"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[Nicholas]

Almost everything happening had been put on hold, some serious health issues

Sorry to hear this Parky! Hope you are getting on top of the health issues!

[Nicholas]

I may start a new thread once I have more areas in place.

And maybe consider putting your research into book format for publication to correct Sandra Leans bs?

[Bullseye]

Get well soon Parky.

I’d buy your book too!

[mrswah]

And maybe consider putting your research into book format for publication to correct Sandra Leans bs?

I don't think SL is a BS--er at all.  However, I would love to read a book that tells the "other side".

[rulesapply]

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?

Be well.

[Nicholas]

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

AR
i'm just wondering if they caught up with the person seen following her that day? im sure i read somewhere that the police done a scene of it a week later and the guy was seen high 5in n huggin a group of boys in the area ! was he ever questioned ?

Lianna Mackie
Not at the time no, it was believed for 11 years that he was never found. However 10 weeks after the murder someone came forward claiming to know his identity. This was never released to the defence. And nothing seems to have been done with the information either.
He wasn’t shown in the reconstruction though so not sure what you mean by the police doing a scene of it.

AR
ahh ok, sorry when they were doing the reconstruction the same person was seen meeting his friends at the time, and reported to the police, just wondering if they followed it up? as he quite possibly could of seen or heard something

Lianna Mackie
AR no, it wasn’t during the reconstruction he was seen again, it was weeks later. She told the police exactly who she believed the person to be but it doesn’t seem to have been followed up. And the defence weren’t given the information.

AR
i need to purchase sandra's books i think 😂 everywhere i read stuff they have it wrong, do u have any idea why all the data ie evidence is no longer available anywhere, ive read things on people connected in the past but it all comes up as content not found now, it was a few years ago i read stuff but have they removed it all ?

Lianna Mackie
AR nothing is publicly available in Scotland. You can find appeal papers online. But prosecution and defence papers aren’t released, neither are court transcripts etc.
If there are links no longer working it was either false and removed, or an expired link. Sandra’s book is based off the defence papers, and contains as much as can legally be released so definitely worth buying x

JMR
Lianna Mackie the book will totally blow your mind, I’ve read it twice, there’s so much to try to take in !!!

Julie Henretty
This was a case of Trial by Media thanks to the (mis)information that the police were drip feeding to the press. The entire investigation was a catalogue of failures on the part of the police.

SJD
Sandra Lean was the man thst followed jodi no id,d by someone when he was at the funeral or is thst more bs!!?...

Sandra Lean
SJD He was identified by someone who saw him, in a group of other, similar looking males, on some tv footage - the witness picked him out of that group and was sure (at the time) he was the man s/he'd previously seen walking closely behind Jodi on the evening of June 30th at 5.05pm

SJD
Sandra Lean thats thst cleared up then
Ta

SJD
Why is the fact that there was an unknown males sperm on jodis clothes aswell as sk so overlooked n no mentioned on these pages!!??...

SJD
Surely more needs done to track down this unknown male who's seamen was on her clothes!!??...

Sandra Lean
SJD or males? The problem is, there's nothing that can be done without the samples being released for re-testing. They didn't do it at the time on the basis the test result were either only partial profiles, which (rightly) can't be used to identify any individual (didn't stop them trying to do it with Luke though) - or they came back as "no reportable result." But technology has moved on - there's every possibility those samples could be identified now. Refusing to release them on the grounds that it would be a "fishing expedition" because Luke was convicted would be totally unacceptable, in my opinion. It would also give a very public perception of trying to hide the truth!!!

SJD
Sandra Lean yes but there's also an UNKNOWN MALE ie something that can be retested n maybe point to a potential person of interest etc etc , there's obv someone still out there connected to the crime in one way or another so retesting is a must, dont know why so many don't mention it,unknown dna means therrs someone out there not been brought to book fr whatever role they had in it its quite simple retesting could totally flip this case about n im sure the new lawyers etc r already on this if there any gd at what thry do ,can they manage it though thats another qn but I guarantee there's new findings ,its a certainty its 2021 not 2003 or that!!?

SJD
Sandra Lean think you need to highlight the fact there's a males sperm on her clothes thats two males , ppl just ignoring this fact or what ,dont see anyone talking about it !!??...

Sandra Lean
SJD Lots of people have been talking about unidentified male DNA on the clothing etc. The reason I said "males" (rather than "a male") is because the unidentified partial profiles could indicate more than one male - it's dangerous to jump to the conclusion that all (or even some) of those partials originated from a single male, even though that is exactly what the prosecution suggested back in 2004/5.

SJD
Sandra Lean wasn't there a full sample that was checked against other ppl of interest though n came bk as unknown !!? Or was it a partial ....pretty sure it was a full sample ,but u can clarify!!??...

Lianna Mackie
SJD the full samples were matched.

SJD
Lianna Mackie not if there's no match though there can be full dna profiles ie sperm that don't match with anyone surely!!?...unknown isn't partial or unreportable its unknown!!??...

Sandra Lean
SJD I think I understand the questions here - please bear with me, this stuff gets mega complicated.
There was one full DNA profile on Jodi's clothing- that was matched to the DNA profile of SK.

Other partial DNA profiles were also found on the clothing, Jodi's body, etc - none of those was a full profile, some of them came back "unknown male", some of them, "unreportable result".  Let me make that doubly clear - the only full profile was SK's. However, the prosecution muddied the waters by claiming that rainwater had "diffused" forensic material (semen, in particular) to other parts of the t shirt and underwear. That "diffusion" could only have come from a singular source - i.e. the only known full profile on the t-shirt! (If the semen had been diffused from anywhere else, on a freshly washed t-shirt, I'd love to see the explanation of how that happened  - where did the original semen, from which the diffusion then took place, come from, if not the only full and identified sample on the t-shirt?)

Still with me?

The other full DNA profile eventually found was from semen from the condom man, JaF. If the partials on Jodi's clothing, etc, came from that profile, we're back to the same problem. The other samples were partials - no way of saying for sure whether they came from that profile and were "diffused" by rainwater. But it would be odd, I think, for a deposit to have survived a wash cycle to leave enough material to then be transferred by rainwater, but a fresh sample (for example, deposited by condom man)  not to have  left an identifiable sample - the latter would surely have been a far stronger source?

This is incredibly complicated stuff, it's Friday night and I don't think my brain can take much more tonight!!! Get back to you all over the weekend

SJD
Sandra Lean right well thst clears that up too then , no guaranteed theres someone else out there then but it is possible with the amount of seamen on her clothes, or it couldv been just from one person ,ie transference from the stain to other parts due to rain, got you,get u now,,, cheers !!;) ✌

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.

[Nicholas]

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?

The ‘case files’ will include various documents; not all of which would be witness statements

I suspect Sandra Lean will have also quoted from other material such as ‘informants’ information eg: a person who phoned the police to tell them they thought they saw so un so here or there or whatever and who won’t necessarily have made a formal statement

[rulesapply]

The ‘case files’ will include various documents; not all of which would be witness statements

I suspect Sandra Lean will have also quoted from other material such as ‘informants’ information eg: a person who phoned the police to tell them they thought they saw so un so here or there or whatever and who won’t necessarily have made a formal statement

Yup! ALL these people coming forward now! You're adults now, why go to Sandra Lean? Go to the police. Different police force, 20 years on. Go to the police.

[faithlilly]

Yup! ALL these people coming forward now! You're adults now, why go to Sandra Lean? Go to the police. Different police force, 20 years on. Go to the police.

Just how interested do you think the police would be in new information when they believe they have their man?

[rulesapply]

Just how interested do you think the police would be in new information when they believe they have their man?

I don't know.  I suppose the only way to know is to try. Have you tried?

[faithlilly]

I don't know.  I suppose the only way to know is to try. Have you tried?

Why would I try?

[rulesapply]

Why would I try?

Surely anyone who believes a miscarriage of justice has taken place, should try? Isn't that the point of this campaign? What do you mean, why should you try? Isn't that what you're supposed to be doing?

[faithlilly]

Surely anyone who believes a miscarriage of justice has taken place, should try? Isn't that the point of this campaign? What do you mean, why should you try? Isn't that what you're supposed to be doing?

 

You seem to be confusing yourself. Why would I go to the police with new information when I have none?

[rulesapply]

 

You seem to be confusing yourself. Why would I go to the police with new information when I have none?

Nope! You have to stop this assumption that I am doing something to myself. It's manipulative and weird. Too many assumptions on your part,  ktoo personal and completely off topic.

[rulesapply]

 

You seem to be confusing yourself. Why would I go to the police with new information when I have none?

If you have no proof of anything,  what is the campaign based on?