https://thescotslawblog.com/2021/03/01/unravelling-corroboration-and-circumstantial-evidence/
So these "professionals who really should know better" Experts in their field being asked questions in such a way to illicit the response sought after, matter not. It is simply bias upon bias. The article is correct, they have not witnessed near enough of this case to place any ? upon reasonable doubt.
And these wannabe experts, who profess to being something that they simply are not. There is and never was a criminologist who studied this case, there was a student who used it for study purpose. Psychic Sue? who just knew this complete stranger (cough) did not kill Jodi Jones. So much so she was shouting it from those rooftops she just loves so much. Who then,by September 2003 had LM look her in the eye and "she just knew (again) that he was innocent" Marvellous Intel.
IB tells us that Ms Lean along with the Mitchells carried out their "own form of investigation" CM tells us in her JE podcast of her and Sandra's theories. LM by October was out with his mother "celebrating the end of a difficult time" So this extremely "close collaboration" between what was to become SL's two "key witnesses" - had all three working together, investigating into who the killer could be? - comedy of errors! (IB really is!) We have barely reached Nov '03' here.
Make no mistake here, those foundations already being firmly laid. The events of that day, told to SL who simply soaked up every word, from this complete stranger, whom she just knew by that eye contact to be innocent. So one had those events firmly embedded, all three had media reports to work from. We had the duo on the bike, this mystery man, and as SL tells us in IB, intel from the Mitchells on Jodi's family, her brother. We still have not reached Nov '03' here. We already have half of IB here, those 380 pages of large text.
So, to the point (really), and to be serious here. Not that it would matter one iota what SL had access to, the outcome would still be the same. Taken every piece of advice by Colin Bowman. To sway public opinion by deflecting away from the convicted, the truth, the evidence. By using that psychological approach, that 'gaslighting' Pushing out a false narrative to place attention upon others, to change ones perception of the truth by showing that anyone connected may have been acting upon self interest.
Right down to those aunts in the carpark. Perhaps they arrived with Morag's UFO? Who knows, anything is a real possibility. Enough now:
SL has never had access to the case files, she did not attend those 9 weeks of trial, hearing/seeing/witnessing testimony first hand. Has never had access to full court transcripts. Is putting out her psychological approach, based upon deflection. As there is nothing, that is zero to even scratch the surface of a MOJ. Everything she is projecting is based upon that clear conflict of interest, that claimed blind faith and psychic powers, telling her of a strangers innocence. - But going by these threads popping up (Blue Forum), it is easy to see exactly the level of intellect aimed at, and those who take this on as 9 weeks of nothing. For if the whole case fits into around 50 pages of large text (the rest deflection), you do exactly what it says on the tin. - wonderful stuff. Keep up the good work. What day is it today children? It is the day before 'Forensic Friday?'
More lies
No evidence to show this either
Why didn’t she attend the trial ?
In No Smoke (2008) she says ‘until two years ago’ before the book ergo
2006 http://checkpointpress.com/NS28pageSample.pdfUntil two years ago, I had no idea that anything was broken. I believed in the justice system, although I knew it had its faults. A chance meeting with someone who believed that a family member was a victim of a miscarriage of justice was to change all that. At the time, I was merely intrigued. Perhaps, like many people, I had an assumption that the relatives of almost everyone convicted of a serious crime don’t want to believe that one of theirs could do such a thing, and will tend to convince themselves that there has been a mistake. What I found left me shocked and sickened. The information was there, easily accessible, for me, or anyone else to see. Because it had simply never occurred to me to ask the questions (perhaps because I believed there were no questions to be asked), I had never been exposed to the answers. The more I delved, the more apparent it became that something is terribly wrong with our system, but hardly anyone seems to know, or care.
As my investigations progressed, I found another curious phenomenon. Not only were people reluctant to discuss the issue of miscarriages of justice, and the suggestion that there may be some very serious flaws at the heart of our justice system, they would vigorously (and sometimes with hostility) defend their position that I was mistaken – even with pages of documented evidence before them. It reminded me of the children’s story of the elephant in the sitting room. Everybody knows you don’t find elephants in the middle of the sitting room floor, so everyone acts as if there is no elephant there, even though they can all see it. Why? In the absence of back-up from anyone else, each individual assumes the others really can’t see the elephant, otherwise they’d say so. Secondly, it’s an elephant for goodness sake! If there was really an elephant there, then everyone would be talking about it. So we ignore the evidence of our own senses, for fear of looking stupid, or being judged by others.Similar to Stephanie Bon and her ‘friends’ story
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/24/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-13/‘Eye contact’ was
2007 ‘THE heavy doors clanged shut behind Sandra Lean as she made her way inside a notorious young offenders' institution to meet one of Scotland's most infamous prisoners.
With piles of legal papers, transcripts, notes and scribbled questions in her arms, she sat down to look into convicted killer Luke Mitchell's face - and was troubled by what saw.
"
I thought: 'Oh, he's just a bairn, he's just a laddie'," she recalls.
https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/claiming-killer-innocent-part-search-truth-2453025Sandra Lean’s oldest daughter lived with her father from aged 8
