"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[faithlilly]

I didn't take your question to mean that Faithlilly is Sandra Lean because I don't think so anyway. I took your question to mean, either Faithlilly or SL. It's still a good question to either. The full question, I mean. I'd be interested in seeing it being answered fully.

Could you please explain why asking me about a matter I had no input in was ‘a good question’ ?

[rulesapply]

My question to faithlilly/ms.lean
What was the thought prossess using the morbid image of a whilted & dying sunflower on the cover of I.B?
A very beautiful and noble flower that symbolises her life.
Don't you think that's distasteful, even an insult to her memory?

I was sad to hear about Alice Walker's death. I heard and read enough good about her to cancel out any attempts at negative.

[Nicholas]

What lessons, if any, did Sandra Lean learn following the exposure of Simon Halls guilt in 2012/2013?

15th November 2010
Sandra Lean
‘I am finished with MoJ work. I intended to bow out in October, but was talked around by many people at the UAI day. That was a mistake. I will finish Luke's case, and that's it. I have nothing left to give.’

1st January 2011 - re Simon Hall’s appeal verdict
Sandra Lean - ‘skeleton statements’
Conviction overturned, no re-trial
‘We are obviously delighted that the Court of Appeal has finally recognised what we have been telling them  all along – Simon was always innocent of this crime. There will be many issues to be addressed in the coming months, including questions regarding why evidence pointing to other suspects was never properly investigated, and why it has taken so long to get to this stage. Bearing in mind that the real perpetrators may yet be brought to trial, and they deserve a fair trial, which is something not afforded to Simon, I cannot go into too much detail about the other evidence at this time. However, should the authorities fail to re-open the investigation into Mrs Albert’s death and pursue the real murderers, then we will not hesitate to make public everything we have uncovered. One way or another, the whole truth will come out, we will make sure of it.

Conviction quashed, Re-trial ordered.
‘Although we are pleased that the Court of Appeal has finally recognised that the conviction of Simon was flawed, we are disappointed in the decision to stage a re-trial. Although I am unable to say too much at this stage, the CPS knew about several other pieces of evidence pointing away from Simon and towards another perpetrator right from the beginning of this case.
It is shameful that it has taken this long for them to admit this conviction was unsafe, and an outrage that an innocent  man must remain in prison awaiting another trial, when the original case against him has collapsed. Simon has already lost more than eight years of his life to this disgrace, and now must wait for the system to set up yet another ordeal in his fight to prove his innocence.
However, we are confident that the re-trial will exonerate Simon completely, and he will finally walk out of prison the way he walked in – innocent.
Sandra Lean, who featured Simon’s case in her book “No Smoke” said this morning, “What today’s  decision means is that the British Justice system would rather allow murderers to walk among us, and innocent men to languish in jails for crimes they did not commit, than simply admit they got it wrong. Given that the DPP himself said that without the fibre evidence, there was no case, this re-trial appears to be nothing more than a face-saving exercise from a prosecution machine that cannot accept its own failings. Perhaps the best that can be said about it is that it offers the opportunity for Simon to finally clear his name.”

Conviction Upheld
‘This decision is an affront to justice. The CPS knows that there was another burglary that evening in Capel. They know that the SOCOs went directly from  that crime scene to the murder scene. They know that there was DNA on the knife that did not belong to Simon, that the original fibre investigation concluded no match for the fibres, and that the jury was misled into believing that the knife that was used to kill Mrs Albert must have come from an opened drawer in her own kitchen.
They also know that another man confessed to this murder. So why do they insist on keeping an innocent man in prison, and refusing to acknowledge the existence of this other evidence? What can possibly be gained by allowing the real perpetrators to remain free and unpunished?
We will not rest until the whole truth of this case has been made public, and that includes the collusion and cover-up which has allowed this gross miscarriage of justice to persist for so long, and which, sadly, in light of today’s decision, will be allowed to continue.
We will never give up the fight for justice for Simon. The truth will come out – all of it. The DPP himself said that without the fibre evidence, there was no case. The fibre evidence has now been discredited – why is Simon to remain in prison for another man’s crime?
Sandra Lean, who featured Simon’s case in her book “No Smoke” said this morning, “This is a dark day for British Justice. This decision tells us that the justice system in this country would rather allow murderers to walk among us, and innocent men to languish in prison for crimes they did not commit, than simply admit, “We got it wrong.” Any other industry behaving in this way would be closed down – the justice industry is answerable to no-one. The fight for Simon Hall’s freedom goes on.”

Excerpts from witness statement of an ex senior manager of killer Simon Halls dated 29th November 2002


‘…. in a meeting in which HALL stated that he “was under suspicion for murder” and that this is why the police had examined his vehicle at 24/7’s premises the previous evening

I was surprised by this revelation but maintained my composure

Simon informed us that it was an ‘old lady’ that had been murdered in December, and that she had been a friend of his parents. He said that he knew her, that she had visited his house with her dog. I assume HALL meant his parents house.

He also said words to the effect that he was ‘concerned’ that the police had examined his car because of what I understood was that the murdered lady, together with her dog, had both been in the vehicle.

He was concerned that there might be a ‘trace’ in his vehicle which might link him with the offence. I recall him speaking about some sort of ‘carpet fibres’ which struck me as remarkable, as I would not have expected this sort of comment to be made.



‘From my position being responsible for the management of Simon, I did not feel it was my place to make any assumptions or judgements in respect of what he had told ‘The Meeting’, in confidence.

Simon was offered support from colleagues and I, and we suggested that he might wish to take some time off as he had had a traumatic time. He declined this offer, preferring to remain at work and continue as usual. He was informed that support was available and that I would as a matter of course, speak with both the companions Human Resources department and the police.

In respect of Simons other colleagues and workmates, it was agreed that should anyone ask about the police interest in his vehicle, that it would be appropriate to say that the vehicle had been previously stolen and that that is why the police were interested in it, and subsequently examined it.

[Nicholas]

Excerpts from witness statement of an ex senior manager of killer Simon Halls dated 29th November 2002


‘…. in a meeting in which HALL stated that he “was under suspicion for murder” and that this is why the police had examined his vehicle at 24/7’s premises the previous evening

I was surprised by this revelation but maintained my composure

Simon informed us that it was an ‘old lady’ that had been murdered in December, and that she had been a friend of his parents. He said that he knew her, that she had visited his house with her dog. I assume HALL meant his parents house.

He also said words to the effect that he was ‘concerned’ that the police had examined his car because of what I understood was that the murdered lady, together with her dog, had both been in the vehicle.

He was concerned that there might be a ‘trace’ in his vehicle which might link him with the offence. I recall him speaking about some sort of ‘carpet fibres’ which struck me as remarkable, as I would not have expected this sort of comment to be made.



‘From my position being responsible for the management of Simon, I did not feel it was my place to make any assumptions or judgements in respect of what he had told ‘The Meeting’, in confidence.

Simon was offered support from colleagues and I, and we suggested that he might wish to take some time off as he had had a traumatic time. He declined this offer, preferring to remain at work and continue as usual. He was informed that support was available and that I would as a matter of course, speak with both the companions Human Resources department and the police.

In respect of Simons other colleagues and workmates, it was agreed that should anyone ask about the police interest in his vehicle, that it would be appropriate to say that the vehicle had been previously stolen and that that is why the police were interested in it, and subsequently examined it.

The above are just a few paragraphs taken from ONE persons ONE witness statement (Witnesses often make more than one statement).

The above brief excerpts give an idea of how lies are told, by whom and of the reasonings for the lies

‘In respect of Simons other colleagues and workmates, it was agreed that should anyone ask about the police interest in his vehicle, that it would be appropriate to say that the vehicle had been previously stolen and that that is why the police were interested in it, and subsequently examined it.

What the witness doesn’t tell police and may not have known at the time they made their police witness statement is that Simon Hall had purchased a car from one of his work colleagues who this witness - a senior manager - was also ‘responsible for the management of’

‘From my position being responsible for the management of Simon, I did not feel it was my place to make any assumptions or judgements in respect of what he had told ‘The Meeting’, in confidence.

[Nicholas]

What lessons, if any, did Sandra Lean learn following the exposure of Simon Halls guilt in 2012/2013?

15th November 2010
Sandra Lean
‘I am finished with MoJ work. I intended to bow out in October, but was talked around by many people at the UAI day. That was a mistake. I will finish Luke's case, and that's it. I have nothing left to give.’

1st January 2011 - re Simon Hall’s appeal verdict
Sandra Lean - ‘skeleton statements’
Conviction overturned, no re-trial
‘We are obviously delighted that the Court of Appeal has finally recognised what we have been telling them  all along – Simon was always innocent of this crime. There will be many issues to be addressed in the coming months, including questions regarding why evidence pointing to other suspects was never properly investigated, and why it has taken so long to get to this stage. Bearing in mind that the real perpetrators may yet be brought to trial, and they deserve a fair trial, which is something not afforded to Simon, I cannot go into too much detail about the other evidence at this time. However, should the authorities fail to re-open the investigation into Mrs Albert’s death and pursue the real murderers, then we will not hesitate to make public everything we have uncovered. One way or another, the whole truth will come out, we will make sure of it.

Conviction quashed, Re-trial ordered.
‘Although we are pleased that the Court of Appeal has finally recognised that the conviction of Simon was flawed, we are disappointed in the decision to stage a re-trial. Although I am unable to say too much at this stage, the CPS knew about several other pieces of evidence pointing away from Simon and towards another perpetrator right from the beginning of this case.
It is shameful that it has taken this long for them to admit this conviction was unsafe, and an outrage that an innocent  man must remain in prison awaiting another trial, when the original case against him has collapsed. Simon has already lost more than eight years of his life to this disgrace, and now must wait for the system to set up yet another ordeal in his fight to prove his innocence.
However, we are confident that the re-trial will exonerate Simon completely, and he will finally walk out of prison the way he walked in – innocent.
Sandra Lean, who featured Simon’s case in her book “No Smoke” said this morning, “What today’s  decision means is that the British Justice system would rather allow murderers to walk among us, and innocent men to languish in jails for crimes they did not commit, than simply admit they got it wrong. Given that the DPP himself said that without the fibre evidence, there was no case, this re-trial appears to be nothing more than a face-saving exercise from a prosecution machine that cannot accept its own failings. Perhaps the best that can be said about it is that it offers the opportunity for Simon to finally clear his name.”

Conviction Upheld
‘This decision is an affront to justice. The CPS knows that there was another burglary that evening in Capel. They know that the SOCOs went directly from  that crime scene to the murder scene. They know that there was DNA on the knife that did not belong to Simon, that the original fibre investigation concluded no match for the fibres, and that the jury was misled into believing that the knife that was used to kill Mrs Albert must have come from an opened drawer in her own kitchen.
They also know that another man confessed to this murder. So why do they insist on keeping an innocent man in prison, and refusing to acknowledge the existence of this other evidence? What can possibly be gained by allowing the real perpetrators to remain free and unpunished?
We will not rest until the whole truth of this case has been made public, and that includes the collusion and cover-up which has allowed this gross miscarriage of justice to persist for so long, and which, sadly, in light of today’s decision, will be allowed to continue.
We will never give up the fight for justice for Simon. The truth will come out – all of it. The DPP himself said that without the fibre evidence, there was no case. The fibre evidence has now been discredited – why is Simon to remain in prison for another man’s crime?
Sandra Lean, who featured Simon’s case in her book “No Smoke” said this morning, “This is a dark day for British Justice. This decision tells us that the justice system in this country would rather allow murderers to walk among us, and innocent men to languish in prison for crimes they did not commit, than simply admit, “We got it wrong.” Any other industry behaving in this way would be closed down – the justice industry is answerable to no-one. The fight for Simon Hall’s freedom goes on.”

Except from Sandra Lean’s book ‘No Smoke’

‘…. Mrs Albert was almost definitely killed sometime prior to 3am, when Simon did have an alibi, the fibres found at the scene could have implicated hundreds, and perhaps thousands of other people, and, importantly the Crown had failed to establish a time of death, so how could the judge feasibly claim that Simon’s defence was that he was not at the scene of the crime “when it was committed.”

 

[Nicholas]

Excerpts from witness statement of an ex senior manager of killer Simon Halls dated 29th November 2002


‘…. in a meeting in which HALL stated that he “was under suspicion for murder” and that this is why the police had examined his vehicle at 24/7’s premises the previous evening

I was surprised by this revelation but maintained my composure

Simon informed us that it was an ‘old lady’ that had been murdered in December, and that she had been a friend of his parents. He said that he knew her, that she had visited his house with her dog. I assume HALL meant his parents house..

There is no mention in Sandra Leans book ‘No Smoke’ of the above

Nor is there any mention by Sandra Lean in her book about the lies being told by this ONE witness, for example, about why Simon Halls car was searched by police on the company’s premises

This witnesses evidence played a key part during killer Simon Halls murder trial because she said he had told her Joan Albert ‘had visited his house with her dog’ and ‘the murdered lady, together with her dog, had both been in the vehicle’

‘Simon informed us that it was an ‘old lady’ that had been murdered in December, and that she had been a friend of his parents. He said that he knew her, that she had visited his house with her dog. I assume HALL meant his parents house.

He also said words to the effect that he was ‘concerned’ that the police had examined his car because of what I understood was that the murdered lady, together with her dog, had both been in the vehicle.

[Nicholas]

Excerpts from witness statement of an ex senior manager of killer Simon Halls dated 29th November 2002


‘From my position being responsible for the management of Simon, I did not feel it was my place to make any assumptions or judgements in respect of what he had told ‘The Meeting’, in confidence.

Simon was offered support from colleagues and I, and we suggested that he might wish to take some time off as he had had a traumatic time. He declined this offer, preferring to remain at work and continue as usual. He was informed that support was available and that I would as a matter of course, speak with both the companions Human Resources department and the police.

In respect of Simons other colleagues and workmates, it was agreed that should anyone ask about the police interest in his vehicle, that it would be appropriate to say that the vehicle had been previously stolen and that that is why the police were interested in it, and subsequently examined it.

How did the work colleague (Who had sold his car to Simon Hall in 2002) feel about this senior manager knowingly or unknowing throwing him and his reputation under the bus by lying - presumably to protect Simon Hall’s reputation and any gossip at work

And what impact did this lie ie: ‘it would be appropriate to say that the vehicle had been previously stolen’ have on people’s /work colleagues cognitive biases at the time?

[Nicholas]

What lessons, if any, did Sandra Lean learn following the exposure of Simon Halls guilt in 2012/2013?

15th November 2010
Sandra Lean
‘I am finished with MoJ work. I intended to bow out in October, but was talked around by many people at the UAI day. That was a mistake. I will finish Luke's case, and that's it. I have nothing left to give.’

1st January 2011 - re Simon Hall’s appeal verdict
Sandra Lean - ‘skeleton statements’
Conviction overturned, no re-trial
‘We are obviously delighted that the Court of Appeal has finally recognised what we have been telling them  all along – Simon was always innocent of this crime. There will be many issues to be addressed in the coming months, including questions regarding why evidence pointing to other suspects was never properly investigated, and why it has taken so long to get to this stage. Bearing in mind that the real perpetrators may yet be brought to trial, and they deserve a fair trial, which is something not afforded to Simon, I cannot go into too much detail about the other evidence at this time. However, should the authorities fail to re-open the investigation into Mrs Albert’s death and pursue the real murderers, then we will not hesitate to make public everything we have uncovered. One way or another, the whole truth will come out, we will make sure of it.

Conviction quashed, Re-trial ordered.
‘Although we are pleased that the Court of Appeal has finally recognised that the conviction of Simon was flawed, we are disappointed in the decision to stage a re-trial. Although I am unable to say too much at this stage, the CPS knew about several other pieces of evidence pointing away from Simon and towards another perpetrator right from the beginning of this case.
It is shameful that it has taken this long for them to admit this conviction was unsafe, and an outrage that an innocent  man must remain in prison awaiting another trial, when the original case against him has collapsed. Simon has already lost more than eight years of his life to this disgrace, and now must wait for the system to set up yet another ordeal in his fight to prove his innocence.
However, we are confident that the re-trial will exonerate Simon completely, and he will finally walk out of prison the way he walked in – innocent.
Sandra Lean, who featured Simon’s case in her book “No Smoke” said this morning, “What today’s  decision means is that the British Justice system would rather allow murderers to walk among us, and innocent men to languish in jails for crimes they did not commit, than simply admit they got it wrong. Given that the DPP himself said that without the fibre evidence, there was no case, this re-trial appears to be nothing more than a face-saving exercise from a prosecution machine that cannot accept its own failings. Perhaps the best that can be said about it is that it offers the opportunity for Simon to finally clear his name.”

Conviction Upheld
‘This decision is an affront to justice. The CPS knows that there was another burglary that evening in Capel. They know that the SOCOs went directly from  that crime scene to the murder scene. They know that there was DNA on the knife that did not belong to Simon, that the original fibre investigation concluded no match for the fibres, and that the jury was misled into believing that the knife that was used to kill Mrs Albert must have come from an opened drawer in her own kitchen.
They also know that another man confessed to this murder. So why do they insist on keeping an innocent man in prison, and refusing to acknowledge the existence of this other evidence? What can possibly be gained by allowing the real perpetrators to remain free and unpunished?
We will not rest until the whole truth of this case has been made public, and that includes the collusion and cover-up which has allowed this gross miscarriage of justice to persist for so long, and which, sadly, in light of today’s decision, will be allowed to continue.
We will never give up the fight for justice for Simon. The truth will come out – all of it. The DPP himself said that without the fibre evidence, there was no case. The fibre evidence has now been discredited – why is Simon to remain in prison for another man’s crime?
Sandra Lean, who featured Simon’s case in her book “No Smoke” said this morning, “This is a dark day for British Justice. This decision tells us that the justice system in this country would rather allow murderers to walk among us, and innocent men to languish in prison for crimes they did not commit, than simply admit, “We got it wrong.” Any other industry behaving in this way would be closed down – the justice industry is answerable to no-one. The fight for Simon Hall’s freedom goes on.”

or

What manipulation tactics did Sandra Lean learn ?


Further excerpts from another witness statement re killer Simon Halls murder trial (Excerpts are written in chronological order as they appear in the 23rd October 2002 witness statement)


‘On the evening of Friday 1st February 2002 I went to the old rep public house….’

‘Whilst I was in there I met a man who I know as Simon HALL, he was working in the pub as part of the bar staff. They had a promotional evening for a particular drink called a Sidemick and Simon was going around the pub trying to get people to buy it. He came over and spoke to me and during the evening we got chatting. My friends and I thought he was good looking. Before I left that night Simon asked me if he could have my telephone number and if he could text me on it and I said yes and gave him my number.

‘I remember that on Tuesday 5th March 2003, Simon and I went to Toys R Us in Ipswich. I remember the date because it was the day before the open day in the university. Before going to Toys R Us he took me to his mums home in Capel St Mary. That was the one and only occasion that I spoke about the murder at Capel St Mary, he was chatting to his mum who was saying that the police wanted to speak to Simon and were phoning to see if he was there. Mrs HALL said it was about the lady who lived in Capel and that she couldn’t understand as she used to be really friendly with her.

‘Simon said he was driving around quite late that night and that was why the police wanted to talk to him, also that he had gone over on a few occasions to do odd jobs. his mum also said they had gone over and been friendly with her and chatted

‘Our relationship didn’t last long because he was seeing someone else at the same time he was seeing me, a girl called Phoebe and we had a few fillings outs over it. I saw them together in the Old Rep one night and I asked him about it and he admitted he was seeing her. This was probably at the end of February beginning of March.

‘He always seemed really cheerful and I never saw him behave aggressively.

I think that he was living with Phoebe and a girl called Kelsey somewhere in Ipswich when I knew him. He told me he didn’t want to live there anymore and that he wanted to move back in with his mum and dad but he didn’t know whether they’d have him.


Sandra Lean again omits this girlfriend (Another victim of killer Simon Halls) and the context of her evidence from her book ‘No Smoke’

And she also chooses to omits to make any comparisons between Halls behaviour and killer Luke Mitchell’s regarding their numerous girlfriends at/or around the time they chose to murder

‘Our relationship didn’t last long because he was seeing someone else at the same time he was seeing me’

Nor does she mention the quite apparent gaslighting of either killer

‘I think that he was living with Phoebe and a girl called Kelsey somewhere in Ipswich when I knew him. He told me he didn’t want to live there anymore and that he wanted to move back in with his mum and dad but he didn’t know whether they’d have him.

[Nicholas]

or

What manipulation tactics did Sandra Lean learn ?

and how does Sandra Lean exploit peoples perceptions and cognitive biases

Killer Luke Mitchell’s also attempted/attempts to use these exploitative tactics in his quite apparent innocence fraud

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean again omits this girlfriend (Another victim of killer Simon Halls) and the context of her evidence from her book ‘No Smoke’

What does Sandra Lean say in her second book about what Corinne Mitchell told police about her son Luke’s numerous girlfriends ?

And what do Corinne Mitchell’s witness statements/police interviews reveal regarding these factors?

[Nicholas]

and how does Sandra Lean exploit peoples perceptions and cognitive biases

Killer Luke Mitchell’s also attempted/attempts to use these exploitative tactics in his quite apparent innocence fraud

Paul Martyn Dalling
The Hardest Lesson to teach is educating people not to allow ignorance be a part of their lives , because being ignorant strengthens the Courrupted which ultimately affects as all wether it be Directly or indirectly.

Sandra Lean
Paul Martyn Dalling I prefer educating people to be aware that they don't yet know what they don't know - being accused of ignorance can often feel like an insult. The suggestion that you don't yet know what you don't know is intriguing, encourages curiosity and further enquiry - who knows what might be found on that route????

Paul Martyn Dalling
Sandra Lean I understand but the word accusing  people of ignorance is a bit strong its not ment to offend.
Most people don't want to go into Miscarriages of Justice in depth but a simple acknowledgement would go a long way. You only have to look on social media when somebody puts a post up of a barmaid carrying several pints of lager on a tray and slips on a wet floor, and that post gets 20million views & 80.000 coments. And then you have a Human being incarcerated for 22 years and innocent lost in system of Courruption with no empathy from their fellow human being is it because they weren't carrying 7 pints on a tray and slips on a wet floor or is it they accept the story the local Authorities have told them how that person got to be in prison and serving 22 years.
Element of ignorance would you say or just insult Respectfully.

Sandra Lean
I agree that there is widespread ignorance of the problem - in my thesis, I explored the concept of "confident ignorance" - where people treat their beliefs about what can happen in the justice system as factual knowledge. Your point is that many people are not interested - I agree, but I believe the only way to get them interested is to arouse their curiosity. Beginning from a perspective that informs people of their ignorance isn't, in my opinion, the most effective way to engage them.

Aka the Dunning–Kruger effect

‘…a hypothetical cognitive bias stating that people with low ability at a task overestimate their own ability, and that people with high ability at a task underestimate their own ability.

As described by social psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the bias results from an internal illusion in people of low ability and from an external misperception in people of high ability; that is, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others".[1] It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from people's inability to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their level of competence
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

[rulesapply]

Paul Martyn Dalling
The Hardest Lesson to teach is educating people not to allow ignorance be a part of their lives , because being ignorant strengthens the Courrupted which ultimately affects as all wether it be Directly or indirectly.

Sandra Lean
Paul Martyn Dalling I prefer educating people to be aware that they don't yet know what they don't know - being accused of ignorance can often feel like an insult. The suggestion that you don't yet know what you don't know is intriguing, encourages curiosity and further enquiry - who knows what might be found on that route????

Paul Martyn Dalling
Sandra Lean I understand but the word accusing  people of ignorance is a bit strong its not ment to offend.
Most people don't want to go into Miscarriages of Justice in depth but a simple acknowledgement would go a long way. You only have to look on social media when somebody puts a post up of a barmaid carrying several pints of lager on a tray and slips on a wet floor, and that post gets 20million views & 80.000 coments. And then you have a Human being incarcerated for 22 years and innocent lost in system of Courruption with no empathy from their fellow human being is it because they weren't carrying 7 pints on a tray and slips on a wet floor or is it they accept the story the local Authorities have told them how that person got to be in prison and serving 22 years.
Element of ignorance would you say or just insult Respectfully.

Sandra Lean
I agree that there is widespread ignorance of the problem - in my thesis, I explored the concept of "confident ignorance" - where people treat their beliefs about what can happen in the justice system as factual knowledge. Your point is that many people are not interested - I agree, but I believe the only way to get them interested is to arouse their curiosity. Beginning from a perspective that informs people of their ignorance isn't, in my opinion, the most effective way to engage them.

Aka the Dunning–Kruger effect

‘…a hypothetical cognitive bias stating that people with low ability at a task overestimate their own ability, and that people with high ability at a task underestimate their own ability.

As described by social psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the bias results from an internal illusion in people of low ability and from an external misperception in people of high ability; that is, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others".[1] It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from people's inability to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their level of competence
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

Nicholas, Sandra Lean's books wouldn't get over my door. I'm not interested in books that MAY be based on true events.

[Parky41]

Paul Martyn Dalling
The Hardest Lesson to teach is educating people not to allow ignorance be a part of their lives , because being ignorant strengthens the Courrupted which ultimately affects as all wether it be Directly or indirectly.

Sandra Lean
Paul Martyn Dalling I prefer educating people to be aware that they don't yet know what they don't know - being accused of ignorance can often feel like an insult. The suggestion that you don't yet know what you don't know is intriguing, encourages curiosity and further enquiry - who knows what might be found on that route????

Paul Martyn Dalling
Sandra Lean I understand but the word accusing  people of ignorance is a bit strong its not ment to offend.
Most people don't want to go into Miscarriages of Justice in depth but a simple acknowledgement would go a long way. You only have to look on social media when somebody puts a post up of a barmaid carrying several pints of lager on a tray and slips on a wet floor, and that post gets 20million views & 80.000 coments. And then you have a Human being incarcerated for 22 years and innocent lost in system of Courruption with no empathy from their fellow human being is it because they weren't carrying 7 pints on a tray and slips on a wet floor or is it they accept the story the local Authorities have told them how that person got to be in prison and serving 22 years.
Element of ignorance would you say or just insult Respectfully.

Sandra Lean
I agree that there is widespread ignorance of the problem - in my thesis, I explored the concept of "confident ignorance" - where people treat their beliefs about what can happen in the justice system as factual knowledge. Your point is that many people are not interested - I agree, but I believe the only way to get them interested is to arouse their curiosity. Beginning from a perspective that informs people of their ignorance isn't, in my opinion, the most effective way to engage them.

Aka the Dunning–Kruger effect

‘…a hypothetical cognitive bias stating that people with low ability at a task overestimate their own ability, and that people with high ability at a task underestimate their own ability.

As described by social psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger, the bias results from an internal illusion in people of low ability and from an external misperception in people of high ability; that is, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others".[1] It is related to the cognitive bias of illusory superiority and comes from people's inability to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, people cannot objectively evaluate their level of competence
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

"A Little Knowledge Can Lead to Overconfidence Another contributing factor is that sometimes a tiny bit of knowledge on a subject can lead people to mistakenly believe that they know all there is to know about it. As the old saying goes, a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing."( Dunning–Kruger effect)

How much was a little knowledge in 2003 a dangerous thing? to someone without doubt that was confidently ignorant? In IB one makes claim that in the days into weeks of the murder she just knew that the investigation was wrong! That their focus was only upon Mitchell and the police feeding both the media and public opinion. At a time when she knew less of the investigation than the little she still knows? Not being privy to it then and not now. That this woman who mistakenly believed, that she knew just about all that she needed to know by the end of Sept 2003. And it only got worse did it not? At this point the Mitchells were just about to celebrate "the end of a difficult time?" - yet the author claims this is when she began to look into the world of the CJS, on the basis of the Mitchell case when there was no case. - In short, one had already declared Mitchell innocent, by the point of that claimed note through her workplace door. Such was the noise she made CM reached out? So prior to any meet, any arrest, on very little information, Ms Lean had the lad innocent and unfairly treated - this was to be the backbone of her study from around his arrest in 2004.

And it continued, on the basis of declaring Mitchell innocent, of being confidently ignorant, there then appeared another 6 cases where she did the same. 7 cases in total that only a limited amount could be studied upon along with studying the system, (CJS) and by 2007 a book written - and we know with being confidently ignorant the author was wrong on at least three cases. Putting ones stamp on innocence first, then applying what she perceived must be failure in the system? And without doubt, those who mistakenly believe they know just about everything they need to know, do not back down - they are correct. As she points out in IB, that irrespective of guilt the system still failed the public? For in her studies, her conclusions there was in most cases only room for a little doubt, some none, and some nowhere near the "beyond a reasonable doubt" benchmark. -That some should never have went to trial and certainly should not have merited a guilty verdict. - When the clear reality is, that in a period of around 3-yrs, no one could have studied 7/8 cases along with everything on the CJS, and had anywhere near enough knowledge to be making judgement on anything! Not to forget this is inclusive of writing of the book. - Compare this to the 4 yrs of study for one's PHD and we have a general idea of how ludicrous this really was. clearly running before one could even crawl syndrome. Definitely that "a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing" - for it all kicked off with the little one knew of the murder of Jodi Jones. To declare the system at fault when knowing absolutely nothing! So innocence on a hunch and the condemnation of the CJS upon personal feelings! Then searching and looking for anything to back up those hunches?!

[Parky41]

and how does Sandra Lean exploit peoples perceptions and cognitive biases

Killer Luke Mitchell’s also attempted/attempts to use these exploitative tactics in his quite apparent innocence fraud

We have IB and the continuation of "confident ignorance" - Where those who have been manipulated believe they know everything on the case and become preachers themselves of it. The clear manipulation used in the book upon cognitive bias - She clearly tells them that "everything" publicly known and otherwise is within the pages of the book. For the first time in 15-years she has put it all together. Making the book her self bibliography. On the basis it is claimed to be her fight against the "mighty giant that is the Criminal Justice System" Using the murder and her intimate relationship with the Mitchells as a basis to arouse interest, in her opinions of the flaws in the system. Hitting ones subconscious time and again. Implanting those seeds psychologically. - word hypnosis. And the irony of not wanting to claim people to be ignorant of the flaws but teach them. However, if they do not abide by the teachings they are condemned as being "willfully ignorant"

The reality of course - that these 378 pages of large text do not even scratch the surface of the case against Mitchell. More so when the majority of the book is made up of irrelevance. Sheer deflective tactics with the multiple smokescreens. Basing any relevance upon Mitchells word where the author uses him as the basis of "facts" - hardly surprising therefore that those who put blind faith in the author - come away with those cries of innocence, of a fit up, of the case not being worthy to see the light of a courtroom. They fail to see the simplicity that it is 'all too easy'

[Nicholas]

How much was a little knowledge in 2003 a dangerous thing? to someone without doubt that was confidently ignorant? In IB one makes claim that in the days into weeks of the murder she just knew that the investigation was wrong! That their focus was only upon Mitchell and the police feeding both the media and public opinion. At a time when she knew less of the investigation than the little she still knows? Not being privy to it then and not now. That this woman who mistakenly believed, that she knew just about all that she needed to know by the end of Sept 2003. And it only got worse did it not? At this point the Mitchells were just about to celebrate "the end of a difficult time?" - yet the author claims this is when she began to look into the world of the CJS, on the basis of the Mitchell case when there was no case. - In short, one had already declared Mitchell innocent, by the point of that claimed note through her workplace door. Such was the noise she made CM reached out? So prior to any meet, any arrest, on very little information, Ms Lean had the lad innocent and unfairly treated - this was to be the backbone of her study from around his arrest in 2004.

And it continued, on the basis of declaring Mitchell innocent, of being confidently ignorant, there then appeared another 6 cases where she did the same. 7 cases in total that only a limited amount could be studied upon along with studying the system, (CJS) and by 2007 a book written - and we know with being confidently ignorant the author was wrong on at least three cases. Putting ones stamp on innocence first, then applying what she perceived must be failure in the system? And without doubt, those who mistakenly believe they know just about everything they need to know, do not back down - they are correct. As she points out in IB, that irrespective of guilt the system still failed the public? For in her studies, her conclusions there was in most cases only room for a little doubt, some none, and some nowhere near the "beyond a reasonable doubt" benchmark. -That some should never have went to trial and certainly should not have merited a guilty verdict. - When the clear reality is, that in a period of around 3-yrs, no one could have studied 7/8 cases along with everything on the CJS, and had anywhere near enough knowledge to be making judgement on anything! Not to forget this is inclusive of writing of the book. - Compare this to the 4 yrs of study for one's PHD and we have a general idea of how ludicrous this really was. clearly running before one could even crawl syndrome. Definitely that "a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing" - for it all kicked off with the little one knew of the murder of Jodi Jones. To declare the system at fault when knowing absolutely nothing! So innocence on a hunch and the condemnation of the CJS upon personal feelings! Then searching and looking for anything to back up those hunches?!

Another ‘whining’ murderer Sandra Lean chooses to promote the innocence fraud of ⬇️



Scots mum tells of relief as murdering thug who dragged her to court 52 TIMES runs out of legal options - Lorna Greenan Sept 2015

‘A WHINING murderer who forced his victim’s mum to go to court 52 times to watch him try to cheat justice has finally run out of legal options.

Vicious knifeman Sean Toal told police he enjoyed stabbing Paul Gerard “PG” McGilvray to death.

But after he was jailed for at least 15 years, he and his lawyers spent a decade trying every method they could think of to challenge his conviction.

Now, after 52 hearings and a cost to the public of tens of thousands of pounds, Toal at last has nowhere else to go after an appeal to the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission was unsuccessful.

And Paul Gerard’s mother Roslyn said: “If it was up to me, he’d be made to restart his sentence from the day his last appeal was rejected.

“It’s taken 10 years, but finally Toal can take this no further. He’s guilty as sin.

“He still insists he’s the innocent victim but there was only one victim in all this, and that was Paul Gerard.”

Burly six-footer Toal launched a savage, unprovoked attack on Paul Gerard, 20, who was slightly built and only 5ft 8in, when the victim arrived at a house party in Coatbridge to collect his girlfriend.

After stabbing Paul Gerard, Toal chased him and knifed him again, in the head, as he lay dying. He bragged to detectives that he enjoyed it.

Witnesses saw Toal, 20, at the scene and Paul Gerard’s blood was on his T-shirt. Jurors took little more than an hour to convict him by majority.

But after he was sentenced in 2005, Toal began a marathon, convoluted process of appeals.

He complained about the eyewitness evidence against him, about the way the trial judge directed the jury and about being interviewed by police without a lawyer.

The case dragged on through a record 35 procedural hearings, partly because Toal’s legal team kept changing their arguments.

Three appeal judges said in 2012 that the system had given them far too much “latitude”.

The fact Toal has finally exhausted his appeals will do little to ease Roslyn’s grief. She told our sister paper The Hamilton Advertiser: “He only has five years left in jail. We have a lifetime sentence.

“He will still be able to get on with life, maybe marry and have children. Paul Gerard never had that chance.

“I have to live my life knowing my son had to run for his life that night, and died in the street.”

Roslyn is now asking the courts to finally release Paul Gerard’s clothes and phone, which have been held by the Crown throughout the marathon appeal process. The Crown Office said they would try to help.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scots-mum-tells-relief-murdering-6414735

Sean Toal
@SeanToal12
During my appeal my legal team found damming forensic evidence to show I did not commit the crime. The sun, a red top paper, called it ‘bladestunner’. The court rejected this using a legal concept called ‘finality and certainty’. Does anyone even know what this is? Justice Face with monocle
6:33 PM · Aug 28, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Replying to
@SeanToal12
 and
@supportforallUK
I'll vouch for every word of this tweet. In this case, the murder weapon, with prints of the killer and blood of the deceased was dismissed by a pathologist:Wrongly! Pro Pounder, highlighted mistake then agreed with original pathologist, snd still  appeal court dismissed it Pouting face
7:23 PM · Aug 28, 2021·Twitter for Android

Sandra Lean
@SandraLean5
Replying to
@SeanToal12
They can investigate 30 year old cold cases, but reject solid evidence of innocence in less than 10 years, by claiming it's "taken too long" to bring before the court. It's a disgrace.
9:26 AM · Sep 2, 2021·Twitter Web App