Author Topic: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean  (Read 839351 times)

0 Members and 320 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Parky41

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #375 on: July 28, 2021, 08:22:27 PM »
And to finish off from - Why Bother? - The conspiracy:

So this is around 2010 -12. Around the time of the WAP for Ms Lean claims this male told her to take the website down. Where Ms Lean is inferring, not really inferring, saying that she was being monitored by the police/media? That they had passed out information to Jodi's brother of where she stayed? Firstly Ms Lean in her intro tells us of the mining cottage she stayed in. Recently renovated - this is in 2003. So long gone from wherever that was, which had to be Newtongrange or Easthouse's. The only two areas with mining cottages, close enough to the school her daughters attended.  But really, this woman who was running a website in favour of Mitchell was being monitored and information passed over - hogwash.

They stayed in the same area, AW had been the postwoman of this area for many years. The Jones/Walker family stayed in several parts of this area. It would not have been difficult at all to know where Ms Lean stayed. We are talking a small community here, not something in the scale of Dalkeith and so forth.

But as stated, it paves the way, sows those seeds that set the path to follow as the book proceeds. Of the police, of the brother, of paying no heed to anything that may be said, that fear of the truth. One can tie them together. - Into that clear talk of conspiracy.

Innocents Betrayed - Why Bother? In response to Ms Leans "Make of it what you will"


To continue from this visit and the conspiracy:

Quote
"I answered a knock at the door one lunch-time, expecting the postman. A man I didn't know stood on my doorstep, his jacket zipped up to under his eyes, a baseball cap pulled down low on his forehead."

Stop there, just for a moment and digest this information. The face is covered except for those eyes. Well, one can safely say here, without all the pictures Ms Lean had seen of this male, that she did not recognise him, who would? - How many people have we come across of late with face masks on, for them to pull them down and we laugh at the recognition of someone we know. To skip to:

Quote
"After speaking to two officers who had eventually arranged to take a statement and identifying the man from police photographs"

Say what? So she did not recognise him, those eyes were not familiar? But he told her who he was, and she then ID him from photographs that she could not possibly have, for this really grim looking guy, that had his zip right up over his face and cap pulled down, hiding, hiding what exactly - for he says to her!

Quote
"Do you know who I am?" he demanded "It was my sister who got killed"
- Jodi only had one brother.

What a lot of nonsense and amateur dramatics: And complete contradiction: A male arrives at her door, he is not hiding who he is, he tells her who he is. Why would this person be disguising themselves? Ah, perhaps the surrounding houses, where lots of eyes could be upon him. Nope, that does not work either, does it? For he is shouting at the top of his voice, she tells us this, that he was "roaring" at her. And the witnesses to this completely disguised male, covering almost every part of his face? It could not have been her "colleague" for she has told us before he was hiding behind the door?

And again, I am not condoning any actions that are threatening to others. But this makes absolutely no sense. The irony to be picking on AB for ID Luke Mitchell yet she picked out this male, when she is telling us she could not see his face!!. That there was absolutely no reason for him to hide himself, for he tells her who he is. - But as stated. The person from uni who said she looked like she had the weight of the world on her shoulders - translated to someone having "real hatred" towards her, someone who had been physically close to her.

And those defence case files, the legality around them? Of disclosure. Was Ms Lean going to break the law here? That she was going to disclose information in these to this male. For let us yet again be realistic here? He could have been anyone, she did not recognise him, she could not recognise him.Yet Ms Lean readily admits to going to break the law here does she not? That this stranger looking like some armed robber, "roaring" at her. She just simply accepted who he was, tried to keep him talking, to calm him?
« Last Edit: July 28, 2021, 10:14:15 PM by Parky41 »

Offline rulesapply

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #376 on: July 28, 2021, 09:07:28 PM »
You make a lot of assumptions while stating that you don't lie.

I don't enable anyone and no one said you cannot comment. Once again you see and believe what suits you.

You have pretend outrage for something that hasn't even been mentioned but for your comments  then reply avoiding all of it just pointing the finger once again.

I have read some stuff on here I don't agee with from many people and from every side of the argument

I have also read stuff that had made me think check what I thought I knew and progress whether I agreed with it or not

You on the other hand throw things into the mix that have been quite ridiculous then you name call and act quite like a child

I read your comment.

Offline Admin

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #377 on: July 28, 2021, 09:21:17 PM »
Final Warning!

Any further off topic references to daughters will see this thread locked.

Offline Dexter

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #378 on: July 28, 2021, 09:23:11 PM »
Final Warning!

Any further off topic references to daughters will see this thread locked.

And so it should be if it happens again. No need for it.

Offline Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #379 on: July 28, 2021, 09:38:04 PM »
I know some posters have a lot of background information about SL and her exploits with the gentleman from Shetland but it is irrelevant to the case of Luke Mitchell.

Please stay on topic. TY

He’s no gentleman John !
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #380 on: July 28, 2021, 09:42:09 PM »
Innocents Betrayed - Why Bother? In response to Ms Leans "Make of it what you will"


To continue from this visit and the conspiracy:
Quote
"I answered a knock at the door one lunch-time, expecting the postman. A man I didn't know stood on my doorstep, his jacket zipped up to under his eyes, a baseball cap pulled down low on his forehead."

Quote
After speaking to two officers who had eventually arranged to take a statement and identifying the man from police photographs"

Strange how she never described the above like this back then  *&^^&
« Last Edit: July 28, 2021, 09:46:13 PM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #381 on: July 28, 2021, 09:47:23 PM »
What a lot of nonsense and amateur dramatics:

It is!
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #382 on: July 28, 2021, 09:53:09 PM »

And those defence case files, the legality around them? Of disclosure. Was Ms Lean going to break the law here? That she was going to disclose information in these to this male. For let us yet again be realistic here? He could have been anyone, she did not recognise him, she could not recognise him. He could have been anyone on her doorstep. Yet Ms Lean readily admits to going to break the law here? That this stranger looking like some armed robber, "roaring" at her. She just simply accepted who he was, tried to keep him talking, to calm him?

Didn’t she say she wanted to show him the DNA results? 🙄
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Parky41

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #383 on: July 28, 2021, 10:12:36 PM »
Didn’t she say she wanted to show him the DNA results? 🙄

She did from the case files, which as far as is made out, she could not have known if this was Jodi's brother, and is it it legally allowed to share those in their entirety?

Offline Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #384 on: July 28, 2021, 10:26:25 PM »
Quote
"I answered a knock at the door one lunch-time, expecting the postman. A man I didn't know stood on my doorstep, his jacket zipped up to under his eyes, a baseball cap pulled down low on his forehead."

What kind of jacket zips up to just under someone’s eyes?
« Last Edit: July 28, 2021, 10:30:40 PM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline rulesapply

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #385 on: July 28, 2021, 10:39:59 PM »
What kind of jacket zips up to just under someone’s eyes?

I just read that C5 showed the soap opera,  Murder in a Small Town, again last night. Why would it be repeated at all, let alone so quickly?

Offline Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #386 on: July 29, 2021, 09:34:22 AM »

What a lot of nonsense and amateur dramatics

You have more than enough content for a book on the quite apparent innocence fraud (Including the nonsense and amateur dramatics) of killer Luke Mitchell, his mother & Sandra Lean

Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #387 on: July 29, 2021, 09:36:13 AM »
I just read that C5 showed the soap opera,  Murder in a Small Town, again last night. Why would it be repeated at all, let alone so quickly?

It would appear Ofcom failed to bother to investigate complaints made to them about the farce
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Parky41

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #388 on: July 29, 2021, 10:34:39 AM »
One positive of IB is the intensity of the spinning now required by Ms Lean on a larger scale. The more she is asked questions the more she highlights just how lacking she really is. Common sense and intellect are not evident. The half truths and the explanations are a shambles.


I have mentioned this several times now, it matters not who pays heed to this. For some people there is no attempt at changing horses mid stream. Once you are caught in a web of deceit it is almost impossible to escape. Allowing oneself first and foremost to be become entangled out of sheer foolishness will not change.

Some common sense first: - LM was arrested some 10 months after Jodi's murder. If you have already been tangled up in the nonsense of tunnel vision, of setting out to fit Mitchell up from the moment that 999 call was made. Read no further.

DNA - I am going to start here with the infamous bra strap - Ms Leans favourite for spinning with. Of only recently again making claim, to some markers belonging to 4/5 others closely linked to the investigation. Here is the half truth, that there were common markers. To be common they have to sit in the same place. You may have already read Chris's technical terms around this. We can stick with markers here. To include someone as a donor there can be NO markers present that do no match theirs. These others that Ms Lean includes with markers, were EXCLUDED as being a donor. There were markers present NOT belonging to them. Every marker, and there were several in place, the same as Mitchells included him as the donor. The bra strap was not unique to this, there were multiple partial profiles, all with the same markers siting in the same place as Mitchells, all of these partials he could NOT be excluded as being the donor of. Those law of averages, those multiples make it almost certain they were all Mitchells. Proven not, almost certain, yes. Did it matter - yes it did, not for Mitchell and his close relationship with Jodi, but of this murder NOT pointing to A another. That of a stranger.

Doing the rounds and yet again not corrected. This Cath Black claiming that the blood on DD's shoe was Jodi's. Those arms and legs added with some of Mitchells most avid supporters. The type of support needed to ensure Mitchell stays where he belongs. But of spinning and another posted of JaF's DNA and the database:

Now I have picked up on this before, that any OTHER profiles present tell us clearly they do not belong to ANY of Ms Leans others, (EX SK) RG included or claimed 'similar' crimes. Where she is now putting out further half truths around this male. Stating that he had been in trouble prior to his DNA flagging up in the system. No shit, did the guy get stopped for speeding? Any type of minor offence that did not warrant a DNA sample being taken. Using this as a means to claim that anything at the time may NOT have been run through the database - BS. In Peter Pan land of some fantasy conspiracy theory, borne from those days of Jigsawman. The powers on high were out to stitch that lad up - BS

Back to Mitchell and that 10 month period in time. Where anyone, with even a smidgeon of common sense, will see that there had to be sufficient evidence that warranted Mitchell being and remaining the prime suspect in this murder. Take you head out of any obtuse conspiracy theory and think. This was 10 months, there was no rush, no drive to get a quick arrest, to nail someone for this murder. This brutal murder of a 14 year old girl. Add in every other male that had been known through this. SK, the duo, the brother, MK and that condom. All known almost instantly. It does NOT matter that the duo and condom mans actual ID was not knowing to the police until after the 1st of July. The duo were known to the police almost instantly. they knew that two youths had been seen near to the locus. They were instantly prime in this investigation. The very reason that appeal was put out. The ID of them knowing to the police within the week. The condom and some real common sense, not Leans "he may have tried to put it in his pocket and dropped it." Of the crow flies measurements and all else. There was nothing that is 0 of his DNA at the immediate locus or in sight of it. If there had have been, it would have raised more than a ? with DF. Yes we know, Ms Lean has him down as inadequate too. This nonsense and the database, that profile upon the deceased's shoe. Nothing flagged up and irrelevant. A sperm head (1) from a woodland, who would have thought?

Now to draw back to this DNA. This person who has written a book where those who are that blinded, do not even pick up on the fact that there is actually no proper referencing to any witness statements. Just that they come from the defence papers. And those forensic reports. Blagging her way through any type of nonsense. Where this further spinning is required. She is being asked direct questions and the answer is "I never thought of that!" As we had with the female element of DNA present in semen. Book written before any expertise given. Blagging and further blagging. This was the brutal murder of a 14yr old girl and the woman is blagging her way through a book. Her sole aim, to draw the reader onto other possible people of interest. To blag about them, the police, the defence and all else - to have a chapter in her book called "The agreed Facts!" which is the agreement made between Sandra Lean and Luke Mitchell. Nothing to do with facts as we know it. The most blatant half truth in it all. Mitchells LIES labelled as FACTS.

Offline Parky41

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #389 on: July 29, 2021, 10:58:40 AM »
You have more than enough content for a book on the quite apparent innocence fraud (Including the nonsense and amateur dramatics) of killer Luke Mitchell, his mother & Sandra Lean

Almost everything happening had been put on hold, some serious health issues. I may start a new thread once I have more areas in place.