Luke Mitchell - Witness Scott Forbes

[Nicholas]

At about 9:20 here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg9-_wpxoTk


This deluded idiot Scott Forbes - thinks he’s joined “half a dozen twitters accounts Facebook blogs” which are “all run by the same people”

He claims they are all Stephanie (Hall) 

Just imagine how diabolical his ‘lawyering’  and ‘investigations’ are 


Has Scott Forbes explained why Sandra Lean wrote about this “rapist/murderer” in her book No Smoke

And if killer Simon Hall “made a fool our of her” (Stephanie Hall) as Scott Forbes stated - what does “balls of steel” Scott Forbes make of Sandra Lean’s statement made on the 10th January 2017 about the “rapist/murderer”;

👇

Sandra Lean
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.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382961.html#msg382961

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean
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.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382961.html#msg382961

Sandra Lean is a malignant narcissist

Her latest pre-recorded video was yet more of her ‘baiting’ - it’s what narcissistic abusers like her do


The reality is that the Jones/Walker family have far greater knowledge on the case than Sandra Lean has ever had

When she appeared on the James English podcast she referred to her father’s death at the age of 56\57(?) and used this as an excuse for writing and publishing her book

This narcissist also stated;

“The reason I put the book out is if I were forced to give up so if anything happened to me I don’t think there’s anybody else in Scotland got the level of knowledge of the case that I’ve got and the idea was put everything in there and then if anybody else wants to come along and take over the informations there    

If “everything” was in this book as hoaxer Sandra Lean made claim it was - did pretend lawyer Scott Forbes copy Sandra Lean’s book for content for his own

 

[Nicholas]

Her latest pre-recorded video was yet more of her ‘baiting’ - it’s what narcissistic abusers like her do

Also

During the podcast with James English Sandra Lean made the claim Joey was sleeping in his mothers bedroom

She’s now claimed he was sleeping at his grandmothers house

 

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean’s ‘blame shifting’ is also apparent is her latest video

20 Diversion Tactics Highly Manipulative Narcissists, Sociopaths And Psychopaths Use To Silence You

” Toxic people such as malignant narcissists, psychopaths and those with [ censored word]ocial traits engage in maladaptive behaviors in relationships that ultimately exploit, demean and hurt their intimate partners, family members and friends. They use a plethora of diversionary tactics that distort the reality of their victims and deflect responsibility.

When toxic types can’t control the way you see yourself, they start to control how others see you; they play the martyr while you’re labeled the toxic one. A smear campaign is a preemptive strike to sabotage your reputation and slander your name so that you won’t have a support network to fall back on lest you decide to detach and cut ties with this toxic person. They may even stalk and harass you or the people you know as a way to supposedly “expose” the truth about you; this exposure acts as a way to hide their own abusive behavior while projecting it onto you. .

Toxic individuals lure you into a false sense of security simply to have a platform to showcase their cruelty. Baiting you into a mindless, chaotic argument can escalate into a showdown rather quickly with someone who doesn’t know the meaning of respect. A simple disagreement may bait you into responding politely initially, until it becomes clear that the person has a malicious motive of tearing you down.

By “baiting” you with a seemingly innocuous comment disguised as a rational one, they can then begin to play with you. Remember: narcissistic abusers have learned about your insecurities, the unsettling catchphrases that interrupt your confidence, and the disturbing topics that reenact your wounds – and they use this knowledge maliciously to provoke you. After you’ve fallen for it, hook line and sinker, they’ll stand back and innocently ask whether you’re “okay” and talk about how they didn’t “mean” to agitate you. This faux innocence works to catch you off guard and make you believe that they truly didn’t intend to hurt you, until it happens so often you can’t deny the reality of their malice any longer.

https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383173.html#msg383173

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean
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.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382961.html#msg382961

Sandra Lean omitted a wealth of evidence from her chapter in her book on killer Simon Hall and failed to mention the Hall families lies and concoctions which were weaved “into the general framework of the case” - not unlike the Mitchell’s lies and concoctions

The evidence was robust enough to justify the conviction

Just like it was in the case of sadistic killer Luke Mitchell

And there is the ‘miscarriage of justice’ phenomenon and the very real innocence FRAUD phenomenon which pretend criminologist Sandra Lean didn’t consider in 2017

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean
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.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382961.html#msg382961

The fact is Sandra Lean accepted in early 2014 that both killers Simon Hall and Luke Mitchell were guilty and had duped Sandra Lean

The fact is Sandra Lean knew in early 2014 that both ‘innocence fraud narratives’ for both killers were a lie

The fact is Sandra Lean knew in early 2014 that both killers Simon Hall and Luke Mitchell committed ‘Lust’ type murders

The fact is that in 2017 Sandra Lean’s genuine motives and true character became clearer to those of us who recognised the fraud

The fraud used by the ‘miscarriage of justice’ phenomenon grifters and hoaxers

And the lengths some of these hoaxers - like Sandra Lean - are prepared to go to with their hoax’s

[Nicholas]

Ana Azaria

We have questions

The aim of this post isn’t to suggest that any particular person is responsible for the crime – but to highlight discrepancies in the investigation that were just dismissed without any explanation - and as a result, the questions that we are left with, that we should not have been left with. This is one of many reasons we need a review.

Contradictions

The prosecution used a testimony by witness LK, to try and back up the 5.15pm time of death. 5.15pm is also the time that a witness saw the moped leaning against the v break at the wall, rider-less.

The appeal document addressed the moped boys, dismissing their relevance at the scene in relation to the time of the murder.

It said:

“Between about 1705 and 1720 LK was cycling along the path from the west to the east end, and heard a noise, which he described as "a strangling sort of sound, a human thing", coming from the far side of the wall. (JF) and (GD) rode a moped along the path at about the same time. They did not hear anything of the sort described by (LK). They did not see him, nor he them.

What the appeal failed to mention (why?), is that LK DID hear a motorbike...

At the trial, LK had said: "I said to police in my statement that I heard a motorcycle in the woods on the other side of the wall. It seemed quite far away from the wall."

In statements, both moped boys described pushing the bike because the engine had stopped working.

JF said that the engine was not running when it was seen leaning against the v break rider-less by a witness (at 5.15pm).

A statement from GD said “I know the motorbike (JF) and I were on was really noisy so we couldn’t hear anything over it.”

If the engine had stopped working by the time the witness saw the bike against the wall at 5.15pm, basic logic tells us that this is AFTER the cyclist had heard the motorbike – while he also heard the concerning sounds (that the prosecution used to back up the time of the murder). If the cyclist heard the sounds after the bike had been leaning at the v break at, then logic tells us the murder didn't happen at 5.15pm (if we go by the prosecution asking us to believe that these sounds were indeed connected to the murder).

This was never picked up on by the appeal or questioned at the trial.

The moped boys explanation of 'can't remember', when they were asked what they were doing behind the wall at 5.15pm, was accepted.

Not one of the witnesses – the witness who saw the bike at 5.15pm, the cyclist, or the moped boys - saw Luke at the v break or anywhere near the scene, even though they all passed through or were at the scene during the EXACT time-frame the prosecution told the jury that Jodi had been killed.

The moped was destroyed in the days after the murder and was never forensically tested.

JF had said in early statements that he cut his hair because he didn’t want to look like the ‘Stocky man’ (the last person seen following Jodi in the direction of the path just after 5pm) or be ‘wrongly accused of the murder’ - this was in a statement made before the information regarding Stocky man was released to the public on 16th July 2003.

#factsvsmedia



Who claimed to see the moped at the V in the wall riderless and where exactly were they when then claim to have seen the moped riderless?

And is Ana Azaria aware of the fact that it’s the norm for these types of questions to come up in police investigations which involve human beings - all of whom are fallible

[Nicholas]

Ana Azaria

We have questions

The aim of this post isn’t to suggest that any particular person is responsible for the crime – but to highlight discrepancies in the investigation that were just dismissed without any explanation - and as a result, the questions that we are left with, that we should not have been left with. This is one of many reasons we need a review.

Contradictions

The prosecution used a testimony by witness LK, to try and back up the 5.15pm time of death. 5.15pm is also the time that a witness saw the moped leaning against the v break at the wall, rider-less.

The appeal document addressed the moped boys, dismissing their relevance at the scene in relation to the time of the murder.

It said:

“Between about 1705 and 1720 LK was cycling along the path from the west to the east end, and heard a noise, which he described as "a strangling sort of sound, a human thing", coming from the far side of the wall. (JF) and (GD) rode a moped along the path at about the same time. They did not hear anything of the sort described by (LK). They did not see him, nor he them.

What the appeal failed to mention (why?), is that LK DID hear a motorbike...

At the trial, LK had said: "I said to police in my statement that I heard a motorcycle in the woods on the other side of the wall. It seemed quite far away from the wall."

In statements, both moped boys described pushing the bike because the engine had stopped working.

JF said that the engine was not running when it was seen leaning against the v break rider-less by a witness (at 5.15pm).

A statement from GD said “I know the motorbike (JF) and I were on was really noisy so we couldn’t hear anything over it.”

If the engine had stopped working by the time the witness saw the bike against the wall at 5.15pm, basic logic tells us that this is AFTER the cyclist had heard the motorbike – while he also heard the concerning sounds (that the prosecution used to back up the time of the murder). If the cyclist heard the sounds after the bike had been leaning at the v break at, then logic tells us the murder didn't happen at 5.15pm (if we go by the prosecution asking us to believe that these sounds were indeed connected to the murder).

This was never picked up on by the appeal or questioned at the trial.

The moped boys explanation of 'can't remember', when they were asked what they were doing behind the wall at 5.15pm, was accepted.

Not one of the witnesses – the witness who saw the bike at 5.15pm, the cyclist, or the moped boys - saw Luke at the v break or anywhere near the scene, even though they all passed through or were at the scene during the EXACT time-frame the prosecution told the jury that Jodi had been killed.

The moped was destroyed in the days after the murder and was never forensically tested.

JF had said in early statements that he cut his hair because he didn’t want to look like the ‘Stocky man’ (the last person seen following Jodi in the direction of the path just after 5pm) or be ‘wrongly accused of the murder’ - this was in a statement made before the information regarding Stocky man was released to the public on 16th July 2003.

#factsvsmedia

Again where was the witness who claimed to see the moped parked at the V and did this witness really see the V with the moped parked rider-less against it

Is Ana Azaria not aware of the fact that by the time a conviction reaches an appeal, a wealth of the evidence the conviction was based on doesn’t form part of said appeal

[Nicholas]

Ana Azaria

We have questions

The aim of this post isn’t to suggest that any particular person is responsible for the crime – but to highlight discrepancies in the investigation that were just dismissed without any explanation - and as a result, the questions that we are left with, that we should not have been left with. This is one of many reasons we need a review.

Contradictions

The prosecution used a testimony by witness LK, to try and back up the 5.15pm time of death. 5.15pm is also the time that a witness saw the moped leaning against the v break at the wall, rider-less.

The appeal document addressed the moped boys, dismissing their relevance at the scene in relation to the time of the murder.

It said:

“Between about 1705 and 1720 LK was cycling along the path from the west to the east end, and heard a noise, which he described as "a strangling sort of sound, a human thing", coming from the far side of the wall. (JF) and (GD) rode a moped along the path at about the same time. They did not hear anything of the sort described by (LK). They did not see him, nor he them.

What the appeal failed to mention (why?), is that LK DID hear a motorbike...

At the trial, LK had said: "I said to police in my statement that I heard a motorcycle in the woods on the other side of the wall. It seemed quite far away from the wall."

In statements, both moped boys described pushing the bike because the engine had stopped working.

JF said that the engine was not running when it was seen leaning against the v break rider-less by a witness (at 5.15pm).

A statement from GD said “I know the motorbike (JF) and I were on was really noisy so we couldn’t hear anything over it.”

If the engine had stopped working by the time the witness saw the bike against the wall at 5.15pm, basic logic tells us that this is AFTER the cyclist had heard the motorbike – while he also heard the concerning sounds (that the prosecution used to back up the time of the murder). If the cyclist heard the sounds after the bike had been leaning at the v break at, then logic tells us the murder didn't happen at 5.15pm (if we go by the prosecution asking us to believe that these sounds were indeed connected to the murder).

This was never picked up on by the appeal or questioned at the trial.

The moped boys explanation of 'can't remember', when they were asked what they were doing behind the wall at 5.15pm, was accepted.

Not one of the witnesses – the witness who saw the bike at 5.15pm, the cyclist, or the moped boys - saw Luke at the v break or anywhere near the scene, even though they all passed through or were at the scene during the EXACT time-frame the prosecution told the jury that Jodi had been killed.

The moped was destroyed in the days after the murder and was never forensically tested.

JF had said in early statements that he cut his hair because he didn’t want to look like the ‘Stocky man’ (the last person seen following Jodi in the direction of the path just after 5pm) or be ‘wrongly accused of the murder’ - this was in a statement made before the information regarding Stocky man was released to the public on 16th July 2003.

#factsvsmedia

Refer to the Dunning-Kruger effect

[Nicholas]

Ana Azaria

We have questions

The aim of this post isn’t to suggest that any particular person is responsible for the crime – but to highlight discrepancies in the investigation that were just dismissed without any explanation - and as a result, the questions that we are left with, that we should not have been left with. This is one of many reasons we need a review.

Contradictions

The prosecution used a testimony by witness LK, to try and back up the 5.15pm time of death. 5.15pm is also the time that a witness saw the moped leaning against the v break at the wall, rider-less.

The appeal document addressed the moped boys, dismissing their relevance at the scene in relation to the time of the murder.[/glow]

It said:

“Between about 1705 and 1720 LK was cycling along the path from the west to the east end, and heard a noise, which he described as "a strangling sort of sound, a human thing", coming from the far side of the wall. (JF) and (GD) rode a moped along the path at about the same time. They did not hear anything of the sort described by (LK). They did not see him, nor he them.

What the appeal failed to mention (why?), is that LK DID hear a motorbike...

At the trial, LK had said: "I said to police in my statement that I heard a motorcycle in the woods on the other side of the wall. It seemed quite far away from the wall."

In statements, both moped boys described pushing the bike because the engine had stopped working.

JF said that the engine was not running when it was seen leaning against the v break rider-less by a witness (at 5.15pm).

A statement from GD said “I know the motorbike (JF) and I were on was really noisy so we couldn’t hear anything over it.”

If the engine had stopped working by the time the witness saw the bike against the wall at 5.15pm, basic logic tells us that this is AFTER the cyclist had heard the motorbike – while he also heard the concerning sounds (that the prosecution used to back up the time of the murder). If the cyclist heard the sounds after the bike had been leaning at the v break at, then logic tells us the murder didn't happen at 5.15pm (if we go by the prosecution asking us to believe that these sounds were indeed connected to the murder).

This was never picked up on by the appeal or questioned at the trial.

The moped boys explanation of 'can't remember', when they were asked what they were doing behind the wall at 5.15pm, was accepted.

Not one of the witnesses – the witness who saw the bike at 5.15pm, the cyclist, or the moped boys - saw Luke at the v break or anywhere near the scene, even though they all passed through or were at the scene during the EXACT time-frame the prosecution told the jury that Jodi had been killed.

The moped was destroyed in the days after the murder and was never forensically tested.

JF had said in early statements that he cut his hair because he didn’t want to look like the ‘Stocky man’ (the last person seen following Jodi in the direction of the path just after 5pm) or be ‘wrongly accused of the murder’ - this was in a statement made before the information regarding Stocky man was released to the public on 16th July 2003.

#factsvsmedia

Ana Azaria is you are going to pretend you want justice for [Name removed] why do you choose to use the words ’’the murder’ and the crime

[Nicholas]

Ana Azaria

We have questions

The aim of this post isn’t to suggest that any particular person is responsible for the crime – but to highlight discrepancies in the investigation that were just dismissed without any explanation - and as a result, the questions that we are left with, that we should not have been left with. This is one of many reasons we need a review.

Contradictions

The prosecution used a testimony by witness LK, to try and back up the 5.15pm time of death. 5.15pm is also the time that a witness saw the moped leaning against the v break at the wall, rider-less.

The appeal document addressed the moped boys, dismissing their relevance at the scene in relation to the time of the murder.

It said:

“Between about 1705 and 1720 LK was cycling along the path from the west to the east end, and heard a noise, which he described as "a strangling sort of sound, a human thing", coming from the far side of the wall. (JF) and (GD) rode a moped along the path at about the same time. They did not hear anything of the sort described by (LK). They did not see him, nor he them.

What the appeal failed to mention (why?), is that LK DID hear a motorbike...

At the trial, LK had said: "I said to police in my statement that I heard a motorcycle in the woods on the other side of the wall. It seemed quite far away from the wall."

In statements, both moped boys described pushing the bike because the engine had stopped working.

JF said that the engine was not running when it was seen leaning against the v break rider-less by a witness (at 5.15pm).

A statement from GD said “I know the motorbike (JF) and I were on was really noisy so we couldn’t hear anything over it.”

If the engine had stopped working by the time the witness saw the bike against the wall at 5.15pm, basic logic tells us that this is AFTER the cyclist had heard the motorbike – while he also heard the concerning sounds (that the prosecution used to back up the time of the murder). If the cyclist heard the sounds after the bike had been leaning at the v break at, then logic tells us the murder didn't happen at 5.15pm (if we go by the prosecution asking us to believe that these sounds were indeed connected to the murder).

This was never picked up on by the appeal or questioned at the trial.

The moped boys explanation of 'can't remember', when they were asked what they were doing behind the wall at 5.15pm, was accepted.

Not one of the witnesses – the witness who saw the bike at 5.15pm, the cyclist, or the moped boys - saw Luke at the v break or anywhere near the scene, even though they all passed through or were at the scene during the EXACT time-frame the prosecution told the jury that Jodi had been killed.

The moped was destroyed in the days after the murder and was never forensically tested.

JF had said in early statements that he cut his hair because he didn’t want to look like the ‘Stocky man’ (the last person seen following Jodi in the direction of the path just after 5pm) or be ‘wrongly accused of the murder’ - this was in a statement made before the information regarding Stocky man was released to the public on 16th July 2003.

#factsvsmedia



Who claimed to see the moped at the V in the wall riderless and where exactly were they when then claim to have seen the moped riderless?

And is Ana Azaria aware of the fact that it’s the norm for these types of questions to come up in police investigations which involve human beings - all of whom are fallible

What is it about JF cutting his hair because he didn’t want to look like ‘stocky man’ that bothers you Ana Azalia ?

Can give you numerous examples of people reverting to this type of behaviour following similar incidents

You would probably be surprised what a lot of men did during Steve Wrights murder of six women in Suffolk before he was finally apprehended

[Nicholas]

Ana Azaria

We have questions

The aim of this post isn’t to suggest that any particular person is responsible for the crime – but to highlight discrepancies in the investigation that were just dismissed without any explanation - and as a result, the questions that we are left with, that we should not have been left with. This is one of many reasons we need a review.

Contradictions

The prosecution used a testimony by witness LK, to try and back up the 5.15pm time of death. 5.15pm is also the time that a witness saw the moped leaning against the v break at the wall, rider-less.

The appeal document addressed the moped boys, dismissing their relevance at the scene in relation to the time of the murder.

It said:

“Between about 1705 and 1720 LK was cycling along the path from the west to the east end, and heard a noise, which he described as "a strangling sort of sound, a human thing", coming from the far side of the wall. (JF) and (GD) rode a moped along the path at about the same time. They did not hear anything of the sort described by (LK). They did not see him, nor he them.

What the appeal failed to mention (why?), is that LK DID hear a motorbike...

At the trial, LK had said: "I said to police in my statement that I heard a motorcycle in the woods on the other side of the wall. It seemed quite far away from the wall."

In statements, both moped boys described pushing the bike because the engine had stopped working.

JF said that the engine was not running when it was seen leaning against the v break rider-less by a witness (at 5.15pm).

A statement from GD said “I know the motorbike (JF) and I were on was really noisy so we couldn’t hear anything over it.”

If the engine had stopped working by the time the witness saw the bike against the wall at 5.15pm, basic logic tells us that this is AFTER the cyclist had heard the motorbike – while he also heard the concerning sounds (that the prosecution used to back up the time of the murder). If the cyclist heard the sounds after the bike had been leaning at the v break at, then logic tells us the murder didn't happen at 5.15pm (if we go by the prosecution asking us to believe that these sounds were indeed connected to the murder).

This was never picked up on by the appeal or questioned at the trial.

The moped boys explanation of 'can't remember', when they were asked what they were doing behind the wall at 5.15pm, was accepted.

Not one of the witnesses – the witness who saw the bike at 5.15pm, the cyclist, or the moped boys - saw Luke at the v break or anywhere near the scene, even though they all passed through or were at the scene during the EXACT time-frame the prosecution told the jury that Jodi had been killed.

The moped was destroyed in the days after the murder and was never forensically tested.

JF had said in early statements that he cut his hair because he didn’t want to look like the ‘Stocky man’ (the last person seen following Jodi in the direction of the path just after 5pm) or be ‘wrongly accused of the murder’ - this was in a statement made before the information regarding Stocky man was released to the public on 16th July 2003.

#factsvsmedia



Who claimed to see the moped at the V in the wall riderless and where exactly were they when then claim to have seen the moped riderless?

And is Ana Azaria aware of the fact that it’s the norm for these types of questions to come up in police investigations which involve human beings - all of whom are fallible

When did hoaxer Sandra Lean get the paperwork back btw?


27th June 2021
“I do want to put it on public record that if anything goes into the public domain before the papers are collected from me it will not be me who put them there no I will not have given my agreement for anything to go out I will not do that

So on Wednesday the 30th of June after the case papers have been collected I will no longer be associated with Luke’s case in any professional capacity because decisions taken about the direction of the campaign can’t be reconciled with the work that I do

https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2021/07/04/transcript-of-sandra-leans-27th-june-2021-live-facebook-video-exit-speech/


Or did she already have them saved to a digital file?

[Nicholas]

At about 9:20 here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg9-_wpxoTk


This deluded idiot Scott Forbes - thinks he’s joined “half a dozen twitters accounts Facebook blogs” which are “all run by the same people”

He claims they are all Stephanie (Hall) 

Just imagine how diabolical his ‘lawyering’  and ‘investigations’ are 


Has Scott Forbes explained why Sandra Lean wrote about this “rapist/murderer” in her book No Smoke

And if killer Simon Hall “made a fool our of her” (Stephanie Hall) as Scott Forbes stated - what does “balls of steel” Scott Forbes make of Sandra Lean’s statement made on the 10th January 2017 about the “rapist/murderer”;

👇

Sandra Lean
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.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382961.html#msg382961

What does Scott Forbes say about Sandra Lean supporting the “rapist/murderer” Simon Hall nearly 4 years after the innocence fraud was exposed?

Scott Forbes recently stated (here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XGzKwUlZsMo)

Killer Simon Hall “claimed he was innocent he then admitted the heinous crime and Hall stayed close to him until he committed suicide”

What about pretend criminologist Sandra Lean?

What do you say about her behaviour Scott Forbes?

[Nicholas]

Ana Azalia
Ronnie Mothersole Considering that the defence weren't given the information regarding Stocky man's identification until 10 years after Luke's conviction (it was through the appeal process they found out, from my recollection), I'm not sure how much they knew about the two witnesses, or whether they could have used it in opposition to AB's sighting. The defence didn't know who Stocky man was at that time and the prosecution certainly wouldn't have used it at trial because it would have undermined their case.

AB's sighting was given weight - two independent witnesses who corroborated each others account should surely be given more weight than that? But we aren't here to solve the case or decide what should be given weight in regards to how accurate the witnesses were when we don't know who they were - the point is that the investigation shouldn't have left all of these unanswered questions, the two independent sightings should have absolutely been investigated further - especially when it undermines the prosecution's key witness sighting

We don't know what the police said but due to the fact that JF knew about Stocky man before the public did, logic tells us they said something

What makes you presume the investigation left unanswered questions Ana Azalia?


Ronnie Mothersole
Ana Azaria I totally agree we are not here to
Solve the case But it is human nature
For a person to decide who is guilty and who is not To need information
You must remember That is how the jury got it wrong
Because they were not told everything
And a lot deliberately kept from them
If people don't get the truth Then all sorts of things get added on
People need to know ✌️🙏


 

[Nicholas]

Ana Azalia
Ronnie Mothersole Yes - that's why we need the review! These questions that exist right now - we can't answer them ourselves, it would just be speculation.
And we shouldn't be trying to decide who is guilty or otherwise, that is the same as trying to solve the case - we can recognise that Luke's conviction was a farse, but we can't do the same to others, there needs to be more definitive proof/evidence and it needs to be done properly

It was done properly Ana - back in 2004/05 - only you weren’t there and didn’t t hear all the evidence