"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[Venturi Swirl]

To be fair John you yourself have admitted taking part in the campaigns to free both Simon Hall and Luke Mitchell. Did you at anytime consider apologising for the hurt you caused to the family? Do you really not see the irony in berating an individual for following a course of action you yourself took part in?

Further you have a member on this very site who not only married Simon Hall, once he had been convicted, but campaigned vigorously for him, with no thought for his victim’s family, and even when he confessed to her killing and sexually assaulting his victim she still professed to love him.

I think several people need to hold a mirror up to themselves before they start apportioning blame.

Classic whataboutery.

[John]

To be fair John you yourself have admitted taking part in the campaigns to free both Simon Hall and Luke Mitchell. Did you at anytime consider apologising for the hurt you caused to the family? Do you really not see the irony in berating an individual for following a course of action you yourself took part in?

Further you have a member on this very site who not only married Simon Hall, once he had been convicted, but campaigned vigorously for him, with no thought for his victim’s family, and even when he confessed to her killing and sexually assaulting his victim she still professed to love him.

I think several people need to hold a mirror up to themselves before they start apportioning blame.

I believe the words I used in respect of Luke Mitchell were to the effect that I couldn't believe a 15-year-old could commit such a ghastly crime, the facts and evidence however told a different story. The difference between me and Sandra Lean is that I am prepared to look at the evidence in any case objectively and impartially. Sandra has always been too close to the Mitchell case to be impartial imo. She lives nearby and has been physically threatened on occasion for holding the views she does.

Although I was sympathetic to the Mitchell case early on, I began to see the cracks develop so began to question the campaign and those who were involved in it. I still am not 100% convinced that Luke Mitchell is guilty but the facts and evidence would appear to support that possibility. I can understand how a majority verdict could have been formed in this case but I don't in any event hold with such verdicts as they are not based on the premise of being beyond a reasonable doubt.

The other huge difference between my standpoint and that of Sandra Lean is that I have never blamed others as she does. The last submission to the SCCRC was nothing more than a who-dun-it guide to Easthouses. I think there was a list of about ten suspects at one time, all associated with the case in one way or another. Even if one or even two of these young men were guilty, that leaves a considerable number who have had their names dragged through the mud unnecessarily. That is nothing more than a modern day witch hunt imo.

I have always been sympathetic to the Jones family and have conversed with many of them directly on numerous occasions. I took the time some years ago to visit the crimescene, the surrounding areas of interest and walked the paths and woods which I consider important. I have also visited the graveyard where Jodi and her father are laid to rest and paid my respects. The Jones family to their credit have never been afraid to discuss the case and answer questions unlike some members of the Mitchell family. That in itself has always struck me as being odd.

[mrswah]

I believe the words I used in respect of Luke Mitchell were to the effect that I couldn't believe a 15-year-old could commit such a ghastly crime, the facts and evidence however told a different story. The difference between me and Sandra Lean is that I am prepared to look at the evidence in any case objectively and impartially. Sandra has always been too close to the Mitchell case to be impartial imo. She lives nearby and has been physically threatened on occasion for holding the views she does.

Although I was sympathetic to the Mitchell case early on, I began to see the cracks develop so began to question the campaign and those who were involved in it. I still am not 100% convinced that Luke Mitchell is guilty but the facts and evidence would appear to support that possibility. I can understand how a majority verdict could have been formed in this case but I don't in any event hold with such verdicts as they are not based on the premise of being beyond a reasonable doubt.

The other huge difference between my standpoint and that of Sandra Lean is that I have never blamed others as she does. The last submission to the SCCRC was nothing more than a who-dun-it guide to Easthouses. I think there was a list of about ten suspects at one time, all associated with the case in one way or another. Even if one or even two of these young men were guilty, that leaves a considerable number who have had their names dragged through the mud unnecessarily. That is nothing more than a modern day witch hunt imo.

I have always been sympathetic to the Jones family and have conversed with many of them directly on numerous occasions. I took the time some years ago to visit the crimescene, the surrounding areas of interest and walked the paths and woods which I consider important. I have also visited the graveyard where Jodi and her father are laid to rest and paid my respects. The Jones family to their credit have never been afraid to discuss the case and answer questions unlike some members of the Mitchell family. That in itself has always struck me as being odd.

I cannot compete with people who live in, or who have visited  the locality and who have met the families involved !!  Such people are very likely to have a much better grasp of the case than I have.  However that applies to both John AND Sandra Lean.

[faithlilly]

I believe the words I used in respect of Luke Mitchell were to the effect that I couldn't believe a 15-year-old could commit such a ghastly crime, the facts and evidence however told a different story. The difference between me and Sandra Lean is that I am prepared to look at the evidence in any case objectively and impartially. Sandra has always been too close to the Mitchell case to be impartial imo. She lives nearby and has been physically threatened on occasion for holding the views she does.

Although I was sympathetic to the Mitchell case early on, I began to see the cracks develop so began to question the campaign and those who were involved in it. I still am not 100% convinced that Luke Mitchell is guilty but the facts and evidence would appear to support that possibility. I can understand how a majority verdict could have been formed in this case but I don't in any event hold with such verdicts as they are not based on the premise of being beyond a reasonable doubt.

The other huge difference between my standpoint and that of Sandra Lean is that I have never blamed others as she does. The last submission to the SCCRC was nothing more than a who-dun-it guide to Easthouses. I think there was a list of about ten suspects at one time, all associated with the case in one way or another. Even if one or even two of these young men were guilty, that leaves a considerable number who have had their names dragged through the mud unnecessarily. That is nothing more than a modern day witch hunt imo.

I have always been sympathetic to the Jones family and have conversed with many of them directly on numerous occasions. They were never afraid to discuss the case and answer questions unlike some members of the Mitchell family. That in itself has always struck me as being odd.

As the Jones family have been treated with kid gloves even though their statements demonstrably changed over the months subsequent to the murder is it any wonder that they are willing to answer questions when the Mitchell family, who have been vilified and castigated for 18 years, won’t?

I find that odd that you find it odd.

Could you tell me specifically why you think Luke may be guilty? What were the ‘cracks’ that appeared in the case that you weren’t aware of during and immediately after the trial, because you did support him after the trial, didn’t you?

[John]

I have always found that distance has its advantages. If one is to look at any case impartially one cannot afford to get personally involved. The advantage of the forum is that it provides an opportunity to everyone to have their say. Both sides in the Jodi Jones case have chosen to do so to a greater or lesser degree. Named suspects have also chosen to have their say and to put the record straight. They must all be applauded for their efforts.

[John]

As the Jones family have been treated with kid gloves even though their statements demonstrably changed over the months subsequent to the murder is it any wonder that they are willing to answer questions when the Mitchell family, who have been vilified and castigated for 18 years, won’t?

I find that odd that you find it odd.

Could you tell me specifically why you think Luke may be guilty? What were the ‘cracks’ that appeared in the case that you weren’t aware of during and immediately after the trial, because you did support him after the trial, didn’t you?

I have already gone through the circumstantial evidence so I'm not going to repeat it. I will say however that Corinne Mitchell was quite happy to answer questions on the Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton WAP forum until the answers became awkward. She never could explain her eldest son's stance.

As for Luke Mitchell, I believe the word you are looking for is sympathetic and not support. I could never support a campaign where the evidence suggests the opposite. That said, it is by no means certain that he killed Jodi, circumstances do sometimes collude to suggest an outcome where the opposite is true. IMO the police investigation should have gone much further and not been effectively wound up the minute Luke Mitchell was charged with murder.

[Nicholas]

I personally don't believe for a minute that Sandra Lean is capable of discriminating between the guilty and the innocent.  The evidence of her past endeavours speaks for itself.  She previously advocated for at least two cunning murderers and set herself up as a very vocal mouthpiece on their behalf. Both men later confessed to having committed murdering their female victims despite two very high profile campaigns on their behalf. The first of these despicable creatures was wife beater Adrian Prout. He murdered his wife because she talked of divorce and a financial settlement which would probably have meant the sale of their farm.  He strangled his wife and buried her in a deep grave on their farm using an excavator, he then pretended that she had run off. The evidence though didn't support this claim.

The second killer was Simon Hall who unbeknownst to his family was a burglar. One early morning though he chose to burglar a private residence not that far from his home, this property was occupied by an old lady who was no threat to anyone. This brave young man murdered the occupier and sexually assaulted her. Hall put up a defence of alibi but over time it began to unravel. During the campaign to have his conviction overturned both Sandra Lean and her then partner Billy Middleton were very much at the helm.

Sandra Lean was very much involved in both the above high profile cases but was proven 100% wrong. I wonder did she ever apologise to the families of both victims for the unnecessary suffering she caused them?  There are other examples of her inability to recognise false innocence, in my opinion she should seek a new career.

Her involvement in the Luke Mitchell campaign which started 17 years ago is admirable but the arguments put forward by her are very weak. Could this be 17 years wasted on yet another case of false innocence?

Karen Duff from Capel St Mary ‘bumped into’ an ex girlfriend of Shaun Hall’s - Simon Hall’s brother - in the village of Capel outside a shop in late 2012 apparently

The ex girlfriend told Ms Duff Simon Hall’s mother had said he was innocent of the murder because he was committing a burglary elsewhere on the night JA was murdered (Lynn Hall was referring to the Zenith burglary)

Lynn Hall referred to the Zenith burglary in a letter to Simon Hall before his 2010 appeal

Hardly ‘unbeknownst to his family’ John

[John]

Karen Duff from Capel St Mary ‘bumped into’ an ex girlfriend of Shaun Hall’s - Simon Hall’s brother - in the village of Capel outside a shop in late 2012 apparently

The ex girlfriend told Ms Duff Simon Hall’s mother had said he was innocent of the murder because he was committing a burglary elsewhere on the night JA was murdered (Lynn Hall was referring to the Zenith burglary)

Lynn Hall referred to the Zenith burglary in a letter to Simon Hall before his 2010 appeal

Apologies, it was badly worded, I have corrected.

For the record, can I ask when you first became aware of the burglaries and if that sent alarm bells ringing?

[mrswah]

I personally don't believe for a minute that Sandra Lean is capable of discriminating between the guilty and the innocent.  The evidence of her past endeavours speaks for itself.  She previously advocated for at least two cunning murderers and set herself up as a very vocal mouthpiece on their behalf. Both men later confessed to having committed murdering their female victims despite two very high profile campaigns on their behalf. The first of these despicable creatures was wife beater Adrian Prout. He murdered his wife because she talked of divorce and a financial settlement which would probably have meant the sale of their farm.  He strangled his wife and buried her in a deep grave on their farm using an excavator, he then pretended that she had run off. The evidence though didn't support this claim.

The second killer was Simon Hall who in reality was later revealed to be a burglar. One early morning though he chose to burglar a private residence not that far from his home, this property was occupied by an old lady who was no threat to anyone. This brave young man murdered the occupier and sexually assaulted her. Hall put up a defence of alibi but over time it began to unravel. During the campaign to have his conviction overturned both Sandra Lean and her then partner Billy Middleton were very much at the helm.

Sandra Lean was very much involved in both the above high profile cases but was proven 100% wrong. I wonder did she ever apologise to the families of both victims for the unnecessary suffering she caused them?  There are other examples of her inability to recognise false innocence, in my opinion she should seek a new career.

Her involvement in the Luke Mitchell campaign which started 17 years ago is admirable but the arguments put forward by her are very weak. Could this be 17 years wasted on yet another case of false innocence?

Yes, it could be, but , IMO, Sandra's book is full of detail, and gives a compelling case for Luke's possible innocence.  As far as I am aware, nobody has set out such a good case for his guilt.

She was wrong about two other high profile cases for possible MOJ's, but she was not the only person to be wrong. 

It seems that she has spent far more time looking into Luke's case than into the cases of Adrian Prout and Simon Hall.  I don't agree that the arguments she puts forward are weak, either. 

However, I cannot claim to be an expert on the case.

[John]

Yes, it could be, but , IMO, Sandra's book is full of detail, and gives a compelling case for Luke's possible innocence.  As far as I am aware, nobody has set out such a good case for his guilt.

She was wrong about two other high profile cases for possible MOJ's, but she was not the only person to be wrong. 

It seems that she has spent far more time looking into Luke's case than into the cases of Adrian Prout and Simon Hall.  I don't agree that the arguments she puts forward are weak, either. 

However, I cannot claim to be an expert on the case.

The SCCRC doesn't appear to agree though despite a High Court Judge giving it her backing.

Some of Sandra Lean's arguments are basically flawed. Her refusal to admit that there was an alternative route from the murder scene to the street where Luke lived is typical of the confusion she propagates to support those arguments. It's not that long ago that she denied that a youth matching Luke's description was seen at a gate on Newbattle Road, and at a location which just so happened to be directly across the road from where the western end of the path terminates.

Her reliance on evidence which doesn't exist is her way of promoting the case. The DNA which was missing, the absence of the assailants blood, no fingerprints, no incriminating footprints etc etc...

The absence of any of Jodi's DNA on Luke Mitchell, given that they were together at school that day is also significant.

[faithlilly]

Yes, it could be, but , IMO, Sandra's book is full of detail, and gives a compelling case for Luke's possible innocence.  As far as I am aware, nobody has set out such a good case for his guilt.

She was wrong about two other high profile cases for possible MOJ's, but she was not the only person to be wrong. 

It seems that she has spent far more time looking into Luke's case than into the cases of Adrian Prout and Simon Hall.  I don't agree that the arguments she puts forward are weak, either. 

However, I cannot claim to be an expert on the case.

No matter what your stance on the case I think everyone can agree that Sandra is the expert  and she does indeed make a compelling case for Luke’s innocence. It seems a pity that so many here seem so opposed to reading it.

[faithlilly]

The SCCRC doesn't appear to agree though despite a High Court Judge giving it her backing.

How many did Joseph Steele and TC Campbell appeal before their conviction being quashed?

[Nicholas]

Apologies, it was badly worded, I have corrected.

For the record, can I ask when you first became aware of the burglaries and if that sent alarm bells ringing?

Yes ‘alarm bells’ did ring when Karen Duff told me about the Zenith burglary on the 5th Nov 2012

I recall saying to Karen on the phone - if he could lie about the burglary he could be lying about the murder

Not long after this Shaun Hall was stating publicly,
“He has a history that he shouldn’t be proud of and to be honest, stolen goods from 11 years ago are the least of his worries


In October 2013 Simon Hall stated,
“I spoke to Pauline and Karen on the phone. I asked them if people still believed I was innocent. I told them that I was innocent and that I confessed because I’d given up. I blamed it on drugs..
I wrote to Ray, Ian (B) and Phoebe because I thought those people would feed into my lies and want to support me. I would have written to Stef B too, but I lost the letter, or threw it away. I asked all 3 of them if they would like to visit me and bring someone with them. I was in ‘desperate’ mode and was reaching out to anyone I thought might believe me, so I could pretend to be innocent again. More lies, more disrespect and shame to add to my increasing list of wrong doings…”

‘Karen’ above ⬆️ is Karen Duff

[John]

No matter what your stance on the case I think everyone can agree that Sandra is the expert  and she does indeed make a compelling case for Luke’s innocence. It seems a pity that so many here seem so opposed to reading it.

She's a expert at deceit imo.  She's good at writing books though, fantasies.

[Nicholas]

She's a expert at deceit imo.

A calculating ‘expert at deceit’ maybe?

She reminds me in some ways of individuals like Billy Middleton, Simon Hall & Jeremy Bamber