UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Luke Mitchell and the murder of his teenage girfriend Jodi Jones on 30 June 2003. => Topic started by: Bullseye on May 15, 2023, 10:42:58 AM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76FYcIMENGE&t=3287s
I thought the video was really good. She appears to know her stuff. Unfortunately it seem she has limited information on the case, there are a couple of points that im not sure is correct but I thought it was good to see another professional experienced person taking an interest in the case. Her initial opinion is that Luke is guilty. Be great if Sandra could go on her channel or provided her with the details to take a look at so she has more information and any facts. Not opinions or observations but just her looking at the information and evidence available and hearing her views on things like the statements, the way the crime scene was handled etc if there was any mistake I’m sure she would pick up on it a lot more than anyone like us who has no experience on the other hand if she feels there is nothing of concern and still believes Luke to be guilty them I’m sure she can explain to us why and maybe help people feel more confident the correct person is in jail.
I believe she is currently reading Sandra’s book, I’m not sure she will be very impressed as she was not with the jack and victor detectives from the channel 5 documentary which I feel was very similar, a bit one sided. Be interesting to hear her thought
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76FYcIMENGE&t=3287s
I thought the video was really good. She appears to know her stuff. Unfortunately it seem she has limited information on the case, there are a couple of points that im not sure is correct but I thought it was good to see another professional experienced person taking an interest in the case. Her initial opinion is that Luke is guilty. Be great if Sandra could go on her channel or provided her with the details to take a look at so she has more information and any facts. Not opinions or observations but just her looking at the information and evidence available and hearing her views on things like the statements, the way the crime scene was handled etc if there was any mistake I’m sure she would pick up on it a lot more than anyone like us who has no experience on the other hand if she feels there is nothing of concern and still believes Luke to be guilty them I’m sure she can explain to us why and maybe help people feel more confident the correct person is in jail.
I believe she is currently reading Sandra’s book, I’m not sure she will be very impressed as she was not with the jack and victor detectives from the channel 5 documentary which I feel was very similar, a bit one sided. Be interesting to hear her thought
Have to disagree Bullseye. She appeared to know very little about the crime or the chronology of the case. Perhaps with a lot more knowledge she may give some interesting insights but not at the moment. She believes the McCanns had some part in the disappearance of their daughter, which I broadly agree with, but she kind of lost me when she claimed that they may have brought her bones home to the U.K. in their hand luggage.
-
Have to disagree Bullseye. She appeared to know very little about the crime or the chronology of the case. Perhaps with a lot more knowledge she may give some interesting insights but not at the moment. She believes the McCanns had some part in the disappearance of their daughter, which I broadly agree with, but she kind of lost me when she claimed that they may have brought her bones home to the U.K. in their hand luggage.
When I said she knows her stuff I mean her professional background not the details of the case. She said herself she had limited knowledge on the case but some of the point she made on the information she had were interesting. Given more facts and seeing the actual evidence etc I would be interested in what she has to say.
-
From the host's comments at YouTube:
"Oh, Yvonne, I feel sorry for the police in this case who are just being shredded as absolute monsters for railroading this “poor boy.” Now, there are cases I have worked where there has been incompetence (usually due to lack of training), there have been errors (sometimes due to just being human or overwhelmed or lacking manpower or funding), and there have been rare cases of absolute corruption (but this truly are rare although they exist)."
And
"Thank you, Michelle. It is a shame that the wrongful conviction movement doesn’t focus TRULY on clear cases of wrongful conviction and that they are above board and honest in their work to free an innocent person..and they do exist. A good portion of these cases of persons they get out are actually guilty… but they have found some technicality to get them out on along with massive public pressure. Usually if one looks back at the actual case, the appeals, one finds that the guy had incredible amount of evidence against him. But, they hide this and pretend to the public, the fellow was a proper schoolboy and just got grabbed of the street and throw in prison for no reason.
These case taint the whole movement which I would be in support of, if only, they were honest. Once in a while I agree that someone behind bars is not guilty of the crime and should not be there, but, more often, it is not so. And, also - something they don’t admit - might be the wrong guy is behind bars for raping an d killing a woman - but he is already a serial killer and had done time in another case. This they don’t tell the public."
These are two instances in which Ms. Brown comes across as hostile in general to pro-innocence advocates. She attempts to balance this by paying lip service to the notion that there are problematic investigations and a few wrongful convictions, but I found her comments unconvincing. For example, one could have said circa 1985, "Why are there so many people banging on about Lindy Chamberlain? She has used up all her appeals. These folks should focus on someone truly innocent." My point is that unless people advocate over the course of years for a possibly wrongfully convicted person, one will not uncover the evidence to demonstrate it. There is a bit of circularity in her argument.
In the first forty minutes I heard her make some questionable statements about the present case. I will listen to the rest as the week progresses, but I don't have high expectations.
EDT
I watched another hour, and it went from bad to worse. She provides erroneous information and rank speculation.
-
Ieally wouldn’t give Pat Brown the time of day frankly.
-
Ms. Brown made an argument to the effect that if Andreana Bryson had seen a different pair of people, why have they not come forward. Once one remembers that Ms. Bryson's original statement would have put her at the base of the path much later in the day, there is a simple answer. A couple who had been there later would not have recognized themselves from the earlier time was put forward at the trial.
-
Ms. Brown made an argument to the effect that if Andreana Bryson had seen a different pair of people, why have they not come forward. Once one remembers that Ms. Bryson's original statement would have put her at the base of the path much later in the day, there is a simple answer. A couple who had been there later would not have recognized themselves from the earlier time was put forward at the trial.
Also they were never asked in the news papers etc to come forward, probably had no idea they were being looked for.
-
Also they were never asked in the news papers etc to come forward, probably had no idea they were being looked for.
Which is odd considering that the police appealed for the moped boys, stocky man and the lady with the pram. In fact the stocky man was being publicised as the last positive sighting of Jodi even though Bryson had already given several statements to the police about the couple at that point.
For me the police believed that Bryson’s original timings excluded the sighting from being Luke and Jodi and it was only latterly, when they had no other evidence linking Luke to the crime, that the manipulation of her statements began. If you use the bank receipt then Bryson’s journey has gaping holes in it. It’s also interesting that no CCTV was obtained of Bryson’s journey, as was done with Corrine and Alan Ovens, which could have settled the point conclusively.
-
For me the police believed that Bryson’s original timings excluded the sighting from being Luke and Jodi and it was only latterly, when they had no other evidence linking Luke to the crime, that the manipulation of her statements began. If you use the bank receipt then Bryson’s journey has gaping holes in it. It’s also interesting that no CCTV was obtained of Bryson’s journey, as was done with Corrine and Alan Ovens, which could have settled the point conclusively.
1. You have never seen her statements in full.
2. You never attended the 42-day trial.
3. Been done to death.
Anything new to discuss?
-
Ieally wouldn’t give Pat Brown the time of day frankly.
Can't say I know too much about her but would like to see her going head-to-head with SL, but after all it's just more opinions much like David Wilson. She did get one thing right:
As to Lean, she is not a criminologist and never has been. She was a paralegal and she received a PhD in philosophy, her research for that degree being this case as of the fight of a “wrongly accused.” I will not immediately discount Lean’s work based on her background..... But, I do find it funny that she adds/ lies the criminalist title when, in fact, that is not her field of expertise. From the above video comments.
-
1. You have never seen her statements in full.
2. You never attended the 42-day trial.
3. Been done to death.
Anything new to discuss?
I’m quite happy discussing this, thank you. Of course no one is forcing you to join in.
-
Can't say I know too much about her but would like to see her going head-to-head with SL, but after all it's just more opinions much like David Wilson. She did get one thing right:
As to Lean, she is not a criminologist and never has been. She was a paralegal and she received a PhD in philosophy, her research for that degree being this case as of the fight of a “wrongly accused.” I will not immediately discount Lean’s work based on her background..... But, I do find it funny that she adds/ lies the criminalist title when, in fact, that is not her field of expertise. From the above video comments.
It appears that apart from a liberal arts degree from the University of the State of New York Pat Brown has no qualifications in either criminology or the law. Of course I’m prepared to be corrected.
-
It appears that apart from a liberal arts degree from the University of the State of New York Pat Brown has no qualifications in either criminology or the law. Of course I’m prepared to be corrected.
have you got a degree in either of those two subjects or can we dismiss everything you have to say about this and the McCann case too? Quite happy to do so on both counts.
-
It appears that apart from a liberal arts degree from the University of the State of New York Pat Brown has no qualifications in either criminology or the law. Of course I’m prepared to be corrected.
If you'd looked further than Wiki: MA in Criminal Justice (2007) plus decades of actual case research and profiling alongside assisting various official agencies. I don't know enough about her but agree with her comment about SL using her "Dr" title rather deceptively.
-
I’m quite happy discussing this, thank you. Of course no one is forcing you to join in.
The single largest problem I have with Andrina Bryson's testimony is the fact that her testimony changed in a material way, specifically in whether she saw the pair of people before or after looking at the house. There are other problems, one of which I will mention now. I don't refer to the two people whom Ms. Bryson saw as a couple. A report of her testimony indicated that "He was a few steps away." For all anyone knows they might have been strangers to each other.
-
If I were a lawyer with a client whom I was convinced was factually innocent, I would not be comfortable if I were to see Ms. Brown as a member of the jury. She mocked defense attorneys and paid defense witnesses, while ignoring the fact that the prosecution's witnesses are paid. Yet she made excuses for the police when investigations are not done in a professional manner. Moreover, it was not just as though she said something dismissive or derogatory one time; her whole presentation was peppered with such sentiments, and I found two more in the comments section below the video.
-
If you'd looked further than Wiki: MA in Criminal Justice (2007) plus decades of actual case research and profiling alongside assisting various official agencies. I don't know enough about her but agree with her comment about SL using her "Dr" title rather deceptively.
You are right, I didn’t look much further than Wikipedia. I prefer to listen to professionals such as John Scott QC who actually knows about Scottish law and the case.
Dr Lean has a PhD. Please explain why you think that she’s using the ‘doctor’ title deceptively?
-
Pat has uploaded her latest update after reading the cult book. I'm sure she will now become the target of more hate mail.
-
Pat has uploaded her latest update after reading the cult book. I'm sure she will now become the target of more hate mail.
Here she is... hard going like the book. If you weren't confused then, you will be now...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plUqM5g-wRg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plUqM5g-wRg)
-
Here she is... hard going like the book. If you weren't confused then, you will be now...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plUqM5g-wRg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plUqM5g-wRg)
Dear oh dear!
-
Pat has uploaded her latest update after reading the cult book. I'm sure she will now become the target of more hate mail.
I thought it was fair. Couple of points she got wrong.
It is one sided but it’s written by the defence so that’s expected.
Be great if Sandra could share some of the defence papers with her to hear her view on them.
-
Be great if Sandra could share some of the defence papers with her to hear her view on them.
No chance of that happening. If you have not figured it out already, then let me remind you. Lean won't be sharing anything with anyone, if there is a chance it would compromise her narrative and expose her fraud.
-
No chance of that happening. If you have not figured it out already, then let me remind you. Lean won't be sharing anything with anyone, if there is a chance it would compromise her narrative and expose her fraud.
Yeah I’m not sure she would share it either but going by the other people that interviewed her and Scott they have seen bits and Bobs. If Sandra truly believes the evidence she has speaks for itself then she should have no problem sharing the information. I suppose it depends on her thoughts on Pat and her work.
Be a great show if both Prof Wilson and Pat got to review all the stuff Sandra had and see where they both stand after. One thinks he should not have even been arrested and the other thinks he is most probably guilty, going by the information in the public. Ok I know that’s never going to happen but got to admit be interesting viewing.
-
Yeah I’m not sure she would share it either but going by the other people that interviewed her and Scott they have seen bits and Bobs. If Sandra truly believes the evidence she has speaks for itself then she should have no problem sharing the information. I suppose it depends on her thoughts on Pat and her work.
Be a great show if both Prof Wilson and Pat got to review all the stuff Sandra had and see where they both stand after. One thinks he should not have even been arrested and the other thinks he is most probably guilty, going by the information in the public. Ok I know that’s never going to happen but got to admit be interesting viewing.
Wouldn't it just !!
-
Yeah I’m not sure she would share it either but going by the other people that interviewed her and Scott they have seen bits and Bobs. If Sandra truly believes the evidence she has speaks for itself then she should have no problem sharing the information. I suppose it depends on her thoughts on Pat and her work.
Be a great show if both Prof Wilson and Pat got to review all the stuff Sandra had and see where they both stand after. One thinks he should not have even been arrested and the other thinks he is most probably guilty, going by the information in the public. Ok I know that’s never going to happen but got to admit be interesting viewing.
Or perhaps Dr Lean is being absolutely honest and legally can’t supply the information requested? It’s interesting though that if the information is available to the public then no one has produced one statement in the last 20 years that refutes anything that Dr Lean has said.
-
Or perhaps Dr Lean is being absolutely honest and legally can’t supply the information requested? It’s interesting though that if the information is available to the public then no one has produced one statement in the last 20 years that refutes anything that Dr Lean has said.
I’m assuming the 2 police detectives from the documentary seen all the information else how could they make the documentary? Maybe she can’t release it to the public but can to certain parties? I have no idea, just be interesting to get other professional opinions on the evidence available.
-
I’m assuming the 2 police detectives from the documentary seen all the information else how could they make the documentary? Maybe she can’t release it to the public but can to certain parties? I have no idea, just be interesting to get other professional opinions on the evidence available.
I think perhaps it is only certain parties that the information can be presented too but I’m only assuming.
As to other professionals opinions I’m interested in all opinions as long as they are informed opinions.
Let’s take one of Brown’s assumptions, that Jodi’s mother wouldn’t lie for her eldest daughter’s boyfriend or two cousins and that it wasn’t like it was her son that was being blamed. That, however, is exactly what could have happened and it’s foolish to dismiss in those terrible circumstances that she wouldn’t lie for her son. Don’t get me wrong I’m not claiming that this is what happened but that it could have.
Are you aware that Pat Brown’s book on the Madeleine McCann case was pulled by Amazon for being defamatory? For such a ‘dishonest’ book it’s interesting that Dr Lean’s book is still very much on sale.
-
I am watching Pat Brown's review of Innocents Betrayed. So far it is biased nonsense.
-
I am watching Pat Brown's review of Innocents Betrayed. So far it is biased nonsense.
It always is when someone has made their mind up about something first and then makes a programme to promulgate their viewpoint. In fact I would say that such programmes (ie those without any balance or without at least making some serious attempt to test the other side’s case) are almost completely worthless.
-
https://youtu.be/GtIg0C2gqII
-
https://youtu.be/GtIg0C2gqII
Just watched Sandra’s reply video to pats book review. Was good to see some of the mistakes being cleared up and some of Pats points challenged. I think the problem is the case is so complicated and we really only have one source to the information not in the public. Sandra. Some people are happy to accept what she says as truth and some will not unless they see the information themselves which we know can not happen. Others do not believe a word Sandra says and think she is an outright liar. I personally believe the information Sandra gives out, as in the information from the defence papers. Some I’m sure will say that’s naive but I have not seen any legal challenges to the information she has provided and I don’t think she would put herself at risk of legal action by making it up. I agree it’s not the full picture just snippets but i believe the snippet to be true. That does not mean I agree with her take on all of the detail, some I do some I don’t but as she says herself make of it as you will, which I’m sure we all try to do.
Good on Sandra for responding!! I’m sure a few folk here expected her to stay silent.
-
Criminal Profiler Pat Brown On The Appeals To Credentials Fallacy & Charlatan, Fraudster & Morally Duplicitous Sandra Lean (Part 215)
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/05/21/killer-luke-mitchell-criminal-profiler-pat-brown-on-the-appeals-to-credentials-fallacy-charlatan-fraudster-morally-duplicitous-sandra-lean-part-215/
-
but I have not seen any legal challenges to the information she has provided
How long did it take con artist Sandra Lean with her legal challenge in 2008 re Diggory press Ltd and why did she bail out ?
Sandra Lean - 16th February 2008
Hi,
I'm another of The Seventeen, and I can confirm Gill's post - we are indeed taking Diggory to court, and, like Gill, I also got suckered into the Platinum Package. Unfortuately, being very naive, I organised and booked a countrywide book tour, at great expense, expecting my book to be in the shops. Worse, I was highlighting several cases of wrongful conviction, so all of these people and their families were extremely hopeful that the publicity would generate interest and public support for them. I have rarely felt so low about anything - these people trusted me with their stories, and I feel i let them down terribly, all because Diggory doesn't do what it says it will do.
I have not received one penny in royalties, and have had nothing but rudeness from Diggory when I tried to put things right. They eve sent a very rude email to a friend of mine, who had emailed on my behalf because I thought my own emails weren't getting through. I know my book has sold many copies because of the feedback I have had personally, and because of the ratings and comments on Amazon.
I'll pop in from time to time to leave updates on the situation.
And was Sandra Lean involved in reporting people to the FBI like her friend ‘Dr’ Stephen T Manning (STM) ?
“STM claims Maxine Asher is “under investigation by the FBI” (again this sounds all too familar, he’s said the same about the other women he’s targetted) because – wait for it – STM reported her to the FBI. Reporting someone to the police/bureau, and the police following it up and investigating it are NOT the same things.
https://wondereraround.wordpress.com/2009/05/31/dr-stephen-t-manning-ph-d-is-an-academic-fraud/
-
Just watched Sandra’s reply video to pats book review. Was good to see some of the mistakes being cleared up and some of Pats points challenged. I think the problem is the case is so complicated and we really only have one source to the information not in the public. Sandra. Some people are happy to accept what she says as truth and some will not unless they see the information themselves which we know can not happen. Others do not believe a word Sandra says and think she is an outright liar. I personally believe the information Sandra gives out, as in the information from the defence papers. Some I’m sure will say that’s naive but I have not seen any legal challenges to the information she has provided and I don’t think she would put herself at risk of legal action by making it up. I agree it’s not the full picture just snippets but i believe the snippet to be true. That does not mean I agree with her take on all of the detail, some I do some I don’t but as she says herself make of it as you will, which I’m sure we all try to do.
Good on Sandra for responding!! I’m sure a few folk here expected her to stay silent.
She does herself no favours with her sarky, acidic, pass ag delivery IMO. All a bit childish and undignified.
-
She does herself no favours with her sarky, acidic, pass ag delivery IMO. All a bit childish and undignified.
How would you characterize Pat Brown's delivery? Beyond this question, how much actual profiling is there in Pat's video?
-
How would you characterize Pat Brown's delivery? Beyond this question, how much actual profiling is there in Pat's video?
I have no time for Pat Brown and I’d describe her delivery as comical.
-
Wasn’t Pat Brown the individual who challenged the McCanns to take a lie detector test to prove their innocence?
-
Wasn’t Pat Brown the individual who challenged the McCanns to take a lie detector test to prove their innocence?
Relevance?
-
Doc Lean's video seems to have brought out the superfans. Has fumin' Val Young been promoted to lieutenant since Forbes defected to the Salmond Party? It's all noise to divert and deflect that nothing is actually happening, same as last year and the year before. Oh aye, the samples that are being tested will set him free.
-
Relevance?
Pat Brown minimized the importance of the fact that Luke and Corinne Mitchell passed lie detectors. It is part of a larger pattern. On the one hand she kept saying how she could not verify this or that statement from Sandra Lean's book. On the other, she seemed to borrow heavily from a 2021 newspaper article ("The hard facts..." if I recall the headline correctly) that had a pro-guilt slant and was unconcerned about verifying those statements.
-
Pat Brown minimized the importance of the fact that Luke and Corinne Mitchell passed lie detectors. It is part of a larger pattern. On the one hand she kept saying how she could not verify this or that statement from Sandra Lean's book. On the other, she seemed to borrow heavily from a 2021 newspaper article ("The hard facts..." if I recall the headline correctly) that had a pro-guilt slant and was unconcerned about verifying those statements.
Conducted by Terry Mullins, the same "expert" who carried out one on Jeremy Bamber and believes he is innocent solely on that, to the exclusion of all other evidence against him.
-
Pat Brown minimized the importance of the fact that Luke and Corinne Mitchell passed lie detectors. It is part of a larger pattern. On the one hand she kept saying how she could not verify this or that statement from Sandra Lean's book. On the other, she seemed to borrow heavily from a 2021 newspaper article ("The hard facts..." if I recall the headline correctly) that had a pro-guilt slant and was unconcerned about verifying those statements.
She’s basically as useful as a chocolate teapot when it comes to criminal profiling and best watched only for a wry giggle now and again.
-
Conducted by Terry Mullins, the same "expert" who carried out one on Jeremy Bamber and believes he is innocent solely on that, to the exclusion of all other evidence against him.
https://youtu.be/OL9TLqeyV3U
3.00 “ I don’t have an opinion whether he has done anything or not”.
-
https://youtu.be/OL9TLqeyV3U
3.00 “ I don’t have an opinion whether he has done anything or not”.
Yes, that was before he conducted the test, and then after he had conducted the test he was "very pleased to tell" Jeremy that he was truthful and that he definitely "had not killed any members of his family".
-
And the expert who conducted it (the lie detector test on JB) said: "I am absolutely convinced he is innocent."
Terry Mullins added: "He did not show any sign of a reaction, not a flicker which would have shown up guilt."
-
https://youtu.be/OL9TLqeyV3U (https://youtu.be/OL9TLqeyV3U)
3.00 “ I don’t have an opinion whether he has done anything or not”.
Mullins needs to make up his mind on which side of the fence he's standing...
https://youtu.be/y5r2HisymfQ?t=192
You might have to log in to watch Williams-Thomas's dire musings because his three vid series is now age-restricted.
-
Conducted by Terry Mullins, the same "expert" who carried out one on Jeremy Bamber and believes he is innocent solely on that, to the exclusion of all other evidence against him.
I am not weighing in on the usefulness of lie detectors, one way or another, and I am not offering an opinion on the Bamber case. I am pointing out a lack of consistency with respect to Ms. Brown. I don't see how she can push the idea of a lie detector concerning the McCann case and then dismiss the results in the Mitchell case.
-
I am not weighing in on the usefulness of lie detectors, one way or another, and I am not offering an opinion on the Bamber case. I am pointing out a lack of consistency with respect to Ms. Brown. I don't see how she can push the idea of a lie detector concerning the McCann case and then dismiss the results in the Mitchell case.
Of course, I agree with you on her being inconsistent. She's still stinging and sore from being Carter-Ruck'd by the McCanns which imo is clouding her judgement of that case and more interested in pushing her book on it.
-
I am not weighing in on the usefulness of lie detectors, one way or another, and I am not offering an opinion on the Bamber case. I am pointing out a lack of consistency with respect to Ms. Brown. I don't see how she can push the idea of a lie detector concerning the McCann case and then dismiss the results in the Mitchell case.
Absolutely. I have no idea how reliable lie detectors are but for two people to take it and pass and for them to agree that the results are made public suggests that they had faith in them and faith that they would pass.
-
Absolutely. I have no idea how reliable lie detectors are but for two people to take it and pass and for them to agree that the results are made public suggests that they had faith in them and faith that they would pass.
Would it make any difference to you if they had failed the tests?
-
https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/polygraph/ota/conc.html
"The wide variability of results from both prior research reviews and OTA’S own review of individual studies makes it impossible to determine a specific overall quantitative measure of polygraph validity. The preponderance of research evidence does indicate that, when the control question technique is used in specific-incident criminal investigations, the polygraph detects deception at a rate better than chance, but with error rates that could be considered significant."
-
I’m disappointed in Pat, I thought she had a genuine interest in the case and to maybe learn more about it and debate it a bit but it seems she took a glimpse and made up her mind on a lot of incorrect information. I thought she might be interested in finding out the facts but nope seems not. I don’t even think she is interested in watching Sandra reply, a bit arrogant I think. Imo it appears Pat has jumped on the band wagon while this is a ‘hot topic’ and tried to make a bit money from this tragic case rather than actually interested in finding out if this was a miscarriage of justice or not. Shame really.
-
I thought she might be interested in finding out the facts but nope seems not.
Who's facts might that be? From where the defence? I think it was made pretty obvious the defence do not have facts, just claims and conspiracy theories. How can you debate something, when you don't have access to the documents?
I don’t even think she is interested in watching Sandra reply
Nor did i. Why on earth would someone want to watch an egotistical, smirking, child like lier, preaching to the already converted?
Imo it appears Pat has jumped on the band wagon while this is a ‘hot topic’ and tried to make a bit money from this tragic case rather than actually interested in finding out if this was a miscarriage of justice or not.
Did she not by the book? Which means, she has contributed to the case, that is if Lean is to be believed about X amount going towards Luke's fund. She has previous for not declaring funds.
Shame really.
What is a shame, is anybody that dares to have a different opinion, is piled-on, abused, threatened, bullied (A bit like how you attack Nic on here) the behaviour of Val Young and others on her comments section, Forbes previously, hate mail. The list goes on. It is any wonder that people wipe their hands with it?
-
My mistake I see Pat has put out a response to Sandra’s book yesterday.
-
What is a shame, is anybody that dares to have a different opinion, is piled-on, abused, threatened, bullied (A bit like how you attack Nic on here) the behaviour of Val Young and others on her comments section, Forbes previously, hate mail. The list goes on. It is any wonder that people wipe their hands with it?
But of course, we know you are a deceitful, 2 faced nobody. That we can see right, through.
I thought it was a shame as I was interested to hear more on what Pat had to say especially if she got access to the stuff Sandra has. Ok never going to happen but would love to hear her thoughts.
I like to hear other opinions on the case and I have never gave any abuse or threats etc the stuff val and others have said to pat and other people imo is terrible and I can understand anyone walking away but Pat doesn’t seem that type from the comments she makes.
I have no interest in your thoughts on me, but you talk about bullying, take a read through some of your own posts.
-
Who's facts might that be? From where the defence? I think it was made pretty obvious the defence do not have facts, just claims and conspiracy theories. How can you debate something, when you don't have access to the documents?
Nor did i. Why on earth would someone want to watch an egotistical, smirking, child like lier, preaching to the already converted?
Did she not by the book? Which means, she has contributed to the case, that is if Lean is to be believed about X amount going towards Luke's fund. She has previous for not declaring funds.
What is a shame, is anybody that dares to have a different opinion, is piled-on, abused, threatened, bullied (A bit like how you attack Nic on here) the behaviour of Val Young and others on her comments section, Forbes previously, hate mail. The list goes on. It is any wonder that people wipe their hands with it?
But of course, we know you are a deceitful, 2 faced nobody. That we can see right, through.
You really are a rather nasty little bully, aren’t you and all because Bullseye dared to have a different opinion. I thought you were all for the freedom to express a viewpoint?
-
You really are a rather nasty little bully, aren’t you and all because Bullseye dared to have a different opinion. I thought you were all for the freedom to express a viewpoint?
Sadly, I have to agree.
Rusty, the final line of your post was totally unacceptable, which is why I have removed it.
-
Regarding bullying - what is Lean & Co's behaviour if not extreme bullying of the Jones family? Along the lines of "sorry you've lost your daughter but we're going to hound you for evermore in our pursuit of OUR justice." The lies told by Forbes about Jodi being to blame for her dad's suicide and therefore her own death are really beyond contempt. His bullying of MK, encouraged by SL behind the scenes, was typical of the people involved.
It is noticeable that Lean is fumin' that her views are being publicly challenged by PB and a few other videos recently. Interestingly, Val Young, in furious defence of LM, claims to have seen the defence papers. Does that mean Forbes has been showing them to members of the public?
-
Sadly, I have to agree.
Rusty, the final line of your post was totally unacceptable, which is why I have removed it.
Thanks guys, Rusty seems to have an issue with me, no idea why. Seems to think I have some kind of agenda. Only agenda I have is to be sure the right person is in jail.
-
Sadly, I have to agree.
Rusty, the final line of your post was totally unacceptable, which is why I have removed it.
?>)()<
-
Having now listened to Pat Brown for three hours, I can say that certain themes emerged. She is very hard on Dr. Lean for not providing sources; PB spends a great deal of time claiming not to believe SL. However, let's just take the issue of Luke's DNA as an example. PB buys into the idea of Luke's DNA being on Jodi's bra. However, the sources for this are newspapers articles written long after the fact. One can find a quote from Susan Ure, but Ms. Ure never stated that Luke was included as a possible contributor (for the specifics, the thread on Luke's DNA can be consulted). Why didn't PB ask for documentation/explanation? This is not the only time when PB was inconsistent in this way: skeptical with respect to the defense and credulous with respect to the prosecution.
-
Having now listened to Pat Brown for three hours, I can say that certain themes emerged. She is very hard on Dr. Lean for not providing sources; PB spends a great deal of time claiming not to believe SL. However, let's just take the issue of Luke's DNA as an example. PB buys into the idea of Luke's DNA being on Jodi's bra. However, the sources for this are newspapers articles written long after the fact. One can find a quote from Susan Ure, but Ms. Ure never stated that Luke was included as a possible contributor (for the specifics, the thread on Luke's DNA can be consulted). Why didn't PB ask for documentation/explanation? This is not the only time when PB was inconsistent in this way: skeptical with respect to the defense and credulous with respect to the prosecution.
Was evidence concerning the presence of Luke’s DNA not presented in court?
-
Debunking Criminal Profiler Pat Brown’s Perceptions, Deception & Barmy, Child Like Tittle Tattle & Projections’s & False Allegations About Innocence Fraud Watch
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/05/28/debunking-criminal-profiler-pat-browns-perceptions-deception-barmy-child-like-tittle-tattle-projectionss-false-allegations-about-innocence-fraud-watch/