Author Topic: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean  (Read 765820 times)

0 Members and 16 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #390 on: July 29, 2021, 10:59:24 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 concur
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 #391 on: July 29, 2021, 11:04:25 AM »

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.


 8((()*/

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

Offline Paranoid Android

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #392 on: July 29, 2021, 11:04:34 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's Channel 5 - they repeat cheap documentaries like this all the time.

If you're ever in the mood for cheap documentaries on the likes of Sutcliffe, Shipman, West, Bundy, etc, Channel 5 is the place to go.

Offline Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #393 on: July 29, 2021, 11:05:52 AM »
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.

 8((()*/
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 #394 on: July 29, 2021, 11:09:12 AM »
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.


 *&^^&
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 #395 on: July 29, 2021, 11:09:55 AM »
The powers on high were out to stitch that lad up - BS

Of course they weren’t !
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline faithlilly

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #396 on: July 29, 2021, 11:12:00 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.

10 months to arrest yes but that isn’t the whole story, is it? L&B had already submitted the evidence they had at least once to the PF but the PF didn’t think the evidence was of sufficient quality with which to lay charges. Now just think about that for a moment. We are being lead to believe that L&B didn’t target Luke in those first hours, days and weeks after the murder but diligently proceeded to collect evidence which, in the end, pointed to Luke. Yet even after those months and months of beavering away collecting evidence against their main suspect the case against Luke was so threadbare that not even the PF would give them permission to lay charges.

Of course by that time, for L&B police, there was no going back. No admitting their mistake and changing direction. The forensic evidence lost due to the shambolic treatment of the crime scene was lost forever. The witness evidence, such has it was, had been changed and manipulated to such an extent that it only pointed to Luke. The sum of that evidence though, a witness who had come to the police with a sighting that was an hour later than it should have been, had not identified the parka the suspect was supposed to have been wearing and would not identify Luke in court. A further witness who was torn to shreds in the witness box when her evidence, and honesty, was all but destroyed and a TOD that rested solely on a ‘strangling’ sound heard by a cyclist riding by the murder scene, a cyclist who, in his first statement, did not mention any such sound and when asked by DF why he changed his recollection replied that he felt that if he hadn’t he was going to be fitted up for the murder.
 
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline faithlilly

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #397 on: July 29, 2021, 11:13:12 AM »
It's Channel 5 - they repeat cheap documentaries like this all the time.

If you're ever in the mood for cheap documentaries on the likes of Sutcliffe, Shipman, West, Bundy, etc, Channel 5 is the place to go.

Wasn’t the BBC the first channel to air a documentary on the case?
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #398 on: July 29, 2021, 11:14:37 AM »
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.

🙄 

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 #399 on: July 29, 2021, 11:15:54 AM »
A sperm head (1) from a woodland, who would have thought?

 8((()*/
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 #400 on: July 29, 2021, 11:18:54 AM »
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.

 *&^^&

And I’m guessing there’s no mention of his ‘threats of suicide’ either ?
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline faithlilly

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #401 on: July 29, 2021, 11:21:03 AM »
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.

Sorry to hear about your health issues, hopefully your road to recovery is a speedy one.

However if you are thinking of writing a book I’d definitely be interested in a copy. Sticking your head above the parapet, as Dr Lean has done, will certainly enhance your credibility. It’s all to easy to preach to the converted but be prepared for a more critical audience.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2177
  • Total likes: 802
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #402 on: July 29, 2021, 11:45:56 AM »
Sorry to hear about your health issues, hopefully your road to recovery is a speedy one.

However if you are thinking of writing a book I’d definitely be interested in a copy. Sticking your head above the parapet, as Dr Lean has done, will certainly enhance your credibility. It’s all to easy to preach to the converted but be prepared for a more critical audience.

I, too, would buy your book, Parky. Get well soon.

Offline Dexter

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #403 on: July 29, 2021, 11:53:27 AM »
I would definitely buy the book too. Hope your health improves soon.

Offline Paranoid Android

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #404 on: July 29, 2021, 12:15:54 PM »
Wasn’t the BBC the first channel to air a documentary on the case?

Aye, but that was a different documentary - that would have been the Frontline Scotland one?

We're talking about the shoddy effort that was aired earlier this year.