Is DR Sandra Lean a credible source?

[Nicholas]

As far as I can see, she is the only person to have written a book on Luke's case

Sandra Lean’s book will be based on her interpretation

[mrswah]

How much detail do you think the Jones/Walker family and their extended family are aware of?

I have no idea, apart from the fact that some of them would have been at the trial.

[Paranoid Android]

The problem with Dr Lean and her followers are that they will not entertain for a second that there is even a slight chance that LM could be guilty.

If you're not able to consider all of the possibilities, you can't be credible.

[Nicholas]

I have no idea, apart from the fact that some of them would have been at the trial.

Do you not think they’ll have received copies of the same case papers as Sandra Lean?

[Venturi Swirl]

She’s an Anti-Vaxxer as well?!  Then she just lost any remaining vestiges of credibility with me, those people are a menace  IMO

[Nicholas]

We are seeing so many people quote sandra leans book as there source, the only source for facts on the case.

My question is she a credible source?

Reading these forums and other places online:

There is real question as to how long sandra really knew the mitchell family before  its claimed

Books with various misleading claims - "typos" on names, wrong info on dna and more. Its clear she is a  very active member on these support social media groups, why doesnt she correct any of the rubbish that is posted?

Its been claimed shes been seen on various forums misleading , lying, using various account names , attacking different familys?

She has a history of supporting failed campains. Some have went onto to admit guilt and some failed appeals etc etc. How many successful campains has she lead or been involved in?

Her partner at the time now ex was the name on the first website/forum to support luke mitchell and run the website from shetland and sandras home when he stayed there. It was closed, said to because of issues of the charitys accounts? Billy middleton from shetland ( google him, very shady )

Its also said online sandra said to mrs hall she had doubts over luke mitchells innocence in 2014? Simon hall is someone who sandra campained for and featured in one of her books. He later admitted his guilt

edit: i forgot to add this https://neilwilby.com/2020/06/22/dr-truthseeker-loses-her-moral-compass/


Not sure if ive missed anything, just some things ive picked up browsing.

Sandra Lean expressed concerns about the relationship between Corrine and Luke Mitchell, she also expressed concerns for Corrine’s excessive drinking - if I recall this was also around the time Corrine was having new teeth

Didn’t Corrine Mitchell stop off for alcohol at the off licence on the way home from work on the night of the 30th June 2003

What did the off licence till receipts show Corrine had purchased?

[Paranoid Android]

She’s an Anti-Vaxxer as well?!  Then she just lost any remaining vestiges of credibility with me, those people are a menace  IMO

Absolutely. Oddball behaviour right there.

[mrswah]

She’s an Anti-Vaxxer as well?!  Then she just lost any remaining vestiges of credibility with me, those people are a menace  IMO

I'll take that back---I was a bit hard on her: no, according to her Facebook posts, she is not a total anti vaxxer, just not too keen on the Covid vaccine----that was back at the beginning of the year. She might even have changed her mind by now!

[Bullseye]

Good question.

My own reply to this won't, IMO, be a popular one !

I actually admire Sandra Lean for standing up for convicted people whom she believes to be innocent, even if she sometimes gets it wrong (and, after all, she isn't the only person who gets things wrong). She may have been wrong about two of the people whose cases she discusses in her first book, "No Smoke", but she did put forward credible reasons why she thought they might be victims of a MOJ---in my opinion.

As far as I can see, she is the only person to have written a book on Luke's case, and, IMO, she has researched it well. I can't see why she shouldn't be a reliable source, or why she should have written a book full of lies (as some seem to believe).

I never saw  the Wrongly Accused Person's website, which some people on here have referred to. It disappeared long before I had ever heard of Sandra Lean or Luke Mitchell.

She claims not to have known the Mitchell family before Jodi's murder. I tend to believe her---why shouldn't I?

I have come across her on two other forums, and she uses her real name on both. I don't know whether she sometimes uses a pseudonym-----but then, I use one !  As far as I have seen, she takes time to answer people's questions, and she isn't rude to anyone.

I don't know much about her dealings with Billy Middleton (and yes, I do know who he is).  It doesn't bother me that they ran a website together, or even whether they were "partners" (if they were).

I'm not so keen on her campaigning-----I'm not keen on "campaigning" in general, to be honest. I don't particularly like support groups either.  Nor do I like the fact that she is an anti-vaxxer, but I suppose that's none of my business!

Agreed

[Nicholas]

My question is she a credible source?

No

[mrswah]

Do you not think they’ll have received copies of the same case papers as Sandra Lean?

I have no idea whether or not they would have been issued with case papers.

[mrswah]

I would imagine she's a credible source. She has been looking into the case for long enough. She has her own views, of course, but then so does everyone else!

[Nicholas]

I would imagine she's a credible source.

She isn’t

[Nicholas]

IMO. She most certainly is not credible. She is an online troll, a master manipulator. A compulsive lier and most of all, is in it for herself. Almost everything she has every came out with, has been discredited, we just have to trust her right? Because she has all notes? All the answers? Sounds like somebody, that wants to be the head of a cult if you ask me.   Anybody that uses her as a source, cannot be taken serious.  Middleton is also an online troll, scammer. And anyone that thinks he can fool people by using dodgy grammar, need their heads examined. The man cannot be trusted.

I’m not prepared to take anything Sandra Lean says on face value - she’s proven to me (Since around 2010 http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg384537.html#msg384537) she’s a liar and a fraud

[WakeyWakey]

I would imagine she's a credible source. She has been looking into the case for long enough. She has her own views, of course, but then so does everyone else!

This case is the beginning, middle and end of her entire career. The conflict of interest is HUGE.

And that's without looking at the various charities, books and money-making schemes over the years.