THE ALIBI.

[mrswah]

Extraordinary isn’t. SM has always been a touchy subject for Lean, and it always will be. Her normal response, as per, you can see above. It is a copy & paste.

The others will never be left alone, it has become quite evident with the comments and wild accusations all over the internet, most of them would be contempt of court. But this is not about re-trails or independent reviews. It is all about drama & pound notes. Her audience is getting smaller by the day, she is left with single mothers that watch daytime tv & ex-cons with a grudge against the system. It is quite sad actually.

Sounds rather prejudiced!

[rulesapply]

Extraordinary isn’t. SM has always been a touchy subject for Lean, and it always will be. Her normal response, as per, you can see above. It is a copy & paste.

The others will never be left alone, it has become quite evident with the comments and wild accusations all over the internet, most of them would be contempt of court. But this is not about re-trails or independent reviews. It is all about drama & pound notes. Her audience is getting smaller by the day, she is left with single mothers that watch daytime tv & ex-cons with a grudge against the system. It is quite sad actually.

Well,  to put it bluntly,  if SM was pleasuring himself and it was embarrassing for him. Why does the prosecution have to deliberately embarrass him,  then why does SL not give the same respect to JF? He didn't kill that poor girl either so why is his humiliation ok when SLs isn't ok?

[rulesapply]

Well,  to put it bluntly,  if SM was pleasuring himself and it was embarrassing for him. Why does the prosecution have to deliberately embarrass him,  then why does SL not give the same respect to JF? He didn't kill that poor girl either so why is his humiliation ok when SLs isn't ok?

Sorry.  I don't see letters the way you might. What I mean is,  Why is it not ok to humiliate SM but humiliate J? Why is that ok?

[rulesapply]

Sorry.  I don't see letters the way you might. What I mean is,  Why is it not ok to humiliate SM but humiliate J? Why is that ok?
Surely the humiliation of J is unacceptable?

[Dexter]

And your posts aren't confusing?

[rulesapply]

And your posts aren't confusing?

You're my only complaint so far. Maybe I'm confusing to you.

[Rusty]

Well,  to put it bluntly,  if SM was pleasuring himself and it was embarrassing for him. Why does the prosecution have to deliberately embarrass him,  then why does SL not give the same respect to JF? He didn't kill that poor girl either so why is his humiliation ok when SLs isn't ok?

You make an excellent point. One rule for one and all that.

But having an innocent man's used condom, full of fresh semen "in Leans words" found yards away from the mutilated body of a child, adds to the drama of the fairy tale. Designed to suck people in. It works, as you have probably seen, many of the comments on the internet regarding JF. All false.

[rulesapply]

You make an excellent point. One rule for one and all that.

But having an innocent man's used condom, full of fresh semen "in Leans words" found yards away from the mutilated body of a child, adds to the drama of the fairy tale. Designed to suck people in. It works, as you have probably seen, many of the comments on the internet regarding JF. All false.

Is it JF? Thanks.I wasn't sure. I don't always see letters the way you may. But what I do know is, not a single one of LM'S  appeals were based on innocence. If not,.why not?

[rulesapply]

You make an excellent point. One rule for one and all that.

But having an innocent man's used condom, full of fresh semen "in Leans words" found yards away from the mutilated body of a child, adds to the drama of the fairy tale. Designed to suck people in. It works, as you have probably seen, many of the comments on the internet regarding JF. All false.

Anyone caught up in this is a victim of Sandra Lean. Sandra Lean will use anyone to further her cause. IMO. Her book is not factual. Her personal needs need to be taken into account. Sandra Lean and her books are fiction. She has said so herself. She has said, publicly, she wrote the first book without facts. She said she was withdrawing that book. Did she??

[rulesapply]

You reply to yourself then quote someone but write nothing. Makes sense in your world I guess 

I'm trying my best. I don't see words as you do but I'm trying.

[rulesapply]

You reply to yourself then quote someone but write nothing. Makes sense in your world I guess 

Regardless of my learning difficulties,  I have all the respect in the world for Judy Jones. My heart goes out to her.

[Bullseye]

Is that Lean pretending she speaks for SM again? How old is that post?

She fully understands, that SM does not want to be dragged back into the public eye, but all the others are fair game to be dragged though the dirt. Hypocrisy at its finest.

I think that was a discussion I was having with Sandra on another forum back in Nov 2019.

I have to agree if everyone else named and involved in the court case is ok to talk about then so should Shane be, after all his evidence is a major part of the case and needs to be talked about and clarified IMO I always thought it was wrong to refuse to answer questions about him, but I don’t see Shane coming out any time soon to set the record right, which as I’ve said a number of times, doesn’t look good. Sandra said she spoke to him direct but as others from the guilty side have said they have spoken to him too leaves us all back at square one, make up your own mind from info available. Maybe Luke’s new spokes person will be able to release the info or better yet speak to Shane, after all she is in contact with Luke and him mum ….

[rulesapply]

Shame on her

[Rusty]

I think that was a discussion I was having with Sandra on another forum back in Nov 2019.

I have to agree if everyone else named and involved in the court case is ok to talk about then so should Shane be, after all his evidence is a major part of the case and needs to be talked about and clarified IMO I always thought it was wrong to refuse to answer questions about him, but I don’t see Shane coming out any time soon to set the record right, which as I’ve said a number of times, doesn’t look good. Sandra said she spoke to him direct but as others from the guilty side have said they have spoken to him too leaves us all back at square one, make up your own mind from info available. Maybe Luke’s new spokes person will be able to release the info or better yet speak to Shane, after all she is in contact with Luke and him mum ….

Would not happen to be the blue forum Bullseye? That is probably where I have seen it before. Although there is a load of posts disappeared from there, some real good reading gone. It is also very similar response she would give on the WAP forum.

Anyway, Sandra knows that SM is the key to all of this, she also knows he could destroy everything she has fought for over the years, if he was to make a public statement, he was after all the main argument for the defence. She also knows he will never make a public statement, he has nothing to gain from doing so. But as long as she continues to be at the forefront, this question will forever haunt her. It will never go away, and she will never be able to splain her way out of it, because it is quite simple, she does not speak for SM.

If we are to believe Sandra about SM. Why do you think the gutter press have never hounded him? It would be quite the story.

[rulesapply]

Indeed she does.