"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[Nicholas]

This person is advocating themselves as being an expert on this case

 

[Nicholas]

Not yesterday of course ( Has been in my drafts for a little while) But interestingly, that which has been pointed out to me, SL does not even know the correct spelling of this mans name. So not even the mere basics are correct?

Sandra Lean made that statement on 20th July 2021

https://www.facebook.com/1011563515/posts/10222528810501627/

Hasn’t it been pointed out she spelt his name wrong throughout her entire book?

[Nicholas]

     

And these wannabe experts, who profess to being something that they simply are not.

Like ‘Professor’ Stephen T Manning of Checkpoint press publishing

‘Cover looks great Stephen.. Thanks for all your hard work getting this produced, I really like this layout - it's better than the original by far.

Dr Sandra Lean , Scotland (No Smoke)’
http://www.checkpointpress.com/testimonials.html


‘NGU books’ sounds like a print on demand publishers

Is NGU linked to STM ?

And does anyone recall Sandra Lean making claim books allegedly went missing following the airing of the innocence fraud TV show on [Name removed]’s killer?

Wonder what she spent that money on?

[Nicholas]

‘NGU books’ sounds like a print on demand publishers

Is NGU linked to STM ?

‘NGU books, United States’

 

[Nicholas]

‘CheckPoint Press is a quality publishing and author services operation with printing and distribution outlets worldwide. Our goal is to help you achieve your publishing goals in a cost-effective, friendly and efficient manner.
Focusing primarily (but not exclusively) on non-fiction books, we produce academic, research, instruction & education works; as well as inspirational, philosophical, social commentary, poetry, religious, autobiographical, or any work that we feel 'has something to say'.
We offer ‘no-fees’ traditional publishing contracts as well as comprehensive self-publishing packages from as little as £180 UK / €200 Euros / $300 US ...all-inclusive, and our authors receive up to 80% royalties!
Linked to all the major retail and Internet outlets, we produce quality books one-at-a-time or by the truckload as required, and can deliver anywhere in the world within days! We also provide effective marketing support options, and selected ebook services.
http://www.checkpointpress.com/

[Nicholas]

‘NGU books, United States’

 

‘With printing outlets in the UK, Germany, USA, Canada and Australia, we also secure the best shipping rates for your consignment.
http://www.checkpointpress.com/bookstore.html

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean (Yesterday)
‘I was thinking about this just recently. The police found nothing in the first search, just 4 days after the murder. They took CM's house to pieces, searched the garden, the garage, her car, workplace, etc, etc - nothing. So, six weeks later, they go back in. And do it all over again. This time, the only "incriminating" evidence they find is the bottles of urine, courtesy of the spy in the Mitchell's midst, the FLO (ML) who obtained initial information about the bottles unlawfully - the police claimed she was never alone with LM, CM or SM, but always had another officer with her for corroboration. Yet, she entered Luke's room that day, just him and her, and asked about A bottle - from there, the rest is history. We know the bottles had nothing to do with the murder - second meticulous search. Nothing. Not a molecule of evidence. (By the way, she was alone with individual members of the Mitchell family on several occasions, by her own admission, yet her senior officer swore, on oath, that this never happened).

Well, just in case, 8 months later, they go back AGAIN. This time, they turn up evidence of some cannabis and a knife pouch with a "missing" knife. That's it - still nothing to link Luke to the murder. They already had the receipt for the knife and pouch, which showed they were bought long after Jodi's murder (which is why they didn't find it in the first two searches).

Questions:

What did they think they were going to find, 8 months later, that they didn't find 4 days and six weeks, respectively, after the murder? Is that some sort of admission that the first two searches were somehow half-a$$ed and not thorough enough? Even though they ripped the entire place apart?

How did they ever manage to pass off the "missing knife" as being linked to the murder? (1) It was bought after the murder, (2) it wasn't missing - it was handed to the police, by Luke's SOLICITOR a few days later and (3) the pathologist said, on the stand, that an identical knife to the one claimed to be "missing" was too small to have inflicted the injuries Jodi suffered.

Why was the cannabis found in Luke's room given any credence whatsoever? They wouldn't have had to look very far at all to find households of people linked to the case with much larger quantities of cannabis - if, as the final ridiculous claim became, cannabis was responsible for "making Luke do it," why wasn't that possibility considered for anyone else close to Jodi, who was consuming much more cannabis than Luke?

Those searches, to me, say it all. It wasn't "evidence" they were looking for after the first search - it was anything they could manipulate to fit their emerging narrative (e.g. the officer who said he was specifically told to look for anything Manson related). They simply adjusted that narrative as they went along - hence, a German army shirt and dozens of witnesses became a Parka Jacket with "dozens" of new witnesses (what happened to them?) And the original army shirt witnesses just disappeared into thin air.

It's quite terrifying when you see, step by step, how it was done - nothing whatsoever to do with truth and justice, but everything to do with obtaining a conviction at any cost

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean is a con women similar to Stephanie Bon

More to be published on this in the New Year

Part 1 👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2021/12/19/wrongful-convictions-miscarriages-of-justice-innocence-fraud-whats-the-difference/

♦️Dropping Soon♦️

Part 2 of the UK INNOCENCE FRAUD News series 👍🏽

[Nicholas]

Did Sandra Lean mention sadistic killer Luke Mitchell’s comment about what [Name removed] was wearing before he murdered her in her 2nd book?

⬇️

Luke Mitchell stated in one of his police statements re what Jodi was wearing,

‘She liked that top, she like, she bought some of her own stuff, I mean, the clothes, the cords, jeans, she was wearing on Monday night. I think they were borrowed off her sister.”

How would Luke know what Jodi was wearing that night unless he’d seen her?

[Nicholas]

Logan Mwangi: Murder-accused, 14, was 'a monster'

‘A teenager accused of murdering a five-year-old boy has been described as "a monster" and spoke of killing people, a court has heard.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-60738465

[Parky41]

Sandra Lean (Yesterday)
‘I was thinking about this just recently. The police found nothing in the first search, just 4 days after the murder. They took CM's house to pieces, searched the garden, the garage, her car, workplace, etc, etc - nothing. So, six weeks later, they go back in. And do it all over again. This time, the only "incriminating" evidence they find is the bottles of urine, courtesy of the spy in the Mitchell's midst, the FLO (ML) who obtained initial information about the bottles unlawfully - the police claimed she was never alone with LM, CM or SM, but always had another officer with her for corroboration. Yet, she entered Luke's room that day, just him and her, and asked about A bottle - from there, the rest is history. We know the bottles had nothing to do with the murder - second meticulous search. Nothing. Not a molecule of evidence. (By the way, she was alone with individual members of the Mitchell family on several occasions, by her own admission, yet her senior officer swore, on oath, that this never happened).

Well, just in case, 8 months later, they go back AGAIN. This time, they turn up evidence of some cannabis and a knife pouch with a "missing" knife. That's it - still nothing to link Luke to the murder. They already had the receipt for the knife and pouch, which showed they were bought long after Jodi's murder (which is why they didn't find it in the first two searches).

Questions:

What did they think they were going to find, 8 months later, that they didn't find 4 days and six weeks, respectively, after the murder? Is that some sort of admission that the first two searches were somehow half-a$$ed and not thorough enough? Even though they ripped the entire place apart?

How did they ever manage to pass off the "missing knife" as being linked to the murder? (1) It was bought after the murder, (2) it wasn't missing - it was handed to the police, by Luke's SOLICITOR a few days later and (3) the pathologist said, on the stand, that an identical knife to the one claimed to be "missing" was too small to have inflicted the injuries Jodi suffered.

Why was the cannabis found in Luke's room given any credence whatsoever? They wouldn't have had to look very far at all to find households of people linked to the case with much larger quantities of cannabis - if, as the final ridiculous claim became, cannabis was responsible for "making Luke do it," why wasn't that possibility considered for anyone else close to Jodi, who was consuming much more cannabis than Luke?

Those searches, to me, say it all. It wasn't "evidence" they were looking for after the first search - it was anything they could manipulate to fit their emerging narrative (e.g. the officer who said he was specifically told to look for anything Manson related). They simply adjusted that narrative as they went along - hence, a German army shirt and dozens of witnesses became a Parka Jacket with "dozens" of new witnesses (what happened to them?) And the original army shirt witnesses just disappeared into thin air.

It's quite terrifying when you see, step by step, how it was done - nothing whatsoever to do with truth and justice, but everything to do with obtaining a conviction at any cost

Each witness and the accused are entitled to apply for all copies of anything pertaining to them. Statements, court testimony transcripts, interviews. This fiasco around the knives is such an area (in line with the agreement around Mitchells DNA). This knife that was "missing" to be handed into Beaumont was used in testimony against CM's honest and integrity. Is SL telling us that she has not seen CM's transcripts of her testimony, nor every part of her statements and interviews? Not discussed in full with each other? We can surely apply here, without doubt that these free entitlements were requested and obtained. (To note here also, that all of this can be shared publicly, it is their data)

Playing dumb around this or has CM not given SL full disclosure to her own data? It is really is hard to tell exactly what is at play here. If the author has full access to these then there can be no doubt that she knows the following:

Firstly that the police/Crown (As If?), attempted to connect any knife after the murder with it? Why is one putting out a false narrative around this, is she openly saying again that she has not had full disclosure from CM, from Luke? Or, Is it due to disclosure laws and data protection, that one may bank upon multiple areas of evidence not being able to be sourced?

In custody both CM and her son were asked about this "missing" knife (both knives, but we will go with the black handled one first). A receipt and pouch found with no knife to go with them, the type and picture of the knife sourced from these. Shown to both CM and her son, they did not know where the knife was. IB tells of Luke being asked, that of his not knowing and then 'If you have a picture you must have it' That mocking response. After being out of custody ones memory was claimed to have returned, CM sourced the knife from where it was hidden and handed it into the family lawyer (no doubt by advice from him to do so) Claiming that it had been in a bag beside the dogs food bowls. Not so as:

Pictures had been taken of the search and evidence heard from the search team. Where it was clearly shown that there had been no bag containing a knife beside those dogs bowls. CM was then asked and shown the same pictures, caught once more in that web of deceit? That honesty and integrity were in question here. Going from not knowing, to remembering, to handing it it and making false claims to where it had been. Going into detail of this search (AD), told CM that all of this had been searched inclusive of the food in the dogs bowls. She retorted that 'She would never put her dog in danger' Not the best response, as shown before the court was that unthinkable purchase of further dangerous weapons. Done so after such a brutal murder and claimed to be for camping. That this mother simply adhered to her sons many wants, not being a responsible adult and had no qualms around being dishonest.

The brown handled knife, the only knife claimed to be connected to the murder has never been found, it is still "missing". Several witnesses testifying and Identifying the type of knife it was, the one which LM carried with him most of the time. Believed to be the murder weapon. And shown very much so, to have been of size and type to carry out the injuries by Mitchell in the murder of his girlfriend.

And it has nothing to do with "truth and Justice" does it?

[Parky41]

Did Sandra Lean mention sadistic killer Luke Mitchell’s comment about what [Name removed] was wearing before he murdered her in her 2nd book?

⬇️

It is a mess: Pages of waffle around what Luke claimed, which was not where he managed to get to in the time from going over the wall. We know this, heard in evidence, that both JaJ and SK had only walked around 10 - 15ft when Mitchell shouted out. This is from the V break. LM went over, AW held the leash, then and only then did JaJ and SK walk past the break, barely any distance and he had shouted out. LM had only walked roughly the same distance if even the same. As they darted back to the break when he shouted and he was there on the other side. He does not mention darting back. It is my opinion and a very strong one, that LM was at haste before the arrival of the police! He most definitely and proven to be so, no closer than around 25ft. 

So and again there was no evidence led and none given directly in the book, that LM's claim to SL, that he had a "powerful search light" was true. Embellished once more to make claim that he could see wonders! It does not matter for LM had walked no more than 10f - 15ft on the other side of that wall. Every account he gave was from earlier in the evening, at and after the time of the murder.

It gets worse (or better?). The claims that any testing of visibility was wrong! As the comparisons were made in the daylight, pictures taken! So we have this "search light" claim as being better than natural daylight? And without doubt pictures taken with added camera light to bring out the best exposure. It really is a mess, a tangled web of attempting to cover up the actual evidence. Comparisons are just that, they compared what could be seen at night and in daytime. Every detail Mitchell gave was one which only the murderer could give. There is further nonsense, that AW and SK may not have mentioned X, Y or Z as they simply 'may not have been asked' - hook, line and sinker!

[Nicholas]

It is a mess: Pages of waffle around what Luke claimed, which was not where he managed to get to in the time from going over the wall. We know this, heard in evidence, that both JaJ and SK had only walked around 10 - 15ft when Mitchell shouted out. This is from the V break. LM went over, AW held the leash, then and only then did JaJ and SK walk past the break, barely any distance and he had shouted out. LM had only walked roughly the same distance if even the same. As they darted back to the break when he shouted and he was there on the other side. He does not mention darting back. It is my opinion and a very strong one, that LM was at haste before the arrival of the police! He most definitely and proven to be so, no closer than around 25ft. 

So and again there was no evidence led and none given directly in the book, that LM's claim to SL, that he had a "powerful search light" was true. Embellished once more to make claim that he could see wonders! It does not matter for LM had walked no more than 10f - 15ft on the other side of that wall. Every account he gave was from earlier in the evening, at and after the time of the murder.

It gets worse (or better?). The claims that any testing of visibility was wrong! As the comparisons were made in the daylight, pictures taken! So we have this "search light" claim as being better than natural daylight? And without doubt pictures taken with added camera light to bring out the best exposure. It really is a mess, a tangled web of attempting to cover up the actual evidence. Comparisons are just that, they compared what could be seen at night and in daytime. Every detail Mitchell gave was one which only the murderer could give. There is further nonsense, that AW and SK may not have mentioned X, Y or Z as they simply 'may not have been asked' - hook, line and sinker!

 

[Nicholas]

Each witness and the accused are entitled to apply for all copies of anything pertaining to them. Statements, court testimony transcripts, interviews. This fiasco around the knives is such an area (in line with the agreement around Mitchells DNA). This knife that was "missing" to be handed into Beaumont was used in testimony against CM's honest and integrity. Is SL telling us that she has not seen CM's transcripts of her testimony, nor every part of her statements and interviews? Not discussed in full with each other? We can surely apply here, without doubt that these free entitlements were requested and obtained. (To note here also, that all of this can be shared publicly, it is their data)

Playing dumb around this or has CM not given SL full disclosure to her own data? It is really is hard to tell exactly what is at play here. If the author has full access to these then there can be no doubt that she knows the following:

Firstly that the police/Crown (As If?), attempted to connect any knife after the murder with it? Why is one putting out a false narrative around this, is she openly saying again that she has not had full disclosure from CM, from Luke? Or, Is it due to disclosure laws and data protection, that one may bank upon multiple areas of evidence not being able to be sourced?

In custody both CM and her son were asked about this "missing" knife (both knives, but we will go with the black handled one first). A receipt and pouch found with no knife to go with them, the type and picture of the knife sourced from these. Shown to both CM and her son, they did not know where the knife was. IB tells of Luke being asked, that of his not knowing and then 'If you have a picture you must have it' That mocking response. After being out of custody ones memory was claimed to have returned, CM sourced the knife from where it was hidden and handed it into the family lawyer (no doubt by advice from him to do so) Claiming that it had been in a bag beside the dogs food bowls. Not so as:

Pictures had been taken of the search and evidence heard from the search team. Where it was clearly shown that there had been no bag containing a knife beside those dogs bowls. CM was then asked and shown the same pictures, caught once more in that web of deceit? That honesty and integrity were in question here. Going from not knowing, to remembering, to handing it it and making false claims to where it had been. Going into detail of this search (AD), told CM that all of this had been searched inclusive of the food in the dogs bowls. She retorted that 'She would never put her dog in danger' Not the best response, as shown before the court was that unthinkable purchase of further dangerous weapons. Done so after such a brutal murder and claimed to be for camping. That this mother simply adhered to her sons many wants, not being a responsible adult and had no qualms around being dishonest.

The brown handled knife, the only knife claimed to be connected to the murder has never been found, it is still "missing". Several witnesses testifying and Identifying the type of knife it was, the one which LM carried with him most of the time. Believed to be the murder weapon. And shown very much so, to have been of size and type to carry out the injuries by Mitchell in the murder of his girlfriend.

And it has nothing to do with "truth and Justice" does it?

Another point for Lianna Mackie’s ‘Forensic Friday’ recent nonsense 🙄 (From around 3 days ago) who clearly doesn’t understand what circumstantial evidence is and of course Sandra Lean wouldn’t point this out

DNA IS circumstantial evidence Lianna Mackie

[Nicholas]

It is a mess: Pages of waffle around what Luke claimed

Red Flag Sadistic killer Luke Mitchell won’t publish ALL his police statements/transcripts in full