"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[Bullseye]

I don’t know about anyone else but I feel this thread should be split into 2 parts, one regards to Luke and Jodi and the information in the book that relates to this case and another for Sandra and any comments people may have on her or any other aspects of her other book No Smoke. These threads are meant to be about luke and Jodi, I understand Sandra is a big part of that and have no problem when the comments are about them but so many times the threads are flooded with long messages regards Sandra, Simon Hall and other people Sandra has any links to. Everyone entitled to their opinion and sharing information, I have no issues with people posting anything but im just here to find out information on Luke and Jodi and find it difficult sometime because the conversation turns to Sandra and points that are not relevant to Luke, if we have a dedicated thread for anything related to Sandra, her other cases, her other book No Smoke or any comments on her that is nothing to do with Luke and Jodi I think it would help clear the threads up a bit, we can always refer to posts on the ‘Sandra thread’ where and when you think the info might help and people can check it if they want.
 
Sorry, It might just be me, but im just tired of reading through pages of stuff on Sandra when Im just looking for info on Luke and Jodi.

[Nicholas]

The reality of course

⬇️

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383172.html#msg383172

"When toxic types can’t control the way you see yourself, they start to control how others see you; they play the martyr while you’re labeled the toxic one. A smear campaign is a preemptive strike to sabotage your reputation and slander your name so that you won’t have a support network to fall back on lest you decide to detach and cut ties with this toxic person. They may even stalk and harass you or the people you know as a way to supposedly “expose” the truth about you; this exposure acts as a way to hide their own abusive behavior while projecting it onto you.

Bringing in the opinion, perspective or suggested threat of another person into the dynamic of an interaction is known as “triangulation.” Often used to validate the toxic person’s abuse while invalidating the victim’s reactions to abuse, triangulation can also work to manufacture love triangles that leave you feeling unhinged and insecure.

Malignant narcissists love to triangulate their significant other with strangers, co-workers, ex-partners, friends and even family members in order to evoke jealousy and uncertainty in you. They also use the opinions of others to validate their point of view.

This is a diversionary tactic meant to pull your attention away from their abusive behavior and into a false image of them as a desirable, sought after person. It also leaves you questioning yourself – if Mary did agree with Tom, doesn’t that mean that you must be wrong? The truth is, narcissists love to “report back” falsehoods about others say about you, when in fact, they are the ones smearing you.

Toxic individuals lure you into a false sense of security simply to have a platform to showcase their cruelty. Baiting you into a mindless, chaotic argument can escalate into a showdown rather quickly with someone who doesn’t know the meaning of respect. A simple disagreement may bait you into responding politely initially, until it becomes clear that the person has a malicious motive of tearing you down.

By “baiting” you with a seemingly innocuous comment disguised as a rational one, they can then begin to play with you. Remember: narcissistic abusers have learned about your insecurities, the unsettling catchphrases that interrupt your confidence, and the disturbing topics that reenact your wounds – and they use this knowledge maliciously to provoke you. After you’ve fallen for it, hook line and sinker, they’ll stand back and innocently ask whether you’re “okay” and talk about how they didn’t “mean” to agitate you. This faux innocence works to catch you off guard and make you believe that they truly didn’t intend to hurt you, until it happens so often you can’t deny the reality of their malice any longer.

[Nicholas]

I don’t know about anyone else but I feel this thread should be split into 2 parts, one regards to Luke and Jodi and the information in the book that relates to this case and another for Sandra and any comments people may have on her or any other aspects of her other book No Smoke. These threads are meant to be about luke and Jodi, I understand Sandra is a big part of that and have no problem when the comments are about them but so many times the threads are flooded with long messages regards Sandra, Simon Hall and other people Sandra has any links to. Everyone entitled to their opinion and sharing information, I have no issues with people posting anything but im just here to find out information on Luke and Jodi and find it difficult sometime because the conversation turns to Sandra and points that are not relevant to Luke, if we have a dedicated thread for anything related to Sandra, her other cases, her other book No Smoke or any comments on her that is nothing to do with Luke and Jodi I think it would help clear the threads up a bit, we can always refer to posts on the ‘Sandra thread’ where and when you think the info might help and people can check it if they want.
 
Sorry, It might just be me, but im just tired of reading through pages of stuff on Sandra when Im just looking for info on Luke and Jodi.

Does Sandra Leans book ‘innocents betrayed’ (IB) include copies in full of the actual police witness statements she relies on to weave her - and the Mitchell’s - false narrative and what do you really know about the witnesses whom she relies on for the commentary of her book? Have any of them omitted anything that could change the narrative for example? Have they lied in parts of their statements but told the truth elsewhere?

Is Sandra Leans interpretation of the contents of witness statements wrong? And would you know if it were?

What has Sandra Lean omitted from IB - do you know?

Only 378 page!?

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.

How many pages do you think the entire case files would take up?

I’m not fussed whether or not threads are split in 2

But if I were publicly supporting a sadistic child murderer like Luke Mitchell I would want to know as much as possible about the integrity - or lack of - of the authors/actors promoting the cause

[mrswah]

I don’t know about anyone else but I feel this thread should be split into 2 parts, one regards to Luke and Jodi and the information in the book that relates to this case and another for Sandra and any comments people may have on her or any other aspects of her other book No Smoke. These threads are meant to be about luke and Jodi, I understand Sandra is a big part of that and have no problem when the comments are about them but so many times the threads are flooded with long messages regards Sandra, Simon Hall and other people Sandra has any links to. Everyone entitled to their opinion and sharing information, I have no issues with people posting anything but im just here to find out information on Luke and Jodi and find it difficult sometime because the conversation turns to Sandra and points that are not relevant to Luke, if we have a dedicated thread for anything related to Sandra, her other cases, her other book No Smoke or any comments on her that is nothing to do with Luke and Jodi I think it would help clear the threads up a bit, we can always refer to posts on the ‘Sandra thread’ where and when you think the info might help and people can check it if they want.
 
Sorry, It might just be me, but im just tired of reading through pages of stuff on Sandra when Im just looking for info on Luke and Jodi.

I agree with you. This thread is supposed to be about Sandra Lean's book, "Innocents Betrayed."

[mrswah]

Please keep on topic . This thread is NOT about Sandra Lean , or her involvement in other cases.  It is about her book "Innocents Betrayed."

Thank you.

[Nicholas]

I don’t know about anyone else but I feel this thread should be split into 2 parts, one regards to Luke and Jodi and the information in the book that relates to this case and another for Sandra and any comments people may have on her or any other aspects of her other book No Smoke. These threads are meant to be about luke and Jodi, I understand Sandra is a big part of that and have no problem when the comments are about them but so many times the threads are flooded with long messages regards Sandra, Simon Hall and other people Sandra has any links to. Everyone entitled to their opinion and sharing information, I have no issues with people posting anything but im just here to find out information on Luke and Jodi and find it difficult sometime because the conversation turns to Sandra and points that are not relevant to Luke, if we have a dedicated thread for anything related to Sandra, her other cases, her other book No Smoke or any comments on her that is nothing to do with Luke and Jodi I think it would help clear the threads up a bit, we can always refer to posts on the ‘Sandra thread’ where and when you think the info might help and people can check it if they want.
 
Sorry, It might just be me, but im just tired of reading through pages of stuff on Sandra when Im just looking for info on Luke and Jodi.

I agree with you. This thread is supposed to be about Sandra Lean's book, "Innocents Betrayed."

So how many witness statements did Sandra Lean refer to in her 2nd book

And what statements did she omit - do you know?

And do you know how many of the omitted witness statements can turn her false narrative on its head?

[Nicholas]

Please keep on topic . This thread is NOT about Sandra Lean , or her involvement in other cases.  It is about her book "Innocents Betrayed."

Thank you.

You might want to edit the thread title

[Parky41]

Please keep on topic . This thread is NOT about Sandra Lean , or her involvement in other cases.  It is about her book "Innocents Betrayed."

Thank you.

IB includes areas of "No Smoke" - the very reason why it is mentioned. It reflects upon why IB was written? That this "Ordinary" woman decided to take on the "Mighty Giant that is the Criminal Justice System" It speaks of the time of the murder, onto looking into other case and onto "No Smoke" - And as I stated it took around 3-years just to study not only 7 cases, the CJS and write a book! Of there being confident ignorance in not having near enough knowledge or expertise! Where when we compare this with the 4-years to study for a PHD where certain standards need to be met - where we can see that the first falls short of standards, of enough study and knowledge?!

And Nicholas highlights two of the cases. So it is very much Ms Leans own inclusion of the cases she study, her fight against the CJS that took her into IB!

[Nicholas]

IB includes areas of "No Smoke" - the very reason why it is mentioned. It reflects upon why IB was written? That this "Ordinary" woman decided to take on the "Mighty Giant that is the Criminal Justice System" It speaks of the time of the murder, onto looking into other case and onto "No Smoke" - And as I stated it took around 3-years just to study not only 7 cases, the CJS and write a book! Of there being confident ignorance in not having near enough knowledge or expertise! Where when we compare this with the 4-years to study for a PHD where certain standards need to be met - where we can see that the first falls short of standards, of enough study and knowledge?!

And Nicholas highlights two of the cases. So it is very much Ms Leans own inclusion of the cases she study, her fight against the CJS that took her into IB!

Maybe my previous posts will be re-instated ?

I omitted the following excerpt from Stephanie Bon’s witness statement excerpts,

‘We began to visit his parents quite regularly, taking over flowers and chocolates, and checking up on his mum. Simon was quite emotional person (sic) and seemed upset by the incident, as I would expect him to be.

How many sadistic killers had Stephanie Bon met prior to Simon Hall ?

[Nicholas]

How many sadistic killers had Stephanie Bon met prior to Simon Hall ?

And how many sadistic 14 year old male killers had Sandra Lean met prior to the writing of her books?

[Nicholas]

So how many witness statements did Sandra Lean refer to in her 2nd book

And what statements did she omit - do you know?

And do you know how many of the omitted witness statements can turn her false narrative on its head?

Same applies to the excerpts she’s apparently published from police witness statements

What’s missing?

What did she choose to omit and why did she choose to omit it?

I posted a few excerpts from 3 individuals witness statements from killer Simon Halls case papers

These excerpts alone change the entire narrative of what is in the public domain - regardless of what was and wasn’t heard during the trial - this ‘evidence’ was available at the time of the trial but wasn’t used

[mrswah]

You might want to edit the thread title

You could start a new thread !!

[Nicholas]

You could start a new thread !!

Or you could re instate the posts in a new thread

[Nicholas]

IB includes areas of "No Smoke" - the very reason why it is mentioned. It reflects upon why IB was written? That this "Ordinary" woman decided to take on the "Mighty Giant that is the Criminal Justice System" It speaks of the time of the murder, onto looking into other case and onto "No Smoke" - And as I stated it took around 3-years just to study not only 7 cases, the CJS and write a book! Of there being confident ignorance in not having near enough knowledge or expertise! Where when we compare this with the 4-years to study for a PHD where certain standards need to be met - where we can see that the first falls short of standards, of enough study and knowledge?!

And Nicholas highlights two of the cases. So it is very much Ms Leans own inclusion of the cases she study, her fight against the CJS that took her into IB!

Sandra Lean made claim somewhere her writing style had changed over the years since writing ‘No Smoke’ and the two (Books) couldn’t be compared - at least her writing style couldn’t - or so she said

But her varying manipulation tactics can be compared therefore so can her writing style or the way she chooses to manipulate her language

https://thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2017/11/50-shades-of-gaslighting-the-disturbing-signs-an-abuser-is-twisting-your-reality/

Her gaslighting increased as did her smear tactics and she appeared more confident when telling blatant bare faced lies

[Nicholas]

Or you could re instate the posts in a new thread

or re-instate them here

Then we can discuss cognitive distortions and the impact on the varying biases - all of which will be relevant to -“innocents betrayed” by Sandra Lean’