"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[Parky41]

The people who claimed that the prosecution's witnesses did not change their stories were shown to be wrong.  The polite thing to do is to acknowledge one's error.  The intellectually honest thing to do is to explain how one's view of the case changed.  Neither of these two has happened so far.

Good to see what has been said being shown to be correct. Clearly exposing some of the lies in place by SL and co. Let us deal with the most obvious lie first and foremost. You appear to miss the obvious whilst focusing on changes?

That they all agreed with LM then changed their minds. - And here we see that they most certainly did not agree with him. There is nothing, zero showing from any statement where they were past the V break in the wall. That anything that had taken place happened before and up until that point. As stated many times, the dog could have been doing summersaults to the V break, it does not matter, it is not what LM claimed took place. So in effect, anything that they then altered/clarified around the dog had absolutely no bearing on the outcome, because it is not what LM claimed took place. His almost 60ft past the break, down to precisely 43ft and "parallel to" Where he had himself with SK, JaJ's and of course the dog. ------ All before that Jury.

What we also see here is that DF's focus was not using terms of alerting or matching to LM's account, but that he had the good sense out of them all to actually look into the woodland, not once but twice. First the Gino then the V break. The only one out of the 4 of them to take the notion to introduce the woodland into that search. But nothing of them being past the break. He asked of possibilities but nothing from their statements. So no memory from then lost to the present time.

The next lie, that the Jury did not get to hear what was said in first accounts - Yes they did. And we see clearly why it had no bearing upon that special knowledge, because it was only LM who made claims of any alert some distance past the V break. Next lie, that no one else was contacted, no checks made - Yes there were. That they did not know LM was there and him them - Yes they did. That they met at the top of the path, no we see again that they had met near to the top, near the Gino break.

Then we have leaving shortly after ----- 11pm. So we have LM around 10:50pm initiating a search whilst others were carrying out checks by phone. We have LM himself say he as on the path by 11pm, whilst the others were almost ready to leave. We have him alone a good time on that path prior to the others arriving. We have him go to the Gino break when they set off together, initiating the notion of that woodland beyond the wall.

Now the dog, the memory, the if I said that then that is what happened. What was the dog doing, what do dogs do? One on a lead attached to a harness. They pull, especially to the sides, wall etc. We have two clear points of the dog being at the wall from start to the V break, the Gino and the V. It's master has it on that lead. "seek and moving the dog forward"

So three breaks mind. The big break is off the lane prior to the start of the paths. No LM or dog in this 'forgetting' Then the Gino break, the canopy and the V break. 4 people and only 1 who made claim of his dog alerting to the body, some distance past that break in the wall. Think of all those discussion, debates, of him saying JaJ's and SK were with him, of only him returning to the break whilst they kept on walking down. People trying to guess, would they have been around 100ft past the break when he shouted out, and on it has went. To have people constantly focus upon dog and wall whilst manipulating around the rest - Lying?

[Nicholas]

John Smythe:
“Untruths/lies are very easy to take apart. Once again, much like the previous article though the unnamed relative never bothers to list a single one of these untruths or lies.

Like scammer Sandra Lean’s numerous bare faced lies, including one of her recent ones, where she claimed to that fraudster Bob Ruff that the public cannot obtain the trial transcripts 🙄

The relative will no doubt know the facts of the case - that you and everyone else who has been duped by this scam aren’t yet aware of!

The daily record article was clear - releasing the trial transcripts will silence killer Luke Mitchell - and (my addition) it will also silence his toxic enablers!

If John Halley (who was charged with sex offences earlier this year) is John Smythe then no doubt he will know all about the innocence fraud grift

[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.

Scammer Sandra Lean’s second innocence fraud book contains around 378 pages - some of these pages include maps and photos etc

Shane Mitchell’s trial testimony runs to nearly 400 pages alone

Transcript #1 10/01/05 – 19 pages

Transcript #2 12/01/05 – 137 pages

Transcript #3 13/01/05 – 251 pages

When Shane Mitchell had finished giving evidence on the 13th January 2005 his mother Corinne Mitchell began giving her evidence, therefore the 251 pages also includes pages relating to Corinne Mitchell’s testimony

The above pages do not include copies of productions, maps, or copies of original police witness statements etc

[Nicholas]

Case is closed

The case is indeed closed

[Kenmair]

Luke Mitchell's 'cult followers' fundraiser banned one mile from where body of Jodi Jones found
👇
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/birthday-event-planned-evil-killer-31479310#:~:text=Dalkeith%20Masonic%20Hall.-,The%20event%20next%20month%20was%20billed%20as%20a%20“birthday%20party,safety%20of%20those%20taking%20part.

New venue is Salters Inn, Woodburn, Dalkeith on 9th Dec. 

thesaltersinn@gmail.com

[Nicholas]

Laura Hmrsly
Referring to the DR article, what exactly are the discrepancies between the transcripts and what we have been told? Im not sure what it is referring to

Freddie Gren aka Gemma Chapman
Laura Hmrsly That's a very simple one. Without the correct context, using the entire transcript to give context, they are portraying "discrepancies". This is outright lies.
In truth Sandra, in her professional capacity, is unable to release the full transcripts and these egotistical wannabes want to force Sandra's hand into releasing them. This would not only be illegal but highly unethical given the transcripts contain names of protected witnesses. We have been told nothing but truth. And more importantly releasing the transcripts does not further this campaign in any helpful way, this is an infantile tantrum of a few ex-supporters.

Ian and Fiona McKenzie
That’s put my mind at rest.

It is NOT “illegal” or “unethical” to publish the trial transcripts in their entirety without any redactions!

All witnesses gave evidence in OPEN court during a PUBLIC trial

The “infantile tantrum” referred to by Gemma Chapman is her own

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean
Jodi’s murderer continues to evade justice

The sadistic murderer of Jodi Jones🌻 was arrested on 14th April 2004

Following a lengthy trial he was found guilty of his murder on 21st January 2005

The trial transcripts show clearly how sadistic murderer Luke Mitchell and his mother Corinne and brother Shane Mitchell lied in an attempt to pervert the course of justice

[Nicholas]

Freddie Gren aka Gemma Chapman
Laura Hmrsly That's a very simple one. Without the correct context, using the entire transcript to give context, they are portraying "discrepancies". This is outright lies.
In truth Sandra, in her professional capacity, is unable to release the full transcripts and these egotistical wannabes want to force Sandra's hand into releasing them. This would not only be illegal but highly unethical given the transcripts contain names of protected witnesses. We have been told nothing but truth. And more importantly releasing the transcripts does not further this campaign in any helpful way, this is an infantile tantrum of a few ex-supporters.

Apparently, according to Gemma Chapman, she gave evidence during sadistic murderer Luke Mitchell’s trial

What date did Gemma Chapman claim she first met the killer?

[Nicholas]

Freddie Gren aka Gemma Chapman
Laura Hmrsly That's a very simple one. Without the correct context, using the entire transcript to give context, they are portraying "discrepancies". This is outright lies.
In truth Sandra, in her professional capacity, is unable to release the full transcripts and these egotistical wannabes want to force Sandra's hand into releasing them. This would not only be illegal but highly unethical given the transcripts contain names of protected witnesses. We have been told nothing but truth. And more importantly releasing the transcripts does not further this campaign in any helpful way, this is an infantile tantrum of a few ex-supporters.

No Gemma Chapman these people have pointed out yet more of scammer Sandra Lean’s bare faced lies!

[Nicholas]

Shane Mitchell’s trial transcripts had already been transcribed prior to former supporters obtaining copies of them recently

[Nicholas]

Shane Mitchell’s trial transcripts had already been transcribed prior to former supporters obtaining copies of them recently

So why didn’t scammer Sandra Lean refer to Mr Beveridge in her 2 innocence fraud books?

[Chris_Halkides]

Amazing how you ignore the transcripts regarding the jacket, that you have been bleating on about for years, come out from under your rock and start bleating on about statements 

(as I said some time ago) If the photograph of Luke's wearing a parka had not been published, it would add a small amount of evidentiary weight to their statements; but that is not what happened.  Against whatever little probative value these statements have is the lack of a store receipt or credit card statement for the putative parka bought before the murder.  Equally problematic for the prosecution's conjecture about a phantom parka is that it relies on a logburner that, despite its diminutive size and actual function, is able to consume a jacket and not leave any detritus.  If the prosecution could have demonstrated such an occurrence, it would carry considerable weight.  There are cases in which multiple eyewitnesses have been proven to be wrong; I found two in Borchard's book "Convicting the Innocent," and I am not even a quarter of the way through.  Our memories are not TiVo, and the most likely explanation for these statements is that they are conflating the picture with other memories of Mr. Mitchell.

[Chris_Halkides]

And even if SK and JANJ were being slightly underhand when giving evidence or inconsistent, such was the strength of the evidence against LM that it didn't really matter. LM was/is, imo, guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

If each witness decides to be a little underhanded when giving his or her testimony, then we have a recipe for a wrongful conviction.  A related phenomenon is that people are subconsciously influenced by extraneous information.  Hasel and Kassin's paper "On the Presumption of Evidentiary Independence" is a good example.

[Chris_Halkides]

The next lie, that the Jury did not get to hear what was said in first accounts - Yes they did.

Whoa, I don't know of anyone who made the claim that the jury did not hear portions of the original statements.  Here and at another discussion board I quoted Donald Findlay's cross examination of [Name removed] where he pointed out the differences in what was in the first account vs the testimony.  Whether they had access to the complete accounts is a different question.

[James_Easton]

I have seen some of the trial transcripts, continually being obtained, at their own expense, by prominent supporters regarding a potential miscarriage of justice and simply wish the facts to be fully open, rather than a selective publication, often bearing a preconceived agenda.

One example of actual trial proceedings being signed off, is statedly certified:

"...in terms of Section 94(7) of the Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1995 that this transcript is a correct and complete transcript of part of the record..." etc.

It is dated 12 January, 2007.

Despite Sandra Lean's proclamations otherwise, have trial transcripts, only revealed now, in truth, been available to us all for 16 years and at no more than a  copying/admin fee, working out to be approx .60p per page?

Yet, as we know, only recently, Sandra Lean still vehemently asserted that obtaining copies were impossible and even if, would cost circa £60,000.

See the true, factual background, in my 8 November blog, regarding same:

https://lukemitchelltrial.blogspot.com/2023/11/availability-of-trial-transcripts.html

The, so far, acquired trial transcripts, several hundred pages already, are gradually appearing online and a sizable undertaking, especially having a responsibility to perhaps redact certain names.

These are costing hundreds of pounds, each time, for a small portion of the trial transcripts.

Think how much that money could have been better utilised by supporters, if only Sandra Lean had published the transcripts herself.

We are going to end up talking about a sizable, four figure sum.

A link to the new, imminent uploads, wil be posted here.

The transcripts do highlight significant, evidential material, which is at variance with Sandra Lean's published claims.

This will, entirely separately, be addressed shortly and a link posted here.