Sandra Lean posted the below ⬇️ under a post made by Rachel Roll, approx 19 hours ago, on one of their Facebook groups promoting the innocence fraud of [Name removed]’s killer
Sandra Lean
Matt Elliott Rachel Roll It was the DR that put out the "thousands" of posters of the very young Jodi (aged 4 or 5) by day 2 of the "investigation" and a few days later, rolled out the pics of Jodi aged about 8. why? In the name of all things sane - they had up to date pics of Jodi by Friday July 4th - why didn't they wait?
I've always said, the confusion created by those early pics meant so much information was almost certainly lost. But, when you come to the Crimewatch offer, the only reason I can see for turning it down would have been that it clarified in people's minds exactly what Jodi looked like.
I still shake my head in disbelief at one of the "off the record" comments about declining the Crimewatch offer - they were already "struggling" with the investigation and the programme might have produced so much info, it would have "overwhelmed" the investigation.
Really? So they didn't want real information getting in the way of running round telling everyone in the area that Luke was the killer and it was only a matter of time before they had the evidence to prove it???
as far as speculation goes (and I'm very mindful that we're all being careful here) -
telling everyone it was Luke - not speculation, we have statements.
saying the info from crimewatch might have "overwhelmed the investigation" - not speculation, we have statements
Early pics of 4 /5 or 8 year old Jodi confusing witnesses (and that confusion could have been clarified by crimewatch) - not speculation - we have statements and I, personally, was right there with the people going, "Wait, I thought it was a teenager who was murdered?" (Remember, this started on day 2)
It was the DR who put out thousands of posters of a very young Jodi right at the beginning of the investigation - not speculation - not only do we have statements, but they publicly stated that this was "their part" in helping to apprehend Jodi's killer. I'll leave you all to figure out how that helped, for yourselves!!!
Where did charlatan and fraudster Sandra Lean point out the fact Jane Hamilton did not work for the DR = Daily Record in 2003 and is this fact made clear in grifter Scott Forbes book promoting the fraudulent narrative of [Name removed]’s sadistic killer?
