"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean (Today)
Today's "Questions the Police need to answer" got me thinking. The point was made that Luke was taken to the police station and everything that was done was done, without anyone ever checking if he was OK (or, at least, as OK as it would ever be possible to be in those circumstances) - the only doctor brought in that night was one whose task it was to find any evidence to suggest that Luke might have been involved in Jodi's murder.

But, we should have been able to breathe a little easier when we discovered that a psychologist had been brought in for the 4th July interrogation - at least then, there was someone to assess the psychological carnage already inflicted on Luke, not just by the finding of Jodi's body, but by his treatment in the three full days since.

Not so. That psychologist did not speak with Luke or any member of his family. He did not consider how events since the night of 30th June might be impacting on them. He did not even consider that Luke might need to speak to someone, just to process some of the horror. Nope, he was there to assess whether Luke, if he was the killer, was likely to "do it again."

And it gets even worse. This "expert" (who should be struck off, in my opinion), without speaking to Luke or carrying out any psychological evaluation whatsoever, advised that "in line with goth culture" there was a chance that Luke could "seriously self harm" or "re-offend." Note that second word - RE- offend - as in, the assumption being he'd already offended. So, what did the police do with that information?

They subjected Luke to another 6 hour interrogation, after which they claim to have suggested that his parents "might want to keep an eye on him." What??? If they believed Luke was Jodi's killer and their own "expert" warned them he was likely to "re-offend," why on earth would they just let him walk out the door with a word to his parents to "keep an eye on him"?

The whole thing is beyond disgusting. To this day, Luke has had no help in processing what happened in that first week. That's how we treat children in this country.

What about Richard Hoskins?

Did he also write a report or just ‘confirm the black dahlia hypothesis’ to Craig Dobbie?
👇
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=it48Wn7uVV4C&pg=PT213&lpg=PT213&dq=ritual+killing,jodi+jones&source=bl&ots=jlIB32-2xc&sig=ACfU3U2-V3m4E0KMAfJBtnpHaK2_pO1OOg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiLz_bsqJn6AhXQgVwKHbw9Cbk4ChDoAXoECAMQAg#v=onepage&q=ritual%20killing%2Cjodi%20jones&f=false

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean (Today)
They subjected Luke to another 6 hour interrogation, after which they claim to have suggested that his parents "might want to keep an eye on him." What??? If they believed Luke was Jodi's killer and their own "expert" warned them he was likely to "re-offend," why on earth would they just let him walk out the door with a word to his parents to "keep an eye on him"?

What did Nigel Beaumont say about this at the time?

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean (Today)
To this day, Luke has had no help in processing what happened in that first week. That's how we treat children in this country.

More barefaced lies from gouger and con artist Sandra Lean
👇
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-killer-luke-mitchell-1062928

[Nicholas]

Jurors saw records showing that Mr Mitchell phoned his mother twice after midnight on the night Jodi died.

Mrs Mitchell said he did not tell her in those calls about Jodi's death.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4174661.stm

[Nicholas]

Why doesn’t con artist and charlatan Sandra Lean publish killer Luke Mitchell’s police statements and transcripts, along with his toxic, abusive and psychological manipulative mothers Corinne Mitchell’s

Alex Power
Sandra Lean can I ask why after all the new information over the years and lack of evidence why nothing has ever been done or re opened investigation.

Sandra Lean
Alex Power Because, Alex, there is no will to re-examine it. It would open an entire can of worms that would be a huge embarrassment to the authorities and so they use technical legal arguments to knock back everything we uncover. Like the definition of "new evidence" - that which was not, or could not reasonably have been available to the defence at the time of the original trial. There are two immediate difficulties here - firstly, they can argue that virtually anything "could have been" known to the defence at the time (and often blame the defence for not "finding" it, even though it would have been virtually impossible for them to do so). Secondly, when they are forced to concede that something is "new evidence" (for example, the prosecution never disclosed it to the defence), they then argue that, even if it had been disclosed, it would not have had a "material effect" on the original jury's outcome.

The appeal process does not examine the original police investigation (which is the very place convictions like this are constructed in the first place), so that's not an option. Nor is a complaint to the police authorities - as recently as 2020, a report was published highlighting the failings of Police Scotland's complaints handling processes - it included things like, failure of officers to be "transparent," officers "getting their stories straight" before writing their statements, a tendency to cover for each other etc etc

The number of technicalities that have to be overcome to have a case re-examined is mind-blowing, yet the media would still have us believing that criminals are slipping off the hook because of legal technicalities and worse, that people are somehow having their convictions overturned on legal "technicalities." There are many, many people in prison who should not be there, because of an ocean of technicalities designed to keep them there, justice be damned, yet they have the audacity to claim that some who finally manage to navigate this minefield in order to have their convictions overturned are somehow "playing the system."

[Nicholas]

‘She then revealed that Mitchell phoned her at 12.30am after Jodi's body had been found but he never mentioned that.

She said: 'I kept trying to phone him as he was late and in trouble.

Why was sadistic and psychopathic killer Luke Mitchell ‘late and in trouble’ if it had been toxic and abusive Corinne Mitchell’s suggestion for him to join the search ?

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean
The appeal process does not examine the original police investigation (which is the very place convictions like this are constructed in the first place), so that's not an option. Nor is a complaint to the police authorities - as recently as 2020, a report was published highlighting the failings of Police Scotland's complaints handling processes - it included things like, failure of officers to be "transparent," officers "getting their stories straight" before writing their statements, a tendency to cover for each other etc etc
"

If sadistic and psychopathic killer Luke Mitchell, dangerous clown and charlatan Sandra Lean, and toxic, abusive and psychological manipulator Corinne Mitchell have nothing to hide

Publish the police witness statements & transcripts

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean’… yet they have the audacity to claim that some who finally manage to navigate this minefield in order to have their convictions overturned are somehow "playing the system."

And when will dangerous clown and innocence fraud promoter Sandra Lean explain how and why she got so much so wrong in killer Simon Hall’s case

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 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.”

👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/04/29/the-innocence-fraud-con-of-a-killer-his-enablers/

[Nicholas]

Barbara Bacon
On the 30th June 2003, Luke Mitchell was taken to Dalkeith police station where a doctor was called to forensically examine Luke. He was strip searched, had his DNA taken, nail scrappings done, pictures taken and then interrogated all night until 7am the next morning.
Not once was he asked if he was ok. There were no calls made to Doctors or Psychologist to be brought in to check how Luke was, (a 14 year old child) to see how he was coping/feeling after seeing his girlfriend lying dead/brutally murdered. He would have at least been in shock.
so why were there no medical help called into check the health of a 14 year old that would have been in shock due to the trauma before interrogation began?
#policeneedtoanswer

What exactly did sadistic and psychopathic killer Luke Mitchell tell the police on the 1st of July 2003, other than ‘…. he went out to look for Jodi on his mother's suggestion’


‘The youngster, who was 14 at the time of the death, gave his statement to police in the early hours of 1 July, 2003.

In it he said he went out to look for Jodi on his mother's suggestion, after he had been contacted by Jodi's own mother when the schoolgirl failed to return home on 30 June.

He said he met Jodi's grandmother Alice Walker, Jodi's sister Janine and her fiancé Steven Kelly on the Roan's Dyke path that evening.

According to Luke Mitchell, the group walked past a v-shaped break in the wall bordering the path when the dog "had her nose in the air and had her paws on the wall" as if it was trying to sniff over the wall, the court heard.

Luke Mitchell then returned to the gap in the wall and climbed over.

He told police he saw legs like a "tailor's dummy", he took a step forward and registered that it was a body.

The statement added: "I could see blood on her neck... she was naked."

The accused also told police: "I thought it was Jodi. I just recognised the face, it looked like Jodi."

Jodi's grandmother was "hysterical" and "crying and screaming" after she went over the wall to look at the scene herself, Luke Mitchell told officers.

[Nicholas]

Barbara Bacon
On the 30th June 2003, Luke Mitchell was taken to Dalkeith police station where a doctor was called to forensically examine Luke. He was strip searched, had his DNA taken, nail scrappings done, pictures taken and then interrogated all night until 7am the next morning.
Not once was he asked if he was ok. There were no calls made to Doctors or Psychologist to be brought in to check how Luke was, (a 14 year old child) to see how he was coping/feeling after seeing his girlfriend lying dead/brutally murdered. He would have at least been in shock.
so why were there no medical help called into check the health of a 14 year old that would have been in shock due to the trauma before interrogation began?
#policeneedtoanswer

What exactly did sadistic and psychopathic killer Luke Mitchell tell the police on the 1st of July 2003, other than ‘…. he went out to look for Jodi on his mother's suggestion’


‘The youngster, who was 14 at the time of the death, gave his statement to police in the early hours of 1 July, 2003.

In it he said he went out to look for Jodi on his mother's suggestion, after he had been contacted by Jodi's own mother when the schoolgirl failed to return home on 30 June.

He said he met Jodi's grandmother Alice Walker, Jodi's sister Janine and her fiancé Steven Kelly on the Roan's Dyke path that evening.

According to Luke Mitchell, the group walked past a v-shaped break in the wall bordering the path when the dog "had her nose in the air and had her paws on the wall" as if it was trying to sniff over the wall, the court heard.

Luke Mitchell then returned to the gap in the wall and climbed over.

He told police he saw legs like a "tailor's dummy", he took a step forward and registered that it was a body.

The statement added: "I could see blood on her neck... she was naked."

The accused also told police: "I thought it was Jodi. I just recognised the face, it looked like Jodi."

Jodi's grandmother was "hysterical" and "crying and screaming" after she went over the wall to look at the scene herself, Luke Mitchell told officers.

What time did sadistic and psychopathic killer Luke Mitchell start giving his statement?

Where’s the rest of what he said in his statement?

How many pages was his statement?

Killer Luke Mitchell’s words below

👇

had her nose in the air and had her paws on the wall

tailor's dummy

I could see blood on her neck... she was naked

I thought it was Jodi. I just recognised the face, it looked like Jodi

hysterical

crying and screaming


Where’s the rest?

[Nicholas]

What time did sadistic and psychopathic killer Luke Mitchell start giving his statement?

Where’s the rest of what he said in his statement?

How many pages was his statement?

Killer Luke Mitchell’s words below

👇

had her nose in the air and had her paws on the wall

tailor's dummy

I could see blood on her neck... she was naked

I thought it was Jodi. I just recognised the face, it looked like Jodi

hysterical

crying and screaming


Where’s the rest?

Maybe someone who has a copy of killer Luke Mitchell’s statement made on 1st of July 2003 will publish an un redacted version?

[Nicholas]

’More than 100 witnesses are due to give evidence during the trial before Lord Nimmo Smith’

How many witnesses did charlatan and fraudster Sandra Lean mention in her second book?

[Nicholas]

How and why did toxic, abusive and psychological manipulator Corinne Mitchell ‘forget’ about buying her sadistic and psychopathic killer son a knife for Christmas?


‘Alan Turnbull QC asks: 'Are you sure, Mrs Mitchell, that you understand the importance of telling the truth in court?'

'Yes, I do' replies Mrs Mitchell, 45. The witness, who says she does not approve of youngsters carrying knives, admits ordering Mitchell a knife from a catalogue for Christmas 2003. She says he needed it for a camping trip.

Referring to a police interview she gave on April 14 last year - the day Luke was arrested - Mr Turnbull says: 'By the following April you had forgotten about buying it.'

[Nicholas]

How and why did toxic, abusive and psychological manipulator Corinne Mitchell ‘forget’ about buying her sadistic and psychopathic killer son a knife for Christmas?


‘Alan Turnbull QC asks: 'Are you sure, Mrs Mitchell, that you understand the importance of telling the truth in court?'

'Yes, I do' replies Mrs Mitchell, 45. The witness, who says she does not approve of youngsters carrying knives, admits ordering Mitchell a knife from a catalogue for Christmas 2003. She says he needed it for a camping trip.

Referring to a police interview she gave on April 14 last year - the day Luke was arrested - Mr Turnbull says: 'By the following April you had forgotten about buying it.'

How many toxic, abusive and psychological manipulative mothers like Corinne Mitchell would buy their sons a knife for Christmas, after only a few months before their girlfriend had been murdered with such a weapon?

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean (Today)
Today's "Questions the Police need to answer" got me thinking. The point was made that Luke was taken to the police station and everything that was done was done, without anyone ever checking if he was OK (or, at least, as OK as it would ever be possible to be in those circumstances) - the only doctor brought in that night was one whose task it was to find any evidence to suggest that Luke might have been involved in Jodi's murder.

But, we should have been able to breathe a little easier when we discovered that a psychologist had been brought in for the 4th July interrogation - at least then, there was someone to assess the psychological carnage already inflicted on Luke, not just by the finding of Jodi's body, but by his treatment in the three full days since.

Not so. That psychologist did not speak with Luke or any member of his family. He did not consider how events since the night of 30th June might be impacting on them. He did not even consider that Luke might need to speak to someone, just to process some of the horror. Nope, he was there to assess whether Luke, if he was the killer, was likely to "do it again."

And it gets even worse. This "expert" (who should be struck off, in my opinion), without speaking to Luke or carrying out any psychological evaluation whatsoever, advised that "in line with goth culture" there was a chance that Luke could "seriously self harm" or "re-offend." Note that second word - RE- offend - as in, the assumption being he'd already offended. So, what did the police do with that information?

They subjected Luke to another 6 hour interrogation, after which they claim to have suggested that his parents "might want to keep an eye on him." What??? If they believed Luke was Jodi's killer and their own "expert" warned them he was likely to "re-offend," why on earth would they just let him walk out the door with a word to his parents to "keep an eye on him"?

The whole thing is beyond disgusting. To this day, Luke has had no help in processing what happened in that first week. That's how we treat children in this country.

What are dangerous clown and gouger Sandra Leans thoughts on toxic, abusive and psychological manipulator Corinne Mitchell buying her sadistic and psychopathic killer son a knife for Christmas?