"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[Nicholas]

It was during this video with charlatan Sandra Lean where that scammer Shaun Attwood also referred to killer and rapist Steven Avery

 

Shaun Attwood

“Where was Luke when this happened

Sandra Lean

“When

Shaun Attwood

“At 5:15pm where was Luke

Sandra Lean

“He was, he was at eh home cooking dinner for his mum and his brother, which he did

Shaun Attwood

“And they were all in there with him

Sandra Lean

Erm after 5:15 yeah, but they didn’t accept, they didn’t accept the alibi. They said his mum and his brother were lying to cover up for him

Shaun Avery

“That’s exactly what they said about Steven Avery. They said he drove from where he was, in a record amount of time, he couldn’t have possibly got to the crime scene ‘cos he was with his family and they were all liars

This 👆🏽is in relation to Avery’s attack on Penny Beernsten. His family members were indeed impeached “in numerous ways”

“In his own defense, Avery testified that he could not have been at the scene of the assault at the time it occurred. He presented numerous witnesses who testified in support of this claim. According to Avery’s family, he was assisting in a cementing project at his father’s house just prior to the time the incident occurred. However, as the State’s brief points out, the testimony of Avery and his alibi witnesses was impeached in numerous ways. In addition, at the postverdict motion hearing, the trial court recalled the “powerful” evidence that Avery referred to the victim as a female prior to being told the gender of the victim by the police. Despite the number of Avery’s alibi witnesses, we do not view this case as “extremely close.”
https://cases.justia.com/wisconsin/court-of-appeals/1996AP003027-(1997-09-03).pdf?ts=1396152308

Sandra

Why did you tell that psychopathic scammer Shaun Attwood Jodi Jones was 10 years old when her father committed suicide - then change to her being 9 years old and go on to give the impression that around this time Jodi was living with her mother and brother and mothers partner - when in reality they were all living with Alice Walker and Allan Ovens wasn’t around at this time

 

How old was your elder daughter when she went to live with her father Sandra?

Was she 8 years old?

[Nicholas]

Scammer Sandra Lean to scammer Shaun Atwood (aired 12th July 2021)

“It was claimed that Jodi was killed at 5:15 … very precise time here

By who Sandra?

Psychopath Shaun Attwood to scammer Sandra Lean

“There are people in this world who like to insert themselves into cases

He knows Sandra!

[Nicholas]

Scammer Sandra Lean - 17th October 2015

Anyay, Luke's father wasn't "absent" - Luke spent every weekend with him
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg332429.html?PHPSESSID=uif285m980pnbl6b1u3802u654#msg332429

Yet more bare faced lies!

Fake “Lawyer” Scott Forbes Confirmed Murderer Had NOT Stayed At Father Philip Mitchell’s House In Livingston “For Weeks” (Part 253)
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/07/12/killer-luke-mitchell-fake-lawyer-scott-forbes-confirms-murderer-had-not-stayed-at-father-philip-mitchells-house-for-weeks-part-253/

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean stated
This is really interesting Ingold Wood - this is before Jodi was named (so has to be the morning of July 1st) - he says, "She never arrived and, about 10 o'clock, the family became aware of this and later called the police." Like almost everybody else, he's out by 30 - 45 minutes - "the family" (actually Judith) didn't become aware until 10.42pm - the others didn't become aware until 10.46pm at the earliest. Is it just me or is the impression being given here that between 10pm and when they called the police, efforts were being made to trace Jodi??? And if so, why did he think that, within hours of Jodi's body being found?

Sandra Lean
Ingold Wood Dobbie gave away a lot of his preconceptions and biases in the interview after Luke was convicted, saying things like "..all he did was make me more suspicious. In the interview he was confident and very controlling. He displayed a high level of intelligence," and
"…He was challenging. He was totally in control of himself and challenged the abilities and authority of the police. It was like taunts. He had the mental ability to sit and take control of the interview, and that‟s incredible from someone who has not previously been part of the criminal process…."
Who really believes a 15 year old, never in trouble with the police before, would react this way to three grown men whose behaviour, according to the court of appeal, was "outrageous and to be deplored" and who, according to Donald Findlay, had "lost it?" http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12082.msg651345#msg651345

If killer Luke Mitchell was out of his house by 30-45 minutes (from 10pm) then why did it take him so long to get to the start of the path?

Shouldn’t he have been there by 10:35pm-10:50pm at the latest Sandra?

And where have you conjured up your 10:42pm time from?

 

[Nicholas]

Scammer Sandra Lean stated on the 23rd July 2023 - referring to killer Luke Mitchell;

“..a 35 year old man

Who has never driven a car

Let me see I’ve got a list of what he’s never done

He’s never driven a car

Had a job

He drove his mother Corinne Mitchell car Sandra - at 14/15 years old - ask Grace McLean

13 years earlier scammer Sandra Lean had stated on the WAP website

“He worked part time for his mothers business

See second paragraph under “behaviour & knives”
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/07/14/killer-luke-mitchell-innocence-fraud-scammers-sandra-lean-un-convicted-baby-murderer-billy-middleton-from-wap-april-2011-on-actually-factually-guilty-murderer-luke-mitchell-part-258/

[Nicholas]

Ross Heggie - 27th September 2023
Something just struck me today. I understand the agreement made between LM and JuJ on the night of June 30th was that he was coming to go over phone numbers of other young people who may have known where [Name removed] was.
So when the search trio meet Luke at the top of the path, none of them mention this and prompt him to go onto JuJ's to go through the numbers in his phone, while they searched the path?  I think this might be a pretty big clue that the search trio hadn't left from JuJ's house. They didn't know that this was the arrangement because they weren't in the house with JuJ when she spoke to L on the phone.
Anyone able to verify this? I may have got some details wrong?

Sandra Lean
It's an interesting question, Ross Heggie. It might simply be that, in the chaos and panic, JuJ simply didn't mention about Luke coming to check out possible contacts for other friends. Remember, JuJ's claim was that she didn't know how Luke and the other searchers had come to meet up, and the other searchers tried to claim, initially, that it was they who made direct arrangements to meet Luke at the path. Those claims, of course, were dropped when the phone logs showed there was no communication between any of them and Luke prior to the discovery f Jodi's body. When Alice was asked, at trial, why they went to the path, she said, "We just did." So nowhere, in any of their statements, did any of them claim (reliably) that the search trio had been told anything about Luke being on the path.
But, to the question of whether or not this rules them out of being in JuJ's house, rather than AW's, before they left for the path. I don't think it takes us in one direction or the other. The stance of all of them, by default, is that, by the time the search trio left - wherever they left from - they did not know that Luke was coming up the path. If that's not the case, and they did know, then there's something huge missing from their evidence and statements, which would simply lead us to the question, what was missing? Without the answer to that, we can't know for sure where they left from, other than that it can't have been from AW's house on foot at the time they said it was, because they could not have made it to the top of the path in time to get there before Luke arrived there.
Kath Green Seath Jodi's gran claimed in a statement that they'd arranged, either by phone or text, to meet Luke halfway up/down the path. Phone logs later showed there was no communication between any of the searchers and Luke that night, so there's no way such an arrangement could have been made.


You are quoting killer Luke Mitchell’s evidence Ross Heggie - what was said during the trial about this?

Other than Laura Wightman - What telephone numbers of Jodi Jones friends do you think killer Luke Mitchell would have had that Judith Jones didn’t?

[Nicholas]

Scammer Sandra Lean - 11th October 2015

10.38 - Judith texts Luke.
10:40 Luke calls back - second try, call did not connect first time
Source 👇
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg331825.html?PHPSESSID=uif285m980pnbl6b1u3802u654#msg331825

 

You claimed the 10:41pm call by killer Luke Mitchell “did not connect” Sandra!

Again - Judith Jones’ text message was sent at 10:20pm - this was also Judith’s evidence during the trial

And evidence killer Luke Mitchell has never appealed on!

Scammer Sandra Lean stated in her 2nd nonsense of a book on page 164;

“The logs detailing calls from the mobile being used by Judith were clearly incomplete because they stopped at 22.41 on June 30th 2003

Sandra Lean claimed killer Luke Mitchell’s 10:41pm call to Judith Jones “did not connect”

Why was killer Luke Mitchell phoning Judith Jones at 10:41pm?

And what time was the killers next call to Judith Jones if the 10:41pm call “did not connect”?

And why would killer Luke Mitchell be phoning Judith Jones at 10:40pm if she did not send her text message until 10:41pm?

Scammer Sandra Lean - October 2018

“10:40pm: When Luke called Judith and told her he hadn’t seen Jodi all evening, the call lasted just over two minutes (ending at 10:42:40)

Killer Luke Mitchell was speaking to Judith Jones at 10:41pm

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12406880.phone-record-of-jodi-murder-accused-wiped/
7 January 2005

"Both the inbox and outbox were empty, but the SIM card revealed a message received on the evening of Friday, June 27, 2003, saying: "Luke its Kim im at ma grans can u phone mi on (number) Love u xKimx" Another message on the SIM card at 10.41pm[/b] from Jodi's mother read: "2 wks grounding toad . . . Say bye 2 luke"."

The Herald reported the time of the text to be 10:41.  An earlier article from the same newspaper indicated that the time was 10:20.

The “earlier article” by the Herald had reported Judith Jones’s evidence from the trial - which incidentally killer Luke Mitchell has never contested!

Why? Because he can’t!

Judith Jones’s evidence was backed up with supporting documentation presented by other witnesses during the killers trial (Which again scammer Sandra Lean did NOT attend!)

If fraudster Sandra Lean had saved up those “donated profits” from books sales she could have obtained the trial transcripts for the witnesses who’s transcripts she clearly does not have (How much exactly has Sandra Lean raised from “donated profits” since October 2018-Oct 2023 & what happened to Innocents Betrayed Ltd & the accountants she was in contact with - referred to here ➡️ https://youtu.be/SvCCz0ebGi4?feature=shared ?) 

How could Judith Jones text message have been sent at 10:41pm as reported by the Herald?

If Judith Jones sent a text message at 10:41pm, wouldn’t killer Luke Mitchell have then called back at around 10:41/10:42pm - giving him time to find his phone, read his message etc

Where has scammer Sandra Lean got 10:38pm from?

Scammer Sandra Lean - Page 138 (betraying the innocent)

“10:38pm: The initial text message, sent from Judith’s mobile to Luke’s, intended for Jodi - “Right Toad, 2 weeks grounding, say bye to Luke”

Show me a media article that has printed the time of 10:38pm

Again - the year before carney Sandra Lean published her book, she was claiming killer Luke Mitchell received Judith Jones text message between 10:20-10:30pm while he was allegedly out walking Mia

In 2017 scammer Sandra Lean had “the known facts” of killer Luke Mitchell taking Mia the dog out for a walk at 10:20pm-10:30pm

“Here are the known facts - Luke returned home at 9.30pm (based on testimony from the other boys he was hanging around with that night.) He took Mia out for her last walk at around 10.20 - 10.30 - it was during this walk that he received JuJ's text intended for Jodi.
Source 👇
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg386928.html?PHPSESSID=k0k3qqrjq8iql4l3p74bsg2430#msg386928

 

The “known facts” in 2017 were (and still are) that killer Luke Mitchell received Judith Jones text message between 10:20-10:30pm

It is not a “known fact” that the killer was out walking his dog Mia! This was what Luke Mitchell claimed he was doing - there is zero evidence to support this!

He was seen near his house at just gone 10:00pm by Nicholas Frankland

For 14 years charlatan and fraudster Sandra Lean had Judith Jones’ text message being sent between 10:20-10:30pm

When then did Sandra Lean change this time for her book?

The same book in which Sandra Lean states the profits of said book are being donated to an organisation that does not exist!

Page 378 (betraying the innocent)

“Profits from this book are being donated to a new organisation, Long Road to Justice,

Judith Jones sent killer Luke Mitchell a text message intended for her daughter Jodi Jones at 10:20pm - why then did the killer wait so long before phoning Judith Jones?

IMPORTANTLY - killer Luke Mitchell told the police in his 22 page 1st July 2003 written statement that it was his mother Corinne Mitchell’s suggestion that he go out pretending to look for Jodi Jones

[Nicholas]

This is what charlatan and fraudster Sandra Lean stated in August 2009 under Jigsawman

God
*****
member is offline
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 517

A Timing Puzzle
Thread Started on Jun 4, 2009, 1:26pm
As another anniversary of Jodi's death draws near, I have a question which has puzzled me for a very long time. Can anyone figure this out?

Judith called Luke back at 10.49pm, to say she had called round all of Jodi's friends, she was nowhere to be found, and she (Judith) was calling the police.

Luke responded that he would go out looking for Jodi up the path, and if he didn't find her, he would make his way to Judith's house. The call lasted less than 2 minutes.

Luke got the dog and the torch, and set off immediately. It takes 7 - 8 minutes, at a brisk pace (police timings) to get to the entrance to the path, and 10 - 15 mins to walk the length of the path.

By these timings, Luke would have reached the "bend" in the path which allowed him to see all the way to the Easthouses end at 3 minutes past 11 at the latest. He would have reached the "halfway" point of the path at 8 mins past 11.

Both the other members of the search party and Luke's statement agree that they spotted each other as he came round the bend on the path - I include the halfway point purely for reference.

So far, so good.

But the phone records show that the search party accepted a landline call at the Grandmother's house at 6 minutes past 11, following which they gathered jackets, torches, etc, and set off to search for Jodi.

Even allowing for the latest timings, both parties spotted each other either at 3 mins past 11 (just after the bend) or at 8 minutes past 11 (if it was the halfway point.) Either way, the family members of the search party were "waiting" for Luke - they were already there as he rounded the bend.

How can this be? How can they be taking a call at the grandmother's house at 6 mins past 11, and be at the top of the path at either 3 mins past 11 or 8 mins past 11? Quite simply not possible. Even allowing for the 8 minutes past timing, the call to the landline started at 6 mins past 11, allowing only 2 minutes for the call to be concluded, the gathering of stuff required, the setting off, cutting through playing fields, etc etc etc, to arrive there before Luke did.

The appeal judges then state, categorically, that the search party had "set off from Jodi's house, just a few minute's walk from the beginning of the path" even though the case had always been that they left from the Grandmother's house in Mayfield, around a mile away.

Then there's the mystery of why Judith should agree that Luke should search the path  Corrine Mitchell Suggested To Her Killer Son That He Go Out & Pretend To Look For Jodi Jones (Killer Luke Mitchell’s 1st July 2003 22 Page Written Witness Statement) and the family search party making straight for the path, without even considering looking anywhere else, when every last one of them claimed Jodi was not allowed to use the path on her own and would not have done so.

Timeline
10:17pm - Judith Jones Attempted To Telephone Killer Luke Mitchell
10:20pm - Judith Jones Texted Killer Luke Mitchell
Corrine Mitchell Suggested To Her Killer Son That He Go Out & Pretend To Look For Jodi Jones (Killer Luke Mitchell’s 1st July 2003 22 Page Written Witness Statement)
10:21pm - Judith Jones Rings Round Some Of Jodi Jones Friends
10:41pm - Killer Luke Mitchell Claimed His First Call To Judith Jones “did not connect”
10:42pm - Killer Luke Mitchell Waited Over 20 Minutes Before Calling Judith Jones
10:45pm - Jodi Jones Was Reported Missing To The Police
11pm: Alice Walker, Janine Jones & Steven Kelly Left Alice’s House To Search For Jodi Jones

2009: Scammer Sandra Lean “It takes 7 - 8 minutes, at a brisk pace (police timings) to get to the entrance to the path, and 10 - 15 mins to walk the length of the path”
2010: Scammer Sandra Lean ”Official police timings - the end of Luke's street to the Newbattle entrance to the path - 5 mins at a brisk pace. The path itself, 11 mins at a brisk pace” http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/07/14/killer-luke-mitchell-innocence-fraud-scammers-sandra-lean-un-convicted-baby-murderer-billy-middleton-from-wap-april-2011-on-actually-factually-guilty-murderer-luke-mitchell-part-258/

[Nicholas]

Justice for Luke Mitchell and Jodi Jones
@SharonIndy_[Name removed]LM
I feel for the ones who don't realize they are in an online cult. I've seen this in so many online communities. Essentially the fact that anyone to stand up and say something contradicting the leader is set upon by the other cult members.
@michellesings
youtube.com
Are YOU in an online CULT?
And how do you get out?Link to PPT:https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N-UB4UuZQ-QxVk71rnaq0sj-Bzf1CmCx/view?usp=sharingSources:The Influence Continuum: https:/...
10:54 PM · Oct 23, 2023
https://twitter.com/SharonIndy_[Name removed]LM/status/1716573835506438281

Is this about scammer Sandra Lean?

[Nicholas]

Sandra

Why did you tell that psychopathic scammer Shaun Attwood Jodi Jones was 10 years old when her father committed suicide - then change to her being 9 years old and go on to give the impression that around this time Jodi was living with her mother and brother and mothers partner - when in reality they were all living with Alice Walker and Allan Ovens wasn’t around at this time

 

How old was your elder daughter when she went to live with her father Sandra?

Was she 8 years old?

Sandra Lean
“I've never heard that she was claimed to have been self-harming from the age of 8 - that would have been round about the age she was when her dad died. I know she struggled for her first two years at high school - I always assumed the self-harm began in that period.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452139.html#msg452139
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452140.html#msg452140

From 8 years old to 10 years old

 

[Nicholas]

The problem I'm incurring just now, is the reason and motive behind individual pieces of selective information. Are some simply errors, a practice of being caught up in misleading information, not fully releasing falsehoods but distracting away from the truth, that others are searching for, The list goes on ending with prevaricate-(to speak falsely or misleadingly; deliberately misstate or create an incorrect impression; lie.
Another commonly used word for this same behavior is to fudge, meaning to disingenuously avoid or talk around an issue.) Throughout each piece/response of information given and or replied to, I am putting out different scenarios as to why this may be depending on the individual, subject at hand.


I previously mentioned an example around the search party (trio) in ths case. The impression put out that they set out solely to head directly to the path, bypassing YW's house en route, which is a physical impossibility. I received an interesting response, to use in said work.

[🌟 Dr Sandra Lean replied to michael hamilton's comment
 

 
Dr Sandra Lean:
 
Peter Parkinson I'm so sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that [Name removed]'s statement was the only evidence supporting "walking past Yvonne's flat without checking" - as I wasn't entirely sure of the meaning of your post, I asked if that ([Name removed]'s statement) was the aspect to which you referred. I'm not entirely sure what your study is aiming to achieve, but I'd urge caution - without the full facts, you cannot possibly infer "word/information/play to add weight to the story" - in this instance, for example, you have made the unfortunate error of assuming I have "based this part on full trust of said witness." ]



Having no knowledge of said statement, I had found the reply interesting and asked why she put trust in JF on this occasion. The above reply to that question and trust issue, gives the impression (not assumption) that there are more witnesses to testify to this fact? If so, why still state the search party walked directly to the path?  The reply above appear to have been removed from Ms Leans personal You Tube video, comments section.


[🌟 Dr Sandra Lean replied to michael hamilton's comment
 

 
Dr Sandra Lean

Peter Parkinson Do you mean when John [Name removed] said in his police statement he was looking out of Yvonne's window and he saw the search trio walking past Yvonne's flat on their way to the path]

No it’s intentional - Aimed at causing confusion - which can lead to stress, anxiety and fatigue

Narcissists are renowned for this type of behaviour and scammer Sandra Lean is a raging narcissist!

[Nicholas]

Why did fraudster Sandra Lean mention money and trial transcripts and state that obtaining them was a “pointless exercise”?

The transcription of trial transcripts can be paid for from the public purse by order of a judge

On obtaining trial transcripts:

“It’s a pointless exercise” - “the transcripts themselves would not take us anywhere”

“Every day spent faffing around wasting time, is another day he’s stuck in there” ~ scammer Sandra Lean 29th October 2023 (YouTube)

 

“The second thing I have a real issue with”

“I have a huge issue with individuals who will use vulnerable people, exploit them to do their own dirty work, whilst hiding behind either anonymous or fake profiles and doing so to try to prove a point rather than take the case forward - that to me is despicable, absolutely despicable  ” ~ narcissist Sandra Lean 29th Oct 2023 (YouTube)

[Nicholas]

““I have a huge issue with individuals who will use vulnerable people, exploit them to do their own dirty work, whilst hiding behind either anonymous or fake profiles and doing so to try to prove a point rather than take the case forward - that to me is despicable, absolutely despicable  ” ~ narcissist Sandra Lean 29th Oct 2023 (YouTube)

Was the “point” to highlight the fact you are a bare faced liar Sandra Lean?

[Nicholas]

Stuart Henderson
Most Likely not the Most original thought i have had about the case but i'll throw it out there to see what gets said... 
The Moped was right against the V.... 
Would really help JF and GD climb and get over eh...

 

“Big shout out to Richard one of Luke’s amazing supporters, who asked a question that I’d never been asked before, he said, what if the search trio didn’t check Yvonne Walkers flat because they already knew she wasn’t there. And initially my thought was ‘well hardly I mean she had this little baby where would she have been’ you know, could it be possible (sounding a bit like Michelle Diskin-Bates). And the more I thought about it, the more I thought about the facts, the more things kinda began to drop into place.
Now you’re gonna get no speculation from me whatsoever on this one, okay, I’m just gonna give you the facts and you can make of them as you will (cackle)
So did they not check that flat because they knew not only was Jodi not there but neither was Yvonne, well the first thing I went looking through erm, some of the statements, some of the transcripts, some of the bits and pieces and I discovered that several witnesses within Jodi’s family, immediate and extended used an identical phrase when talking about Jodi and smoking.
I ran this past eh, erm an ex police officer, I sad what, what are the chances that up to 5 people would use exactly the same phrase, exactly the same phrase, as each other when being questioned independably of each other. And he said well either they’ve all talked among themselves and they’re all repeating, they’re all singing from the same hymn sheet or that’s not their words and those words were put to them by the people asking them questions. And those words were written down by the people asking those questions.
So I’ll leave that one there, erm four or five people with exactly the same phrase about this particular thing erm, I don’t know significance, you choose

“So stop and think about that for just a minute, where was Yvonne Walker. Does any of this information confirm where she was or does it raise questions that she may not have been where she says she was. So I’m just gonna leave that one out there as well   ” ~ scammer Sandra Lean 29th Oct 2023 (YouTube)

Is that the same innocent Yvonne Walker some of your “flying monkey’s” have been targeting and harassing Sandra?


Stuart Henderson
I have been bursting at the seams with Knowing for a wee while what Sandra said in her catch up at 14.59 folks, go check again!!.
One of my Best Mates Richard Bell Has, totally unintentionally opened a can of worms about the case in the most tremendous way imaginable.
THANK YOU RICHARD!!!!!.
!#THANKYOURICHARD
That's as Much as i can say in the group!.
But i am VERY VERY Sure, Lots will be said TO Richard  indepth at the protest on 4th Nov ;) ;).

[Nicholas]

This is what charlatan and fraudster Sandra Lean stated in August 2009 under Jigsawman

Timeline
10:17pm - Judith Jones Attempted To Telephone Killer Luke Mitchell
10:20pm - Judith Jones Texted Killer Luke Mitchell
Corrine Mitchell Suggested To Her Killer Son That He Go Out & Pretend To Look For Jodi Jones (Killer Luke Mitchell’s 1st July 2003 22 Page Written Witness Statement)
10:21pm - Judith Jones Rings Round Some Of Jodi Jones Friends
10:41pm - Killer Luke Mitchell Claimed His First Call To Judith Jones “did not connect”
10:42pm - Killer Luke Mitchell Waited Over 20 Minutes Before Calling Judith Jones
10:45pm - Jodi Jones Was Reported Missing To The Police
11pm: Alice Walker, Janine Jones & Steven Kelly Left Alice’s House To Search For Jodi Jones

2009: Scammer Sandra Lean “It takes 7 - 8 minutes, at a brisk pace (police timings) to get to the entrance to the path, and 10 - 15 mins to walk the length of the path”
2010: Scammer Sandra Lean ”Official police timings - the end of Luke's street to the Newbattle entrance to the path - 5 mins at a brisk pace. The path itself, 11 mins at a brisk pace” http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2023/07/14/killer-luke-mitchell-innocence-fraud-scammers-sandra-lean-un-convicted-baby-murderer-billy-middleton-from-wap-april-2011-on-actually-factually-guilty-murderer-luke-mitchell-part-258/

Lean has an uncovered call 6 years later made around 10.45pm. It is the same call! Times marked wrong or otherwise.

Now Lean in the book has it, that Jodi could not have been known to be missing by 10.45pm, thus the call could not have been from her, even though she gave her name!? And there is only ever one call mentioned to them pre 11 and only one call logged, not two! But the author tries to grasp at that time of 10.45pm, and those claims of not knowing Jodi was missing - Absolute BS. Judith knew her daughter was missing,

Scammer Sandra Lean has intentionally and fraudulently put false information into the public domain and even pretends to people who buy her book that the profits are being donated to an organisation that doesn’t exist!