"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[Venturi Swirl]

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.

Inappropriate comment IMO.  I must admit that this is the first I've heard that semen was found on Jodi's clothing. 

[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

Did Sandra Lean explain any of this ⬆️ in her book? Known about in 2015

[Angelo222]

Inappropriate comment IMO.  I must admit that this is the first I've heard that semen was found on Jodi's clothing.

She was wearing a top borrowed from her sister Janine. The semen was identified as having come from Janine's boyfriend so no real mystery. It is good though to see that the forensics were on the ball albeit too little too late.

[Angelo222]

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

So instead of taking her failure graciously she had the audacity and sheer bloody cheek to claim that Hall's confession might be as a result of mental illness. Just how low can Sandra Lean sink in order to protect her own skin?

You were in the middle of this Nicolas, you had most access to Simon Hall, is she an all out liar or what?

Was Simon Hall mentally ill or was he simply riddled with guilt because of what he had done and because he had deceived so many close to him including your goodself?

[Nicholas]

She was wearing a top borrowed from her sister Janine. The semen was identified as having come from Janine's boyfriend so no real mystery. It is good though to see that the forensics were on the ball albeit too little too late.

Which could have been transfered to the t-shirt from any other laundered item

[Nicholas]

So instead of taking her failure graciously she had the audacity and sheer bloody cheek to claim that Hall's confession might be as a result of mental illness. Just how low can Sandra Lean sink in order to protect her own skin?

Sandra Lean went on to state,

‘You see, to this day, we have only Stephanie’s word about the circumstances leading up to the confession’

Which - as usual - was extremely deceptive and calculating of Sandra Lean

She was well aware of the zenith burglary fiasco and of Shaun Hall and Stephanie Bon’s public statements and indeed of Simon Hall’s

Did she recognise (As I eventually did re Simon Hall) she’d been the one doing all the work and Luke Mitchell wasn’t pulling his weight?

Did the content of the below articles, for example, trigger her into writing to him?

Was she annoyed with him for showing his true colours?

Was HIS behaviour perceived as “a slap in the face?”

14th April 2014
Killer Luke Mitchell demands Satanic books in jail
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/killer-luke-mitchell-demands-satanic-books-in-jail-1-3375463

12th July 2014
Sordid jail letters from
 Luke Mitchell have opened a window into the warped mind of Jodi Jones’s murderer
“Mitchell wrote the letters from Polmont Young Offenders Institution after falling headlong into a honeytrap,
The 16-year-old he believed he was writing to was in fact an undercover journalist investigating the workings
of his mind.
Mitchell wrote his letters in 2008 but they have never been published.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-sleazy-letters-brutal-3845609

In 2008 he would have been around 19-20 years old?  “although he’s not been allowed to develop as he should have been” (Billy Middleton) http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4792.msg544349#msg544349

Did she wonder if she was being duped yet again?

I ask because of this:
"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.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg384705.html#msg384705

What Sandra Lean perceived as “mistakes” was in fact Simon Halls guilt being exposed. His true colours were being laid bare for all to see.

On 12th April 2013 Simon Hall's brother stated:

"Here we go again!
Stephanie, please do everyone a favour and stop blaming everyone else for things that Simon is responsible for.
First, Simon had every chance to confess to his actions on the night of Joan's death, however he decided to keep this quiet. Saying that anyone else should go to the police is ridiculous as they wouldn't want Simon to get in to further trouble.
I don't condone him keeping this information back at all and I truly believe the only reason Simon and you decided to run with this is that it got out into the wild.
If you honestly believe that people conspired against Simon then that's just stupid and you should talk seriously with Simon.
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 if its true as you say he is suffering at the moment.
Hopefully he will be honest with you for a change, sadly this is something Simon finds hard to do most of the time.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg384851.html#msg384851

[Angelo222]

So what did Simon Hall tell you Nicolas the first time you spoke to him after finding out about the Zenith double glazing premises burglary.

Was he honest with you this time?
Was he relieved that this had got out?

[faithlilly]

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

Except SK’s washing wasn’t done in Alice, Jodi’s grandmother’s, house where Janine lived.

[DanniCash]

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.

A t-shirt she borrowed from her sister, yes.

[faithlilly]

A t-shirt she borrowed from her sister, yes.

That’s certainly what Janine said after her sister’s death. She also said the she had two identical t-shirts...but this only occurred to her 10 days after she had handed the identical t-shirt to Jodi’s into the police, claiming it was the one she had worn on the night of her sister’s disappearance. Trouble is Judith, the girl’s mother, claimed that it was her that had bought one of the t-shirts for each of the girls. It does beg the question why would Jodi go to her gran’s house and borrow her sister’s t-shirt, and a dirty one at that, when she had one exactly the same at home?

As I posted previously the explanation for the semen stain from SK being transferred to the t-shirt Jodi was wearing in the washing machine doesn't hold water either as SK didn’t wash his clothes at Jodi’s grandmother’s house. Stranger still there was no DNA of Janine found on the supposedly ‘borrowed’ tshirt.

[DanniCash]

That’s certainly what Janine said after her sister’s death.

It's also what Luke said. "She liked that top, she like, she bought some of her own stuff, I mean, the clothes, the cords, jeans, she was wearing on Monday night. I think they were borrowed off her sister." Even though he said he hadn't seen her that night.

[Nicholas]

So what did Simon Hall tell you Nicolas the first time you spoke to him after finding out about the Zenith double glazing premises burglary.

Was he honest with you this time?
Was he relieved that this had got out?

I suspect Simon Hall and all those who knew of the zenith double glazing premises burglary were raging don’t you

As Shaun Hall stated in April 2013,

"I am Simon's brother, I know a lot of things that Simon has done and I know when he is backed into a corner, he lies. It's his nature! Always has been.
I can say things like this because I know him. He may have changed since being in prison, but I seriously doubt it!

[Parky41]

Such a mess of mismatched one liners to add weight to nothing. The fairy tale gets worse, does it not?

Let's take an example of one liners from these first statements.

LM - I walked passed a V in the wall, some distance and my dog jumped up and started air sniffing
SK - We were at  a V in the wall.
JaJ- When we got to a V in the wall.

See the massive difference there already Faithlilly - it is all very well Ms Lean extracting one liners from statements of a 1000 words, they don't tell us anything outwith what Ms Lean may want to add - couple of arms and legs here and there. Red flag to the police however.

Let us expand. LM  not only states that his dog was "air sniffing" he also states that his dog had reacted "parallel to where Jodi lay on the other side"
This girl was actually around 40ft away from the V in the wall. Passed it on the woodland side.

SK in his first statement - "the dogs head was level with the V" It was dark, there is absolutely no way SK could have given any type of comparison of the dogs head being level with the V if it was where LM said it was.

But all red herrings from Ms Lean - it was not about the dog, it was about where LM said he was, the description he gave least not the biggest red flag of all, the time factor.

10mins - that is all it took, from the search party meeting next to this high school, for LM to keep the lead, to climb the wall well before the V and look into the woodland. None of the other members of the search party gave the woods a second thought. To then come to this V, at and around the actual V itself, LM climbed over the wall and turned left. SK and JaJ had barely walked a few feet when he shouted he had found something.

Let us be real here - The best search teams in the world even with professionally trained dogs - could never have found Jodi Jones in this time frame. 10mins. Not a dog walker or anyone else in the woodland that night - in daylight saw or found this girl - she was ultimately well hidden, behind and wait for it, another extraction from LM's first statements.

"I saw what I thought was a Taylors dummy, behind a large OAK tree, I could see a red bobble in it's hair" He made out the type of tree, and a bobble that even the pathologist  did not come across at first.

All this in 10mins - from LM who further claimed he did not know of the existence of this V prior to that night. He had walked this path many times in daylight.
All this in 10mins - from LM who further claimed he had never been in this woodland before that night. Really?

These claims of DNA in full profiles of an unknown male - Not multiple DNA profiles from multiple unknown males. This is a woodland, I wonder what DNA any of us would pick up innocently traipsing around in it - far less with what may have taken place that day.

So, no Faithlilly - It is SL who attempts to put weight to water continuously with these these claims of statements changing - do you know what clarified means?

DF - the defence team had access to everything SL had/has - Of course this was available for the Jury to hear/see. They did.

They didn't of course see any of SL's arms and legs, why would they? - The SCCRC however saw right through her when they dismissed these fairy tales.

[Parky41]

A t-shirt she borrowed from her sister, yes.

Think of a man ejaculating Faithlilly - millions of sperm - millions of profiles to be extracted.

What was extracted from the t-shirt were a couple of profiles amidst some semen staining.

Think of body sweat -

Think of semen -

Put the item into the wash and what happens - traces of sweat are easily rid of.
Traces of semen are not.

Have you ever washed bedding and thought - what is that stain -semen which has not been eradicated in the wash.

BUT 99% of it has - thus why there was very little to extract a profile from - most of it had been washed out, in a machine.

Ask Ms Lean - the giver of partial information - How did the semen get on the top?  Was it in the washing cycle itself or when this couple were intimate?

[Angelo222]

Glory hunter comes to mind rather than crime expert.