Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!

[Nicholas]

Lithium states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452433.html#msg452433
“Why does Shane tell people his brother's guilty. The same Shane who destroyed his alibi. The same one who section himself just before his brother was arrested with it.

Sounds to me like someone who was struggling with giving the false alibi after pressure from his mum.

We need to hear from him tbh.

What’s interesting with this is similarly Simon Halls brother also allegedly section himself in the lead up to his brothers murder trial?

I’ve long suspected this was linked to the fact he was terrified he’d be called to give evidence at his brothers murder trial and when cross examined was scared he’d land his brother right in it (As he eventually did in 2012) and indeed himself.

[Nicholas]

Gordo30 states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452479.html#msg452479
“Sandra has put much out via publications and other media outlets if this was not true where’s the litigation ?

Yet. No litigations yet.

[Parky41]

Gordo30 states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452479.html#msg452479
“Sandra has put much out via publications and other media outlets if this was not true where’s the litigation ?

Yet. No litigations yet.

Ms Leans admits in her solo podcast of putting information out, at times on the basis of seeing what response it may evoke. Highlights this when talking about the 'mystery' condom man. Used deliberately to see how the newspapers/media would use it. It seems this is evident in other areas too. It may be IMO, that some is done for the purpose of provocation. Putting misinformation out, hoping some response may be made that she could later use. Perhaps, even to provoke some kind of response between people directly involved with this case. The "be afraid, very afraid" comment being such. Using this type of tactic, via misinformation going back over some period of time now. Not saying, that is how it is, but how it appears to be at times.

[Nicholas]

Ms Leans admits in her solo podcast of putting information out, at times on the basis of seeing what response it may evoke. Highlights this when talking about the 'mystery' condom man. Used deliberately to see how the newspapers/media would use it. It seems this is evident in other areas too. It may be IMO, that some is done for the purpose of provocation. Putting misinformation out, hoping some response may be made that she could later use. Perhaps, even to provoke some kind of response between people directly involved with this case. The "be afraid, very afraid" comment being such. Using this type of tactic, via misinformation going back over some period of time now. Not saying, that is how it is, but how it appears to be at times.

Antagonist by name antagonist by nature maybe?

The entire thing is see through to me.

[Nicholas]

Ms Leans admits in her solo podcast of putting information out, at times on the basis of seeing what response it may evoke. Highlights this when talking about the 'mystery' condom man. Used deliberately to see how the newspapers/media would use it. It seems this is evident in other areas too. It may be IMO, that some is done for the purpose of provocation. Putting misinformation out, hoping some response may be made that she could later use. Perhaps, even to provoke some kind of response between people directly involved with this case. The "be afraid, very afraid" comment being such. Using this type of tactic, via misinformation going back over some period of time now. Not saying, that is how it is, but how it appears to be at times.

“Categorical imperative, in the ethics of the 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant, founder of critical philosophy, a moral law that is unconditional or absolute for all agents, the validity or claim of which does not depend on any ulterior motive or end.

[Nicholas]

Ms Leans admits in her solo podcast of putting information out, at times on the basis of seeing what response it may evoke. Highlights this when talking about the 'mystery' condom man. Used deliberately to see how the newspapers/media would use it. It seems this is evident in other areas too. It may be IMO, that some is done for the purpose of provocation. Putting misinformation out, hoping some response may be made that she could later use. Perhaps, even to provoke some kind of response between people directly involved with this case. The "be afraid, very afraid" comment being such. Using this type of tactic, via misinformation going back over some period of time now. Not saying, that is how it is, but how it appears to be at times.

Is her strategy aimed at starting some kind of revolution?

[Parky41]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.4590.html

 Sandra Lean.

Wrong again! The details of the confession were never made public. It was never revealed whether Simon Hall had legal representation when making the confession. It was never revealed whether he had been assessed by a psychiatrist or psychologist or what his mental state was in the lead up to the confession - was he in sound mind, fully aware of what he was saying/doing? I can see no reason why those details were not publicly known -- they should have been, in order to confirm that the confession actually fitted the details of the crime and that he was not, for example, suffering some sort of mental breakdown and just saying anything.

Presuming Ms Lean knew all the details of the crime, would Simon not have knowing them anyway? Why therefore include that in seeking for proof?

[Nicholas]

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.4590.html

 Sandra Lean.
Presuming Ms Lean knew all the details of the crime, would Simon not have knowing them anyway? Why therefore include that in seeking for proof?

“assessed by a psychiatrist or psychologist”

“An NHS Trust faces questions over why a known schizophrenic was declared “no risk to himself or others” just a day before he brutally stabbed to death a father in front of his teenage son.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/12/man-guilty-surrey-train-attack-murder/

[Parky41]

Hold on a minute, I'm going to make a confession here, can you please assess me first?

[Nicholas]

Hold on a minute, I'm going to make a confession here, can you please assess me first?

Don’t Parky

[Nicholas]

Hold on a minute, I'm going to make a confession here, can you please assess me first?

The history of academic criminology is one of grand pronouncements that don’t often prove out in the real world.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/what-criminologists-dont-say-and-why-15328.html

[Parky41]

You beat me. Apologies, in a rather (highly) bad way attempting to show, there is no reproach. Thus earlier comments of 'get out clauses'


Sandra Lean

I'm on record many, many times saying my search is for the truth. If that truth turns out to be that Luke Mitchell is guilty as charged, then so be it - the reason I do what I do is because we don't know for sure, because of all the unanswered questions. In my opinion, that's not justice and we should never accept it as such. It's not only Luke's case I say this about - it's every case I become involved with.

Guilt or innocence isn't the crux, it's on wrongful conviction on evidence presented. Even with a confession, it will and is questioned. Thus why, I am working around the purpose of doing 'as the roman's did' The deliberate selectiveness of partial parts of evidence stitched together and pumped out. This is what is being attributed to those who prosecute, why do the same? Or relatively worse? Yes, the system of prosecution, matches evidence together to accumulate a case. Not, spout fragments of multiple mismatched pieces to cause confusion-which is of course the aim?

[Nicholas]

You beat me. Apologies, in a rather (highly) bad way attempting to show, there is no reproach. Thus earlier comments of 'get out clauses'


Sandra Lean
I'm on record many, many times saying my search is for the truth. If that truth turns out to be that Luke Mitchell is guilty as charged, then so be it - the reason I do what I do is because we don't know for sure, because of all the unanswered questions. In my opinion, that's not justice and we should never accept it as such. It's not only Luke's case I say this about - it's every case I become involved with.

Guilt or innocence isn't the crux, it's on wrongful conviction on evidence presented. Even with a confession, it will and is questioned. Thus why, I am working around the purpose of doing 'as the roman's did' The deliberate selectiveness of partial parts of evidence stitched together and pumped out. This is what is being attributed to those who prosecute, why do the same? Or relatively worse? Yes, the system of prosecution, matches evidence together to accumulate a case. Not, spout fragments of multiple mismatched pieces to cause confusion-which is of course the aim?

 

[Parky41]

https://insidetime.org/truth-justice-certainty-and-finality/

Sandra Lean

One of the things I’ve seen over and over in the last 12 years is those fighting injustice being accused of “selective interpretation” of the facts to support claims of innocence. Yet, as we see here, often those making such accusations are doing exactly that – selectively choosing which points they will claim as “facts” to accuse those locked in a desperate and oftentimes apparently impossible battle for justice

Good for the goose? Which is why I am trying to pick up on 'selective interpretation' Would be a losing battle if I were to try and engage in some pointless debate, when, I (someone who holds, not, every single piece of documentation)Savvy enough perhaps, to notice the holes in even the basic particles of misinformation given. Witnessing (disgracefully) in forums of past and present, the response, that any negative towards innocence produces. A professional body, acting in childish, foolish taunts. "be afraid, be very afraid"  I underlinded the above, as, inadvertantly, meaningfully, cleverly or simply, it is up to the reader/viewer what it paints. There are no accusations to parties a,b,c ,d,e and so forth, the childish cry of 'not my fault if it incurs consequences towards innocents, I didn't make them do it'. (The blame game)

"Innocents Betrayed "    Are the innocents in the case of Luke Mitchell being portrayed as guilty? From the very first officer who arrived on the scene that night, blasted as a liar?

[Nicholas]

https://insidetime.org/truth-justice-certainty-and-finality/

Sandra Lean
One of the things I’ve seen over and over in the last 12 years is those fighting injustice being accused of “selective interpretation” of the facts to support claims of innocence. Yet, as we see here, often those making such accusations are doing exactly that – selectively choosing which points they will claim as “facts” to accuse those locked in a desperate and oftentimes apparently impossible battle for justice

Good for the goose? Which is why I am trying to pick up on 'selective interpretation' Would be a losing battle if I were to try and engage in some pointless debate, when, I (someone who holds, not, every single piece of documentation)Savvy enough perhaps, to notice the holes in even the basic particles of misinformation given. Witnessing (disgracefully) in forums of past and present, the response, that any negative towards innocence produces. A professional body, acting in childish, foolish taunts. "be afraid, be very afraid"  I underlinded the above, as, inadvertantly, meaningfully, cleverly or simply, it is up to the reader/viewer what it paints. There are no accusations to parties a,b,c ,d,e and so forth, the childish cry of 'not my fault if it incurs consequences towards innocents, I didn't make them do it'. (The blame game)

Sandra Lean states:
”So, to take a hypothetical example, in a murder case where the victim was killed by a stab wound to the chest,”

Her “hypothetical example” being the Sean Toal case and hopes no one will notice she’s been caught out AGAIN

“A hypothetical example is a fictional example that can be used when a speaker is explaining a complicated topic that makes the most sense when it is put into more realistic or relatable terms.

Maybe next time she should request all comment on her articles are closed down before being published

What it “paints” is see through and has been for a long time now