Who was/is Inka Oldmoot Sandra Lean?
The Following Statements Have Been Reproduced For Evidential, Educational & Research Purposes Only
Sandra Lean - 31st July 2022
We don't normally post stuff from MSM, or full names, but this one is different and I'll take full, personal responsibility for any backlash.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you Jane Hamilton, a "journalist" who, for years, has demonised a woman who has never been convicted of any crime, a woman whose home was ransacked and completely trashed not once, but three times, whose precious memories were stolen from her and her even more precious son taken away from her. That woman is Corinne Mitchell. The hypocrisy is breath-taking.
When did Jane Hamilton get to decide who is a "deserving" or an "undeserving", vulnerable woman??
Inka Oldmoot
What should be questioned is JH’s objectivity given what is known about her long relationship with Jodi’s immediate family.
The reportage was never based on facts, but was designed to cover this as an epic drama between the “righteous victims” of Jodi’s family and what was described as “Devil’s spawn” Luke Mitchell and his mother CM.
These are simple, polarising narratives that her readers can understand and immediately relate to. Those same readers would be intellectually challenged in following the technicalities of the investigation, trial and conviction. JH knows this so aims low for the thickos.
It’s not a stretch to say JH made it her business to incite hatred, to legitimise and weaponise the climate of suspicion and aggression running through the local community and to manipulate it to her own advantage.
There were articles stating “JUJ wouldn’t want anyone to be hurt…” as though it was JUJ herself who was judge and jury in this bizarre community court.
This completely derailed the authority of the Justice system and went straight to village justice.
Meanwhile no one questioned the irregularities in the statements of Jodi’s family or their own complicity in the neglect of 14 year old Jodi. There are serious questions regarding the assault on Jodi by a family member prior to her death, her own expressed difficulties in coping with her home environment, and other familial factors that put her at risk.
Crucially I think CM had money- not a lot- but she was independent and successful in running her own business and supporting her family on her own. She lived in the nicer part with a better home.
I can’t rule out a certain amount of jealousy based on the economics of the area, and this would make her an easy target in a particularly brutal environment.
Luke had certain advantages such as his pony and bikes. He had signs of wealth.
I wonder if this isn’t partly what incited the local hatred based on envy.
JH was able to channel the most feral aspects of that community, perhaps knowing them well herself.
Sandra Lean
Inka Oldmoot Again, if you don't mind, I'll take your post point by point!
"What should be questioned is JH’s objectivity given what is known about her long relationship with Jodi’s immediate family.
The reportage was never based on facts, but was designed to cover this as an epic drama between the “righteous victims” of Jodi’s family and what was described as “Devil’s spawn” Luke Mitchell and his mother CM.
These are simple, polarising narratives that her readers can understand and immediately relate to. Those same readers would be intellectually challenged in following the technicalities of the investigation, trial and conviction. JH knows this so aims low for the thickos."
Although I agree, broadly, that JH's objectivity (and her responsibility, as a journalist to present a balance of fact and evidence to the reading/watching public is implicit), I object to your final comment that she "aims low for the thickos" - we have some highly intelligent people in this group who are furious at being duped by what appeared, at the time, to be a blanket media opinion, supported by "facts" - JH, alone, cannot be held responsible for that and the readers/viewers who were duped by it cannot, in any reality, be labelled "thickos". We need to understand what was available to people at the time and why many believed it. This was 2003 - before the current, instantly available online information we have today.
"It’s not a stretch to say JH made it her business to incite hatred, to legitimise and weaponise the climate of suspicion and aggression running through the local community and to manipulate it to her own advantage.
There were articles stating “JUJ wouldn’t want anyone to be hurt…” as though it was JUJ herself who was judge and jury in this bizarre community court.
This completely derailed the authority of the Justice system and went straight to village justice."
Were there articles stating JuJ "wouldn't want anyone to be hurt"? If so, where are they and in what context? If those articles are able to be reproduced here, is there any evidence that JH manipulated or capitalised on them? Again, we need to see the evidence, otherwise, we fall into the same murky ground that all of this proliferated from, in the first place. Is there a difference between "the authority of the justice system" and "village justice," given that the entire jury system is actually predicated on "village justice" - i.e. jurors are drawn from a pool of peers of the accused?
"Meanwhile no one questioned the irregularities in the statements of Jodi’s family or their own complicity in the neglect of 14 year old Jodi. There are serious questions regarding the assault on Jodi by a family member prior to her death, her own expressed difficulties in coping with her home environment, and other familial factors that put her at risk".
Now, I have to object quite forcefully. Where is there evidence of, specifically, neglect of Jodi? We know that there was an assault on a female member of Jodi's family, prior to the murder - to my knowledge, there is no evidence in the public domain that that member of the family was Jodi.
It's also not true to say that "no-one questioned the irregularities in the statements of Jodi's family" - as I've already stated, many times, DF did everything he could to pull this out at trial.
"Crucially I think CM had money- not a lot- but she was independent and successful in running her own business and supporting her family on her own. She lived in the nicer part with a better home.
I can’t rule out a certain amount of jealousy based on the economics of the area, and this would make her an easy target in a particularly brutal environment.
Luke had certain advantages such as his pony and bikes. He had signs of wealth.
I wonder if this isn’t partly what incited the local hatred based on envy."
This section of your comment demonstrates a complete lack of understanding about the local community as it was lived by the people there. Again, it contributes nothing to JH's involvement.
We are talking about a 3 - 5 mile proximity of interlinked communities. The local high schools had a mix of pupils from different social and economic circumstances who supported each other in ways that don't meet the "expected" interactions. Couple of examples - 5 minutes walk from my home on a council estate were stables owned by the father of a girl I went to high school with - we were all invited to come and ride (or learn to ride). When Jodi was murdered, my children were part of a similar, but slightly different community, about 5 miles south. Again, the invitation to become part of each others' community was open and freely accepted. A girl from what would now be considered a "lower group" showed exceptional talent as an athlete, so she was incorporated into the athletics group, no questions asked about where her kit, etc, would come from - it was taken as given.
"JH was able to channel the most feral aspects of that community, perhaps knowing them well herself."
Please demonstrate "the most feral aspects of that community" before asking us to accept someone else's apparent manipulation of them? My 50 year experience of this community has been anything but "feral"
Inka Oldmoot
Sandra Lean I’m not sure your reply to the points is showing up Sandra!
Inka Oldmoot
Thank you. The areas you mentioned are duly noted.
Inka Oldmoot
Regarding “thickos” yes perhaps that is a little strong. Some of the more discerning readers have indeed revised their opinions based on new evidence but there are still some stalwarts who have based their judgement of LMs guilt on those early media articles of JH and others and cannot be persuaded even when presented with the alternative facts. Failure to engage in an objective discussion and not being open to revising a viewpoint when presented with facts to the alternative for me suggests an element of ignorance.
Regarding an “assault on Jodi” I’m just basing this on my interpretation of what has appeared recently in the public domain. So it would be my reading that the female victim of this assault was Jodi, although I agree this has not been confirmed.
The articles stating JUJ would not want anyone to be harmed are early news reports although I have to admit I can’t confirm they were written by JH. The particular article I’m thinking of was in a local paper and it was published online. Although I will have to go back and dig out the link.
Yes, I agree it’s possible to see the Judicial system as an aspect of village justice although in the courtroom the Judge presides so there is at least supposedly some sense of order as far as the system goes. Justice is not left to the proclivities of individuals, or at least should not be.
I don’t personally have the experience of living in that community, true, although I have based some of my assumptions on what CM herself recounted in interviews- that if she went into an area with mostly tabloid readers as the demographic she might expect to experience some harassment while if she ventured into an area of broadsheet/ quality readers she found people were more objective and sympathetic.
Those charged with burning her caravans were. I believe, from the tabloid demographic. When I suggest a “feral” mindset, this is what I’m referring to.
By no means am I suggesting that exists throughout the community.
Sharon ODonnell
Inka Oldmoot it wasnt the community that hated Luke ! The media brain washed this community into believing Luke from day dot was in-fact the murderer threw JH she new what she was doing rite from the get go ! Of course we believed it she hid truths only printed lies ! Vile woman
Michelle Celestial Easterly Moore
Inka Oldmoot reporters sometimes get a "scoop" from the Prosecution or LE and that's their in for getting a name. They might simply become biased. Or they are bad people. I've known a few journos who knew truth and reported BS for selfish reasons
Inka Oldmoot
Michelle Celestial-Easterly Moore I think there’s also the issue of JH’s editor. Ultimately reporters are answerable to their boss and we have to ask why it was that she was enabled in writing these articles. No consideration given to child protection and the issue of divulging details of a minor, because someone gave her free rein to write whatever she chose to write.
Who let that happen?.
