in our project.
"It is quite sad in terms of the waste of resources and the distress to (Mrs Albert's) family members when it turns out like this."
And the "thousands of hours" Bristol law students have spent on the Hall case, said Dr Naughton, could easily have been spent on "somebody else's case".https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-23630287Have stated before, I didn’t write a letter to Michael Naughton this is a lie, I emailed him (With the help and assistance of Neil Bellis)
If Simon Hall could con Dr Michael Naughton for all those years how many others has he been conned by?
More importantly is Dr Michael Naughton the type of individual to hold his hands up and admit when he’s been conned? He doesn’t appear to be to me.
I recall when the CCRC referred Simon Hall's case back in 2009. There was a dispute between Campbell Malone and Michael Naughton. I was in the middle of it all, wrongly believing Hall was innocent. The dispute came up again at the COA in 2010. It was about the knife evidence, which the CCRC hadn't referred on.
Private Eye in November 2009, made public that other evidence which could positively prove Simon Hall’s innocence was uncovered by the University of Bristol Innocence Project investigation. This relates to another burglary which occurred on the night of Joan Albert’s murder, just ten minutes away from where she lived.
‘Crucially, students uncovered a statement by a witness, who did not give evidence at trial, who identified the murder weapon as similar, if not identical, to the one that had gone missing from the burgled house: it had the same colour handle, length of blade and rivets on the knife handle. Simon Hall, who has evidence that he was out all night with his friends on the night/morning of Joan Albert’s murder could not have committed the burglary and obtain the knife which could have been used to kill her.
In addition, the schedule of unused material made reference to DNA profile(s) belonging to ‘more than one person’ that were found on the handle of the knife. This DNA evidence has never been disclosed, despite requests from Simon Hall’s original defence solicitor. It is our contention that if it incriminated Simon Hall the DNA profile(s) would have been disclosed and used at trial by the prosecution.
However, within weeks of the University of Bristol Innocence Project highlighting the existence of this evidence, the Criminal Cases Review Commission announced that it was referring his case back to the Court of Appeal on grounds of the possible unreliability of the fibre evidence.
But, the Criminal Cases Review Commission did not fully investigate the possible evidential value of the DNA profile(s) and the witness who identified the murder weapon prior to referring Mr Hall’s case.
This undoubtedly diminished the possible impact that the evidence could have had on the appeal had it been fully explored. As such, although the evidence of the knife and burglary was included as a supplementary ground of appeal by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, it is perhaps not surprising that it did not feature at all in Simon Hall’s appeal.
The failure to fully investigate the DNA profile(s) and the identification of the murder weapon as stolen from the other burglary highlights the extent to which the criminal justice system is not concerned with innocence or guilt.
The Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Court of Appeal generally only consider evidence that was not available or adduced at the time of the trial or in previous appeals. Under the existing system the evidence relating to the other burglary will not be able to be used in any subsequent applications to the Criminal Cases Review Commission or feature in any future appeals.
Until such time as the criminal justice system takes claims of innocence seriously and seeks the truth of whether alleged victims of wrongful convictions are innocent or not, it seems that the door is closed on the evidence which could exonerate Simon Hall entirely and potentially even lead to the conviction of the real perpetrator(s) of Joan Albert’s murder." https://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2010/7432.html
Simon Hall was guilty. He wasn't involved in the Higham burglary because he was too busy with his mate elsewhere burgling Zenith. What many of us had presumed regarding the knife evidence was wrong. The knife found at the murder scene had not been stolen. It came from the kitchen drawer of Hall's victim.
And Dr Michael Naughton appears to have made no effort whatsoever to revise his methodology which is quite clearly flawed and highly misleading
Dr Michael Naughton for example came up with his 'Typology of Prisoners Maintaining Innocence'. He categorises prisoners who maintain innocence into five groups:
Has Dr Michael Naughton ever revised his ‘typology of prisoners maintaining innocence’ ? The answer is no but why did he choose to not include a category for the ‘con artists and wolves in sheep’s clothing’ in the first place?
Empowering the Innocent (ETI)
@EmpowerInnocent
Nov 23, 2019
We need to be very careful not have wolves in sheep's clothing amongst us who claim that they are innocent when they are not and which discredits the innocence movement and the chances of the genuinely innocent overturning their wrongful convictions: http://innocencenetwork.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Michael_Naughton_Factual_Innocence_Legal_Guilt_PSJ_May_2008.pdfhttps://mobile.twitter.com/SofaAssoc/status/1198343477744095237He gave the following speech in 2007 where he refers to his ‘Typology of Prisoners Maintaining Innocence'.
Confronting an uncomfortable truth: Not all victims of alleged false accusations will be innocent!Excerpts:
‘This short article reports on some of the main points of the talk that I gave at the F.A.C.T. Winter Conference 2007, St Chad's, Birmingham. It questions F.A.C.T.’s central claim that the vast majority of complaints of child abuse made against carers and teachers are fabricated and/or exaggerated. It provides an outline of the ‘typology of prisoners maintaining innocence’ that I have created to assist the efforts of the Innocence Network UK (INUK) to ensure that member innocence projects do not receive unreliable referrals for their case investigations. It, then, puts the ‘typology’ to work, proposing that F.A.C.T. confronts the uncomfortable truth that some F.A.C.T. members may not be innocent, that some members of F.A.C.T. may be supporting alleged innocent victims of false accusation who may not be innocent, and that F.A.C.T. should devise means to identify members who may not be innocent to ensure that it supports only those that are likely to be innocent. Following this, the article engages with the two main responses to my talk in the discussion that followed – that F.A.C.T. takes members on trust that they did not abuse the children that they were accused of abusing, and that to engage in identifying potential abusers within the membership of F.A.C.T. is tantamount to ‘cowering to power’
“The typology of prisoners maintaining innocence (which is also relevant to alleged victims of wrongful conviction who do not receive a custodial sentence) is a work-in-progress construction that I have devised as part of my work with the Innocence Network UK (INUK) in an attempt to provide reliable referrals to member innocence projects for further investigation. It stems, equally, from my concerns that befall all who attempt to support alleged innocent victims of wrongful convictions, i.e. the accusation that we believe and take on trust (discussed further in the next section) that all alleged victims are innocent. In this sense, the typology of prisoners maintaining innocence is a practical demonstration that we (the INUK) do not just believe all who claim innocence but, rather, employ a rigorous screening process that separates prisoners (or alleged innocent victims of wrongful conviction) who are clearly not innocent from those that may be innocent.
https://www.fbga.redguitars.co.uk/michaelNaughtonNov07.pdfDr Michael Naughton was Simon Halls representative (In place of a solicitor) when his guilt was exposed in 2013. What did Michael Naughton do following the discovery he’d been conned for all those years? He buried his head in the sand and went on to write the foreword to Michelle Diskin Bates book ‘Stand Against Injustice’
But on what basis did Dr Michael Naughton choose to write the forward of Michelle Diskin Bates book?
Barry George hasn’t proved he’s factually innocent and surely if Michael Naughton knows something the rest of us don’t he would have vocalised it, after all proof of factual innocence in the Barry George case could help him with his claim to compensation.
Why has Dr Michael Naughton chosen to take such a gamble?
