Sandra Lean (yesterday)
‘There was a discussion recently about whether AO (Jodi's mother's partner) gave evidence at trial. I wasn't able to answer definitively, because I couldn't remember seeing any media coverage and I know I hadn't seen transcripts, but neither of those confirm the situation one way or another.
Someone very kindly found the article below and shared it with me, so now we have the answer- he did (albeit reported in the middle of Jodi's mum's evidence in this article)
Not yesterday of course ( Has been in my drafts for a little while) But interestingly, that which has been pointed out to me, SL does not even know the correct spelling of this mans name. So not even the mere basics are correct?
SL tells us that anything from the book that is "missing was also missing from the defence papers" SL also states repeatedly of evidence/information that was not inclusive as being "hidden" and "buried" or wilfully handed over incomplete. And again, for those who somehow fail to pick up on or know this. When a list of witnesses for the Crown are given to the defence, they themselves then choose to carry out precognitions of these witnesses. They are for the most part, also handed the statements and so forth to do with these witnesses, who will testify for the prosecution. And kept in those papers will be areas that the defence, they themselves would use? Now I am not going to apply that this would therefore fall under this "hidden" or "buried" where not being included in the defence papers matter, that would be silly.
It is firstly this "I wasn't able to answer definitively ----------" Now I am not an expert but neither do I believe for one moment, that inclusive of one's defense papers will not be a list of those witnesses called to testify, perhaps there was not? But without doubt there will be enough, with or without court transcripts to tell, that AO's was one such witness who gave evidence at this trial. That IF indeed SL did not know he had testified then why not? That is the question one should be asking, should they not? This person is advocating themselves as being an expert on this case, that she is putting out "everything" people need to know of LM V HMA?
So no, it is not simply that it revealed without doubt, that one had not sat through the trial, confirmed that one had not had access to court transcripts in full, but showed once more, just how much is missing from what this woman has had access to? That reliance upon the media for information. Or, and as I stated last year, that willfulness to play dumb, to let those conspiracies do their rounds, as to why this key witness had not been called to give evidence? It served purpose, did it not? to have any concentration away from Mitchell and evidence, upon these 'others' Namely the police here, who the conspiracies were being fed around. We had talk of statements "buried in drawers" and the likes.
Such a small statement, full to the brim with important information. It not only questions what one had access to to, those clear limitations, but highlights dishonesty, does it not? Shows that one's concentration (that tunnel vision and bias), has been to feed as much as possible around whatever one was putting together, with the help of the Mitchell's in 2003. Devouring eagerly every media report, anything in those case papers, to build as much upon of one's 'others' as was possible.
And shows us that those questions are hardly surprising at all, are they not? It is no wonder one has questions into areas that she has been completely blind to? And poses ones whilst lying by omission in other areas. But it has not stopped the innuendo, that supposition and borderline liable. It has been carefully set out, to have one's own case (aided by the Mitchells) put out for all to see? And if one has read the book, they can see that scraping at the pits of the barrel, picking their way through anything they have managed to source upon those 'others. We have 12 pages on mobile phones belonging to the Jones family but nothing of AO's testifying at court?
