"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[Nicholas]

Has anyone read this book? 

Whatever you might or might not  think about Sandra, the book gives a lot of detail, and I would recommend it.

I would be very interested to read a book by someone who believes Luke is guilty, but , as far as I'm aware, nobody has written one!

I think it makes an excellent case for Luke's possible innocence, which is why I would like to read a book by someone who can make a compelling case for his guilt.  I am aware that I'm only reading one side, and am therefore, not in a position to take a side-------but it seems that there are a lot of questions to be asked about this case.

378 pages won’t give anywhere near enough of the details to show the case - for or against - in a true light

With access to the same case papers Sandra Lean had/has (?) I suspect there could be varying books written

Killer Luke Mitchell’s guilt was proven in a court of law

And I suspect if the jury had heard all of the evidence regarding his varying behaviours in his varying relationships - especially from his numerous girlfriends at the time it would have been a unanimous verdict

[Bullseye]

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

I totally agree which is why I think it’s own thread is required where all this info can be put rather than on all the others threads. Then people can read and discuss sandra and her other cases and integrity there.

[Bullseye]

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!?

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

I have no idea, which is why I was looking forward to seeing the information that Luke wanted released and that Sandra was meant to have handed over on 30/6. I assume either Sandra was correct and this information is not allowed to be made public or for some reason luke or his lawyers have changed their mind in releasing it. Unfortunately no updates or info since Lisa Peden made the statement on behalf of Luke.

[Nicholas]

I have no idea, which is why I was looking forward to seeing the information that Luke wanted released and that Sandra was meant to have handed over on 30/6. I assume either Sandra was correct and this information is not allowed to be made public or for some reason luke or his lawyers have changed their mind in releasing it. Unfortunately no updates or info since Lisa Peden made the statement on behalf of Luke.

Are you referring to the police witness statements ?

If so, Sandra Lean did say in a video with Sharon Sunshine she would publish parts of witness statements here and there with a view to it all (An un-redacted and entire witness statement) being available - via various mediums

Unless what she said was merely bravado ?

[Bullseye]

Are you referring to the police witness statements ?

If so, Sandra Lean did say in a video with Sharon Sunshine she would publish parts of witness statements here and there with a view to it all (An un-redacted and entire witness statement) being available - via various mediums

Unless what she said was merely bravado ?

I’m referring to all the info that was handed over. I also would like to see the full unedited evidence, I think we all would. I’m not sure Sandra has this information now but if she does and can release it even in part (unedited) I hope she does. But won’t hold my breath!

[Parky41]

378 pages won’t give anywhere near enough of the details to show the case - for or against - in a true light

With access to the same case papers Sandra Lean had/has (?) I suspect there could be varying books written

Killer Luke Mitchell’s guilt was proven in a court of law

And I suspect if the jury had heard all of the evidence regarding his varying behaviours in his varying relationships - especially from his numerous girlfriends at the time it would have been a unanimous verdict

1st 8 pages, publishing rights and maps. 4 index. 5 intro. 12 Why bother. 7 background 13 Agreed facts 8 How the stories changed. 6 AW and moped boys. 12 Moped boys. 5 JF and [Name removed]
11 more JF. 9 the mystery deepens SK. 4 stocky man. 1 Parka 10 AB 11 F&W 18 Phone calls. 14 phones. 18 CSM. 11 Evidence (1) 5 Transfer theories. 1 Evidence (2) 3 Luke and forensics. 2 Blood wall scene. 2 Jodi and forensics. 3 toxicology. 10 Parka and log burner. 6 Dalia Manson and sex motivated attack. 12 Mistaken ID. 22 Luke and police. 20 Interrogation (1) 16 Interrogation (2)18 SM and CM. 6 CM. 18 Media. 9 Lie detectors. 5 No similar attacks. 15 SCCRC. 4 Some final thoughts.

Above gives you an idea in sequence of chapters and amount on each. 18 pages on phone calls, mostly irrelevant waffle. The interrogation pages are where most of the verbatim come from, most of that 5% - Selective cherry picking which fills up the pages!


MK and JaF are mixed in at different  points.

[Nicholas]

5 intro. 12 Why bother. 7

‘Why bother’ ?

Does she have a chapter called ‘why bother’?

[Nicholas]

1st 8 pages, publishing rights and maps. 4 index. 5 intro. 12 Why bother. 7 background 13 Agreed facts 8 How the stories changed. 6 AW and moped boys. 12 Moped boys. 5 JF and [Name removed]
11 more JF. 9 the mystery deepens SK. 4 stocky man. 1 Parka 10 AB 11 F&W 18 Phone calls. 14 phones. 18 CSM. 11 Evidence (1) 5 Transfer theories. 1 Evidence (2) 3 Luke and forensics. 2 Blood wall scene. 2 Jodi and forensics. 3 toxicology. 10 Parka and log burner. 6 Dalia Manson and sex motivated attack. 12 Mistaken ID. 22 Luke and police. 20 Interrogation (1) 16 Interrogation (2)18 SM and CM. 6 CM. 18 Media. 9 Lie detectors. 5 No similar attacks. 15 SCCRC. 4 Some final thoughts.

Above gives you an idea in sequence of chapters and amount on each. 18 pages on phone calls, mostly irrelevant waffle. The interrogation pages are where most of the verbatim come from, most of that 5% - Selective cherry picking which fills up the pages!


MK and JaF are mixed in at different  points.

I don’t trust Sandra Lean and her ‘selective cherry picking’ - which is what she does

And it’s what all these Innocence fraud promoters do

[Nicholas]

1st 8 pages, publishing rights and maps. 4 index. 5 intro. 12 Why bother. 7 background 13 Agreed facts 8 How the stories changed. 6 AW and moped boys. 12 Moped boys. 5 JF and [Name removed]
11 more JF. 9 the mystery deepens SK. 4 stocky man. 1 Parka 10 AB 11 F&W 18 Phone calls. 14 phones. 18 CSM. 11 Evidence (1) 5 Transfer theories. 1 Evidence (2) 3 Luke and forensics. 2 Blood wall scene. 2 Jodi and forensics. 3 toxicology. 10 Parka and log burner. 6 Dalia Manson and sex motivated attack. 12 Mistaken ID. 22 Luke and police. 20 Interrogation (1) 16 Interrogation (2)18 SM and CM. 6 CM. 18 Media. 9 Lie detectors. 5 No similar attacks. 15 SCCRC. 4 Some final thoughts.

Above gives you an idea in sequence of chapters and amount on each. 18 pages on phone calls, mostly irrelevant waffle. The interrogation pages are where most of the verbatim come from, most of that 5% - Selective cherry picking which fills up the pages!


MK and JaF are mixed in at different  points.

And ‘selective cherry picking’ sentences or a few words from witness statements can change the whole narrative

Does Sandra Lean say in her book how many witness statements were originally taken and whether or not she uses material from statements in her book that didn’t form part of the trial but were available to both sides at the time?

[rulesapply]

And ‘selective cherry picking’ sentences or a few words from witness statements can change the whole narrative

Does Sandra Lean say in her book how many witness statements were originally taken and whether or not she uses material from statements in her book that didn’t form part of the trial but were available to both sides at the time?

Everything with SL is mixed in and cherry picked like [Name removed] threatening to beat one of the moped boys up. If that happened, when did it happen? If it happened before poor Jodi's murder then couldn't the threat from [Name removed] have been drug related only? Despite the pomp about the Jones family being "wayward," wasn't Jodi grounded when her mother found out about her smoking hash? Didn't one of the moped boys supply hash to LM? I think so because SL has told us so. I'm very interested to know if the threat of a beating came before or after Jodi's murder. I suspect it was before and had nothing at all to do with her murder as far as her brother's threats were concerned. IMO.

[Nicholas]

‘Sandra Lean
Ronnie Mothersole I've had parents of 14 year olds asking me to sign books for their teenagers who are very interested in the case. I never give the book to under 18s, but if parents are OK with them reading it, then I'm happy to go with their guidance. After all, Luke and Jodi were only 14.
I know of one group of 14 year olds who wanted to do a class project based on the book! I guess, if in doubt, ask the parents!!!

[Nicholas]

And I suspect if the jury had heard all of the evidence regarding his varying behaviours in his varying relationships - especially from his numerous girlfriends at the time it would have been a unanimous verdict

I posted a few excerpts from one of Stephanie Bon’s police witness statements which showed her and killer Simon Hall were in a relationship at the time of Joan Alberts murder.

It would be helpful to see Corinne Mitchell’s police statements/interviews regarding her son Luke to see if she’s omitted knowing about the the two Kim’s.

Why doesn’t Sandra Lean include a chapter on Luke’s relationships (At/around the time of [Name removed]’s murder) in her 2nd book?

Before publishing IB she was referring to herself as a ‘criminologist’

Then on 16th July 2014
“A CRIMINOLOGIST who spearheaded efforts to overturn Luke Mitchell’s conviction for the murder of his girlfriend Jodi Jones has withdrawn from the campaign to free him.
Dr Sandra Lean, who highlighted his case in her book No Smoke! The Shocking Truth About British Justice, led the battle against Mitchell’s life sentence alongside his mother, Corinne.
Her withdrawal follows a ruling by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which found there were no grounds to challenge the guilty verdict.

"A new campaign is now being launched, being led by a Scots criminologist, Dr Sandra Lean, who has dedicated her life to fighting injustice and defending those she believes have been wrongfully convicted. She has dedicated her career to the case, which happened in her hometown of Dalkeith 15 years ago and is set to publish a book later this year which she claims shows failings in the original police investigation.
Speaking to the Herald she said: “This would be the biggest embarrassment possibly ever for the Scottish police
ridiculous and small-town mentality– a lot of gossip.[/b]
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/our-region/edinburgh/fresh-appeal-launched-to-clear-name-of-jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-1-4800387

And more recently was promoting herself via her Facebook page as a ‘leading criminologist specialising in miscarriages of justice’

Have you seen the ‘about’ section of Sandra Leans Facebook page?

It reads,

“Dr Sandra Lean is a leading criminologist specialising in miscarriages of justice. www.longroadtojustice.com”

Since when?

And where can we find evidence of this?

A ‘criminologist’ who fails to use all knowledge of psychological and social theories to understand criminal behaviour? 

Stephanie Bon
‘Around October 2001, Simon and I became an item. He used to stay at my house in Colchester, regularly as it was so much more convenient for work.
‘After a few weeks of being together, Simon introduced me to his parents Lynn and Phil. Lynn was really friendly, and it was obvious she thought highly of Simon.

Yet no mention of Stephanie Bon in killer Simon Halls mother Lynne Hall’s police witness statement?

Referring to events immediately after Joan Albert was murdered

Lynne Hall states in her WS 25th July 2002

‘… I was making a cup of tea when he got in, he seemed happy and said he had a good time, I remember he said he was tired and asked if he had time for an hours sleep. I can’t remember if he did. We certainly had a cup of tea and a chat, it was not unusual to see him come in then. I don’t remember what he was wearing when he came in. In any event he got changed before going out for the day. I don’t remember what he was wearing but we did take several family photographs of the day. If he was wearing a jacket it would be a cream designer shiney type jacket with a warm lining. I was in the kitchen when Simon got in but I do not recall the time. The phone is in the lounge and if it does ring I usually wake up. We did talk and he wanted to know how I had been, I got the impression a girl was involved and as his mum I did not want to dig too deep.

Simon appeared to enjoy our family day and was his usual entertaining self

Why didn’t Lynne Hall mention Stephanie Bon or of the alleged ‘mixup’ over her, Stephanie, going out to the family get together the next day?

Stephanie Bon
‘…as I was meant to be going to a family meal the following day. On the Sunday Simon was off for a meal wi relatives and asked me to go along as well. I instantly agreed, looking forward to meeting he rest of the family, but unfortunately Simon did not get around to asking his mum until it was too late. By the time Simon asked Lynne, there was not enu room at the table and I was unable to go along.

This had annoyed me, and I remember questioning whether the relationship was worth continuing with.

Lynne Hall refers to several of her sons girlfriends but nothing about Stephanie Bon ? Why does she choose to omit this fact?

‘After a few weeks of being together, Simon introduced me to his parents Lynn and Phil.’

Lynne also refers to bonfire night - which would have been early November 2001 - where she states she went out with her son, his girlfriend Zoe and Zoe’s son.

Stephanie Bon
‘Around the end of September 2002, Simon informed me that Zoe and him, had broken up. I was not surprised as Simon had not been happy for a while, and Zoe was always checking up on him.

‘I thoroughly enjoyed my relationship with Simon. We laughed and got on well, I just think he was not ready at that time to settle down. Maybe if we had met five or ten years down the line, things would have been different.


Lynne Hall
‘… I would say hat over the Christmas Simon was in a fairly good frame of mind even though he had had the problem with Zoe.

I am willing to assist police with this matter and will attend court if required

Those last two sentence above and the last two sentence of Lynne Hall’s witness statement

[Natterjack]

Have any experts read and reviewed IB?

My understanding is that AO first name is not the usual spelling but that is what is used throughout the book. If you can’t get the basics right then what other errors are there?

[Nicholas]

Have any experts read and reviewed IB?

My understanding is that AO first name is not the usual spelling but that is what is used throughout the book. If you can’t get the basics right then what other errors are there?

Parky’s read it

[Nicholas]

Have any experts read and reviewed IB?

My understanding is that AO first name is not the usual spelling but that is what is used throughout the book. If you can’t get the basics right then what other errors are there?

Referring to oneself as a ‘criminologist’ and having a doctorate does not make one an ‘expert’