"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[Angelo222]

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

She should write one about setting up a Scottish charity to garner support and collect money, a charity which has now been struck off the register having failed to comply with its regulatory undertakings.

Such an expert!   

[faithlilly]

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

Have you read her book?

With the greatest respect John you do come across as rather bitter. Are you angry that your advice, according to you, was rejected several times?

[Nicholas]

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

Sandra Lean made claim in October 2019 she had withdrawn her book ‘No Smoke’ from the publishers (Stephen T Manning/Checkpoint press)

However in a recent podcast with Sharon Sunshine (Liquid Sunshine Crime on YouTube) where ‘No Smoke’ appeared to be again being promoted - she made claim she hasn’t been able to get in touch with the publisher?

Anyone have any idea what’s true and what’s not regarding ‘No Smoke’?

[Angelo222]

Sandra Lean made claim in October 2019 she had withdrawn her book ‘No Smoke’ from the publishers (Stephen T Manning/Checkpoint press)

However in a recent podcast with Sharon Sunshine (Liquid Sunshine Crime on YouTube) where ‘No Smoke’ appeared to be again being promoted - she made claim she hasn’t been able to get in touch with the publisher?

Anyone have any idea what’s true and what’s not regarding ‘No Smoke’?

She's always got an excuse. Always someone else's fault.  Surely the book should be removed from sale if it includes false or misleading information?

[Venturi Swirl]

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.

Apart from a court of law, in front of a jury that returned a guilty verdict and four appeal courts of course.

[Venturi Swirl]

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.

Is there anything in the book that was left out of the TV documentary?
PS: I thought you disapproved of people making money out of writing about criminal cases like this?

[John]

Have you read her book?

With the greatest respect John you do come across as rather bitter. Are you angry that your advice, according to you, was rejected several times?

I have read extracts from it which were relevant some time ago.  As for advice, I was vindicated for taking the stance I did in the Hall and Prout cases. If anyone came away from them looking like an utter fool it was Sandra Lean and her false innocence claims.

Sandra should do as she stated and withdraw the book.

[faithlilly]

I have read extracts from it which were relevant some time ago.  As for advice, I was vindicated for taking the stance I did in the Hall and Prout cases. If anyone came away from them looking like an utter fool it was Sandra Lean and her false innocence claims.

I mean specifically in the Mitchell case. You, according to yourself, were ignored at least twice when you offered advice to Luke’s campaign. That must sting.

As to the book, perhaps you’d like to read it and let us know what you think Sandra got wrong? Opinion is always more compelling when it comes from knowledge.

[Nicholas]

I have read extracts from it which were relevant some time ago.  As for advice, I was vindicated for taking the stance I did in the Hall and Prout cases. If anyone came away from them looking like an utter fool it was Sandra Lean and her false innocence claims.

Sandra should do as she stated and withdraw the book.

Sandra Lean has stated many things in relation to her book ‘No Smoke’

For example in January 2017 she stated here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382961.html#msg382961

‘If it helps, I can give a synopsis of what the revision to the Simon Hall chapter in No Smoke would have comprised, and why:

“In August 2013, it was reported that Simon Hall had confessed to the murder, in what many considered questionable circumstances, after ten years of maintaining his innocence. Some observers (including Simon's family) expressed concerns about Simon's mental health immediately prior to, and at the time of, the confession (a suicide attempt in the months before, for example.)

The confession and the circumstances in which it was made, have never been made public. There were other suicide attempts, the last being in February 2014, when he was found dead in his cell. The confession, whether reliable or not, does not alter the fact that the case on which the conviction was founded was extremely weak, and fell far below the standards most of us would expect when a life sentence is the potential outcome of proceedings.

There can be no doubt that the confession shocked those fighting claimed cases of Miscarriage of Justice, and raised serious questions about whether those fights should continue. However, where the fight is based on the evidence of the case as used at trial and in subsequent appeal proceedings, and that evidence is not robust enough to justify the convictions obtained, then the fight must continue, in the name of true justice.

We will never know if Simon Hall’s confession was genuine, or the confused utterings of a crumbling sanity. The decision about whether to take up, or continue to carry, the baton for claimed Miscarriages of Justice is a matter for the person deciding to do so, and their own conscience.”

Sandra Lean also wrote about killer Gordon Park who’s posthumous appeal was rejected https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/r-v-park-judgment-010520.pdf

[mrswah]

I mean specifically in the Mitchell case. You, according to yourself, were ignored at least twice when you offered advice to Luke’s campaign. That must sting.

As to the book, perhaps you’d like to read it and let us know what you think Sandra got wrong? Opinion is always more compelling when it comes from knowledge.

I, too, would love to know what Sandra has got wrong in the book.  (I am talking about "Innocents Betrayed", not "No Smoke").

[faithlilly]

I, too, would love to know what Sandra has got wrong in the book.  (I am talking about "Innocents Betrayed", not "No Smoke").

Unfortunately I think that we’ll have a long wait.

[Nicholas]

She's always got an excuse. Always someone else's fault.  Surely the book should be removed from sale if it includes false or misleading information?

Will be interesting to see if SK has taken legal action yet

[Venturi Swirl]

I, too, would love to know what Sandra has got wrong in the book.  (I am talking about "Innocents Betrayed", not "No Smoke").

I haven't read the book, nor do I know enough about this case to be any sort of an authority on it, but I do know that it is possible to mislead in any so-called factual book or text simply by way of omission, or by presenting information in a biased way - I have seen this in (for example) Holocaust Denial texts, where it is very difficult to point to any one fact as being inaccurate, it's more the way it is presented and the facts and context that are omitted by the author that make the difference. 

[faithlilly]

Will be interesting to see if SK has taken legal action yet

I hope he does. Let’s get to the bottom of his DNA profile being the only identified profile on Jodi’s clothing, a DNA profile from semen.

I’d buy popcorn for that one.

[Nicholas]

Wasn’t the t-shirt said to be freshly laundered ?

‘A recent study by Canadian researchers demonstrated that sperm cells could be transferred from semen stained bedding to clean underwear during washing in a machine. 
https://www.forensiccontext.com/washing-out-the-stains/


‘This study demonstrates that complete DNA profiles can be obtained from laundered semen stains on school uniform-type clothing, with an eight-month lag time between semen deposition and laundering, despite multiple washes and stains from two semen donors.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497315300508