Who Confessed to the Murder?

[Nicholas]

All of the details regarding [Name removed] are contained within Sandra’s new book Innocents Betrayed, which includes a paragraph or two on his mental health appointments, or the re-scheduling of, should I say, and also that of his propensity to having violent outbursts.  Jodi actually told Luke that her brother had frequent violent outbursts, and his mother Judy also said that her sons behaviour was unpredictable.

I really wouldn’t fall for Sandra Lean’s version of a story if I were you.

She’s renowned for her antagonising and quite clearly gets a kick out of it.

Sandra Lean
@SandraLean5
You know you're rattling cages when people resort to personal attacks and lies. Gives me a warm glow!!!!
8:06 PM · Jun 3, 2019 · Twitter Web Client
https://mobile.twitter.com/SandraLean5/status/1135623855916158977

She no doubt hopes she’ll get a rise out of people like [Name removed]’s brother so that she can use it against him at some point.

[Nicholas]

Dr Lean has hinted that anyone other than Mitchell could essentially be responsible for Jodi’s death.  In her eyes, it’s never going to be him.  When Corrine Mitchell allowed her underage son to get a tattoo of a skull with flames coming from it, she said “That’s really him”.  That’s him what? A representation of evil? 

Mothers and fathers know their sons and daughters better than anyone.

Neither the mothers behaviour or the codswallop from Dr Sandra Lean can be trusted.   Her personal hunch with the Criminal Justice System is also overwhelming in the book, and her previous track record with Adrian Prout and Simon Hall do not make a very convincing read.   

I concur.

Corrine Mitchell refers to her son as normal but so did Cindy Watts about her son https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YHMFQzyAAu8

Sandra Lean sat back and watched as Simon Hall's guilt was being exposed across the forums end of 2012/early 2013. (This one and the JB forum)

In Feb 2013 she stated to me:
"I refer to your recent communications with me, your posts on the Bamber forum, and our previous exchanges.
While I appreciate that fighting a MOJ is an uphill struggle, and a steep learning curve, there are some "mistakes" which cannot be explained as ignorance, enthusiastic but misguided belief, or any of the other well trodden routes most people take on their journey towards justice.
I personally believe that your recent online behaviour, the way you handled Simon's confession to the other burglary, and the consequent attacks of Shaun and Stephanie Bon have all been detrimental to public support for Simon. The letter, supposedly from Simon, was a disgraceful slap in the face to many, many people who have tried to help Simon over the years

She chose to support the 3 people who all withheld vital facts from a murder investigation. It should also be noted she was fully aware of the hate campaign against me which involved 2 of them.

From November 2010:
"My motivation has been called into question, my honesty and integrity trashed, all because I chose to devote seven years of my life trying to help people. Yes, I know you were at the centre of a hate campaign, but that wasn't my doing and I played no part in it whatsoever - nobody could ever have used a single word I had said about you, because there was nothing to use.
" what hurts is that you could not step back, knowing me as I thought you did, and ask yourself, is there perhaps another explanation for this. Nope, instant public condemnation, in the belief that you were being attacked, when, in fact, I was trying to defend you.
That your words are being used to paint me as dishonest and unreliable, and that in turn is being used to undermine Luke's case, is probably one of the worst experiences in all of this. I thought you were my friend.
There was absolutely no intention to 'scapegoat' you for anything http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg384700.html#msg384700


And to date Sandra Lean has still yet to publicly accept the fact she was conned by Simon Hall.

Let’s not forget - “Criminology is the study of crime, order and criminal justice. It considers a broad range of topics related to offending and victimisation, including their causes, social impact and prevention.

[TheArmchairDetective]

Speaking of the Bamber forum, I’ve tried to join this but nobody seems to be willing to accept my request.

Do you know why this would be?

I am aware Sandra is on the Bamber one and not this, so was hoping to speak to her a little bit...

[Nicholas]

Speaking of the Bamber forum, I’ve tried to join this but nobody seems to be willing to accept my request.

Do you know why this would be?

I am aware Sandra is on the Bamber one and not this, so was hoping to speak to her a little bit...

You could always pose questions to her here https://invidiou.sh/watch?v=fqQ7lnucUMI where she appears to reply.

[TheArmchairDetective]

Why would the Jeremy Bamber forum not approve me as a member do you know?

[Nicholas]

Why would the Jeremy Bamber forum not approve me as a member do you know?

No idea. Could only speculate.

Lithium and his posts were recently removed from the Luke Mitchell thread. I don’t know if Lithium removed his posts and then himself or whether it was done by a moderator?

Gordo30 stated the following:
“Lithium has left the building and this thread has become unintelligible. There are better times ahead with a lot of effort and a big push to prove this case a MOJ and the support will be with Luke as it has the past 16 years.
I don’t want to try and understand motives for the deletion of much of what has been discussed here as private reasons are enough.
I’m sry though as we had new posters contribute even although they failed to follow up on what they contributed to but again as with a case like this it’s hard to even know where to start let alone know anything about the case in general.
looking forward always http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452098.html#msg452098

[Nicholas]

Re the Bamber forum - The cracks are well and truly showing between Sandra, Nugnug and Gordo

In response to Sandra here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452103.html#msg452103

 Gordo30 posted:
“It doesn’t look out of place though, Jodi might have wanted a different form of relationship with her sister, friends and closeness to the point where she wanted to be more like her. She may have looked up to her sister and didn’t want to let her sister know there were problems

Nugnug posted the following at 1.44pm and edited it at 1.50pm
Re: The murder of 14 year-old schoolgirl Jodi Jones near Edinburgh on 30 June 2003
« Reply #4473 on: Today at 01:44 PM »
“what does not add p to me is she had been self harming rom the age of 8 and her mum seems to have only found out about it recently.

im men of somone in the same house as you was cuting themselves even if they did try and hide wouldent you notice at some time.
« Last Edit: Today at 01:50 PM by nugnug »

The above post have since been deleted but not for another couple of hours or so

Sandra replies:
“I've never heard that she was claimed to have been self-harming from the age of 8 - that would have been round about the age she was when her dad died. I know she struggled for her first two years at high school - I always assumed the self-harm began in that period.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452139.html#msg452139

Nugnug then tries to squirm out of what he’s written by deceptively posting the following:
“oh soory missread the link i will delete that post.

i wonder hy he was reading her dairy was it just nosey or did he want to know somthing i doubt if she would of left it lying around so he must of looked for it.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452140.html#msg452140

Here’s the links he’s referring to http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4195169.stm

How could he possibly have misread anything about an 8 year old [Name removed]?


And note how he attempts to discredit on the Anniversary of [Name removed]’s murder 

[Myster]

Are they Aberdeen Angus or Friesians that have been lost?   

[Myster]

No-one should pay much attention to a gormless grown adult who pretends to spell like eight-year old.

[Nicholas]

I really wouldn’t fall for Sandra Lean’s version of a story if I were you.

She stated here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg384908.html#msg384908

”Stephanie said

Around the same time you appeared to accept the confession was genuine and had been made voluntarily and went on to state:

"Simon had a huge amount of support from a very large number of people. Perhaps you would consider that those people, at the very least, deserve an explanation

Context, of course, is everything! Since various parts of my email have been quoted in various contexts, here, for the avoidance of doubt, is the quoted email in its entirety - posters can make up their own minds what I "appeared to accept":

18th August 2013

Dear Stephanie,
 
I did not email you on behalf of anyone but myself. I did so to let you and Simon know that many people did not believe the "confession" as reported was genuine, or had been truly voluntarily made. There is no ego in this for me, and certainly no personal agenda, other than being able to help if and where I can.
 
I'm sorry this is the standpoint you are taking, and sorrier still that you have chosen to respond in the manner you have. As a matter of courtesty, I mentioned the decision about No Smoke, as six other families are immediately affected by the reports of Simon's confession, and it may be in their interests to simply withdraw the book from circulation altogether.
 
If, as you appear to be implying, Simon's confession is both genuine and voluntary, then I thank you for the clarification. You appear to have forgotten that I was highlighting Simon's case, along with many others for several years before WAP came into existence.
 
You were not averse to accepting the many, many hours of advice, assistance and support you had from me, personally, for a very long time. I sincerely hope you do not begrudge others the same - it is not the case that, because Simon has confessed, the others must, as a result, be guilty.

Simon had a huge amount of support from a very large number of people. Perhaps you would consider that those people, at the very least, deserve an explanation?
 
Sandra

The reason I mentioned Stephanie apparently "implying" that Simon was, in fact, guilty, is that she did not say so in her return email preferring, instead, to assert her beliefs about the guilt of others - that is the "standpoint" to which I refer in the email.

As I said, others on this forum are free to make of this whatever they choose


On 8th Aug 2013 Sandra sent the following

Dear Stephanie,

I heard, at around 2pm this afternoon, the news that Simon had "confessed his
guilt."

I don't want to say too much by email, but I wanted you to know that I am thinking
of you both this evening, and everything I have said in the past regarding Simon's
case still stands. Many of the others I have spoken with today feel the same way.

I have a new mobile number ********, and a new landline number from tomorrow
*******. I have no idea if this message will reach you. I hope it does.

Sandra


My reply on the 18th Aug 2013 was:

You know, I know and many many others know Billy Middleton's stories do not add up and that he is clearly guilty of causing that fire.

I do not forget the conversations we had on this subject!

Your ego's and personal agendas are clear for all to see and have been for a very long time.

WAP was only set up in order for Billy Middleton to appease his guilt. The truth always outs in the end!

[Nicholas]

“The reason I mentioned Stephanie apparently "implying" that Simon was, in fact, guilty, is that she did not say so in her return email preferring, instead, to assert her beliefs about the guilt of others - that is the "standpoint" to which I refer in the email.

I asserted my belief about the guilt of Billy Middleton NOT others. One person, singular NOT plural!

On 11th August 2013 Billy Middleton chose to publish a blog about Simon Halls confession, these are excerpts of said blog:

"Which is more probable, that after Simon’s last appeal was rejected, knowing that it was the best chance he was ever going to have, which was followed my months and months of psychological abuse and mind games by the person who drove every last one of the thousands of supporters he had away with vile and malicious on and offline feuds such that he finally couldn’t take any more, he cracked, or that Roy Lambert was right all along despite all of the evidence to the contrary and everyone else was wrong?"

I personally lost respect for Simon some time ago but I didn’t lose the compassion and humanity I would need to before I could ignore the above, the facts of the past don’t get erased by the words of the present.

Simon might well have been progressing better than others through the prison system in that respect despite maintaining innocence, and it very much looked like he was about to join the exceptionally rare few who were released on or close to minimum tariff despite it, but there is little doubt in my mind that someone sending the parole board an abusive letter over a dispute where he could be reintegrated into society upon release shortly before his confession will have done that progress absolutely no good whatsoever.

People supporting someone incarcerated for something they believe they haven’t done need to look at how Simon was supported and learn from the mistakes, whether his confession is true or not, because while it’s easy to blame him in isolation for the harm done, if it’s a false confession your loved ones never ever ever need put in the position he was in to end up with and you can’t do that looking only at the 10 letter word confession and his other perceived option may well have been suicide if he really just couldn’t take it anymore. You need to look at the evidence and all that went on before it and see how wrong it was."

Sandra Lean was still affiliated with WAP and it wasn’t until July 2014 that it was made known - “she would not be involved with the website and forum set up to promote Mitchell’s cause as “I no longer have power of attorney”

Then on 16th July 2014
“A CRIMINOLOGIST who spearheaded efforts to overturn Luke Mitchell’s conviction for the murder of his girlfriend Jodi Jones has withdrawn from the campaign to free him.
Dr Sandra Lean, who highlighted his case in her book No Smoke! The Shocking Truth About British Justice, led the battle against Mitchell’s life sentence alongside his mother, Corinne.
Dr Lean would not comment on any factors behind her departure, adding the “reasons would remain private as a matter of respect”.
Mrs Mitchell confirmed Dr Lean had left, but did not want to comment further.
Dr Lean added she would not be involved with the website and forum set up to promote Mitchell’s cause as “I no longer have power of attorney”.
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/criminologist-withdraws-from-fight-to-free-luke-mitchell-1-3478153

[Nicholas]

Your ego's and personal agendas are clear for all to see and have been for a very long time.

WAP was only set up in order for Billy Middleton to appease his guilt. The truth always outs in the end!

Given the circumstances, and with hindsight, I was far too passive in my response.

My stance regarding Billy Middleton changed as I started to come out of the FOG (fear, obligation, guilt)

Off topic but I believe some of these facts are relevant to the thread and could be helpful to those people who aren’t aware of how Sandra Lean can manipulate alleged facts to suit her agenda at any given time and present them to others in order to mislead.

it is not the case that, because Simon has confessed, the others must, as a result, be guilty.

The above are Sandra Leans words not mine but she attempted to present them like I’d said them - Which is highly deceptive btw.


“If, as you appear to be implying, Simon's confession is both genuine and voluntary, then I thank you for the clarification. You appear to have forgotten that I was highlighting Simon's case, along with many others for several years before WAP came into existence.
 
You were not averse to accepting the many, many hours of advice, assistance and support you had from me, personally, for a very long time. I sincerely hope you do not begrudge others the same - it is not the case that, because Simon has confessed, the others must, as a result, be guilty.

Simon had a huge amount of support from a very large number of people. Perhaps you would consider that those people, at the very least, deserve an explanation?


Sandra Lean appeared to have forgotten that her book had been published well before I’d even heard of her. NONE of its content came from me therefore perhaps an explanation to those people deserved to come from her.

[Nicholas]

What I find extremely interesting is that a criminologist like Sandra Lean wants a review of the Luke Mitchell case but never once suggested this following the Hall confession? Even though she’s featured the case in her first book “No Smoke - The shocking truth about British justice,”

”Criminology is the scientific study of the nature, extent, management, causes, control, consequences, and prevention of criminal behavior, both on individual and social levels.

Again for clarity, I’d never heard of Sandra Lean until after her book “No Smoke” was published.

If you listen to Sandra Lean’s interviews with James English and compare and contrast it to Corrine Mitchell’s you may recognise the two women are not singing from the same hymn sheet.

Sandra Lean wants a review of the Luke Mitchell’s case (She refers to Hillsborough to make this point). She talks about having doubts “every single day.” Doubts she could be wrong.

It appears to me Corrine Mitchell hasn’t picked up on this?

[Nicholas]

And to date Sandra Lean has still yet to publicly accept the fact she was conned by Simon Hall.

Let’s not forget - “Criminology is the study of crime, order and criminal justice. It considers a broad range of topics related to offending and victimisation, including their causes, social impact and prevention.

Following Simon Halls confession a Steve Sinclair made a comment at the bottom of Professor Julie Price’s Justice Gap article - “A time to take stock” which has recently been removed from the WWW after my communication with Jon Robbins.

On 24th Feb 2014 Steve Sinclair stated:
“Now that Simon Hall has apparently taken his own life it is perhaps pertinent to view his “confession” in this new light. I am sure that some will say that his suicide is a certain sign of his anguish over his guilt. I say that, on the contrary, his death may have been through pure despair.
That despair most likely stemmed from the failure of his final appeal.Where was he to go from there? No more new evidence to rely on…the end of the road.
His confession was more than likely sparked by the inevitable realisation that those who are deemed IDOM are unlikely to ever be considered for parole. I don’t need to spell out the treatment IDOM prisoners face compared to those who realise their guilty status and play the game to prepare them for release.
I am not concerned by the kerfuffle over his so called confession. The bald facts of the case are that the conviction of Simon Hall was a miscarriage of justice. There was and still isn’t any evidence on which he should have been convicted.

Not sure if this is the same Steve Sinclair http://www.free-david-ferguson.org.uk/index.php ?

However, the fact Sandra Lean has yet to publicly admit to having been conned by Simon Hall, and indeed by those people she spoke with in order to put together the chapter in her book “No Smoke” should be a red flag for people like Corrine Mitchell and Steve Sinclair.

“I am not concerned by the kerfuffle over his so called confession?” The “kerfuffle” is exactly what people like Steve Sinclair should have been concerned with.

“The bald facts of the case are that the conviction of Simon Hall was a miscarriage of justice.” What “bald facts” does he refer to, a version of the “bald facts” presented by Sandra Lean in her book “No Smoke?”

Dear Stephanie,

I heard, at around 2pm this afternoon, the news that Simon had "confessed his
guilt."

I don't want to say too much by email, but I wanted you to know that I am thinking
of you both this evening, and everything I have said in the past regarding Simon's
case still stands. Many of the others I have spoken with today feel the same way.

I have a new mobile number ********, and a new landline number from tomorrow
*******. I have no idea if this message will reach you. I hope it does.

Sandra

Given Sandra Leans judgement and indeed behaviour following Simon Halls confession I would advise everyone to err on the side of caution regarding any alleged confession in the Luke Mitchell case. Plus it’s more than likely imo Corrine Mitchell will only hear what she wants to hear.

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean was still affiliated with WAP and it wasn’t until July 2014 that it was made known - “she would not be involved with the website and forum set up to promote Mitchell’s cause as “I no longer have power of attorney”

I don’t believe the reason Sandra Lean “would not be involved with the website and forum” because as is stated, “I no longer have power of attorney,” and I’ve wondered if it had anything to do with her and Billy Middleton?

Did she finally recognise in him what many of us had recognised long before?

Or was it a combination of the above and other factors?

Having serious mental health conditions does not automatically suggest that person culpable of murder or indeed a danger to others.

I find the comment “previous attacks on women” misleading and requiring explanation of alleged attacks; on whom, what was done, how many times? etc. Where’s the proof or is she attempting to replicate the stories told about Luke Mitchell.

I am aware [Name removed] allegedly went to Sandra Leans house (several years ago) presumably because he was angry with her stance/campaigning etc. I think Billy Middleton was staying with her at the time of this event and IMO he was far more of a threat to her and her daughters than [Name removed] ever was.

I don’t condone the alleged event with [Name removed] btw but dangerous individuals with low empathy are often hidden in plain sight by a mask of normalcy.

What “previous attacks on women?” Is she referring to herself and herself only and has embellished this to make it sound like more than one? Like she did with my email reply to her here http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10836.msg540924#msg540924

The following was written by Sandra Lean after I had told John Lamberton about the phonecall I received from her on a Sunday telling me she’d had to drive Billy Middleton to the airport after an incident between her and him (Middleton) at her home, some of which was witnessed by her daughter. Which ended with Billy Middleton leaving and her and her youngest daughter subsequently finding him covered in blood somewhere on the streets of Edinburgh.

From November 2010:
"My motivation has been called into question, my honesty and integrity trashed, all because I chose to devote seven years of my life trying to help people. Yes, I know you were at the centre of a hate campaign, but that wasn't my doing and I played no part in it whatsoever - nobody could ever have used a single word I had said about you, because there was nothing to use.
" what hurts is that you could not step back, knowing me as I thought you did, and ask yourself, is there perhaps another explanation for this. Nope, instant public condemnation, in the belief that you were being attacked, when, in fact, I was trying to defend you.
That your words are being used to paint me as dishonest and unreliable, and that in turn is being used to undermine Luke's case, is probably one of the worst experiences in all of this. I thought you were my friend.
There was absolutely no intention to 'scapegoat' you for anything
My post was an attempt to take the wind out of his sails by saying, Yes, Stephanie did talk to John, but not in the sinister/negative way he is trying to portray it. What John has done is take an innocent mistake by Stephanie and turn it into a weapon for him to use against others http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg384700.html#msg384700

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg384647.html#msg384647

With hindsight, the incident to which I refer is relevant to Luke Mitchell’s case, as Sandra Lean obviously recognised around the time this all happened. As did John Lamberton.

After said incident Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton became business partners?

How and why did Sandra Lean fail to recognise this as abuse? Or did she recognise it was abuse and went into partenership with him anyway? Did he con her to go into partnership with him?

This is relevant for so many reasons.

In her interview with James English she refers to her daughters being around about the same age as [Name removed] etc etc and why would she be doing what she’s doing etc etc she refers to her daughters safety etc

Yet the Billy Middleton incident (The same Billy Middleton who received a verdict of not proven of causing the death of his baby daughter) didn’t deter her? When she described the incident she said there was “a cigarette paper” between us. Her youngest daughter was a witness and had to step in to intervene.

There was another incident of him leaving burning cigarette ends in the ashtray, whilst they were all in the house.

Doesn’t this suggest double standards? Lack of insight? Poor judgement?