Sandra's exit - The real reasons

[mrswah]

Thanks

James English asks,

‘Were you around then or was it after when he went to prison’

Sandra Lean states,

‘I was involved from September 2003 so 10 weeks after the murder’

JE: And that’s when you got involved
SL: Yeah

What isn’t clear from this ⬆️


Was it 10 weeks after the murder Corinne Mitchell put an alleged note through her work place door?

The Sky interview was on the 3rd September 2003

So did Sandra see Luke and Corinne on the TV on the 3rd Sept and then started gossiping to some of the locals and that’s how Corinne heard Sandra was talking about Luke ?

or was it something else which triggered her gossip?

Sandra’s never made it clear when she started gossiping and to whom ?

You need to read the book, Nicholas!!!   Sandra tells of how she became involved.

[Nicholas]

That this woman, who in reality should not be given the time of day around the Mitchell case.

She really shouldn’t ⬇️

Sandra Lean
‘The reason I put the book out is if I were forced to give up so if anything happened to me I don’t think there’s anybody else in Scotland got the level of knowledge of the case that I’ve got and the idea was put everything in there and then if anybody else wants to come along and take over the informations there   


 


The above can be heard a couple of minutes past the 47:00 here ⬇️

Sorry I meant to send you a link earlier. It's after 47 minutes into the video.
https://youtu.be/fqQ7lnucUMI

[mrswah]

Jodi had just had punishment lifted for smoking cannabis. She was at home with her mother after finishing school. Now if one wishes to believe that her mother like Mitchells didn't give two hoots around 14yr olds taking drugs, that the punishment was made up, (other witnesses to the fact) then everyone's choice to do so. If one also wishes to pick up on this, ignoring the point of the post, that Lean contorts anything to suit. That there has been lies told repeatedly over the years. Luke Mitchell was smoking drugs the whole evening, even whilst on this search. So where exactly did this claimed drugs test come into play? -  It is BS.

As for the smoking with Jodi prior to her death. Luke Mitchell was not at home. If one wishes to ignore every lie told around those 45minutes originally, to ignore any reason why they lied. Again, one's choice to do so. That whole concocted story squeezed into less than 15mins. Jodi left to meet only him. He was seen by AB in Easthouse's. They hung around in RD wood, unless you are of the same mind as others, that those initials just miraculously appeared on the tree. Again ignoring Mitchells lies, of his denial of EVER being in that woodland strip. Of the existence of the V. Just accepts those lies - as you say, wasn't he just like any other teenager? - We are still waiting for a list of those same teenagers, who murdered their girlfriends and inflicted those type of horrific injuries?

So yes, I am sure that the person that Jodi Jones smoked cannabis with, prior to her death was LM. She is highly unlikely to have smoked it at home, on the School bus or that short walk to where she met Luke. In an area they frequented, Into the RD wood, the perfect place for that smoke, out of sight - which turned into the place, out of sight, that Luke Mitchell murdered her.

We know that Luke and Jodi had been smoking during their school lunch hour that day, as this was confirmed in court by a witness (Alistair Leitch), who had been smoking with them. We can't be sure, however, that she was smoking with Luke shortly before he (allegedly) killed her----and that is assuming she actually met Luke before she was killed.

[Nicholas]

She really shouldn’t ⬇️

Sandra Lean
‘The reason I put the book out is if I were forced to give up so if anything happened to me I don’t think there’s anybody else in Scotland got the level of knowledge of the case that I’ve got and the idea was put everything in there and then if anybody else wants to come along and take over the informations there   


 

So very similar to John Morris and his book on mass murderer and child killer David Morris

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Struck+off+solicitor+was+taken+on+by+law+firm%3B+TRIBUNAL%3A+Swansea...-a088672757

[Nicholas]

You need to read the book, Nicholas!!!   Sandra tells of how she became involved.

But ‘Sandra tells’ all sorts of BS

[Parky41]

We know that Luke and Jodi had been smoking during their school lunch hour that day, as this was confirmed in court by a witness (Alistair Leitch), who had been smoking with them. We can't be sure, however, that she was smoking with Luke shortly before he (allegedly) killed her----and that is assuming she actually met Luke before she was killed.

Jodi was in school all afternoon. The pathology report stated up to two hours before death. So not from lunchtime. Not a scrap of evidence to suggest she smoked before stepping on that school bus with her friends. Highly unlikely to have went home stoned! whilst being on a punishment for smoking. Equally unlikely that she smoked in the house. Or had the means to have on that short walk to meeting with Luke.

You accept every lie he told and excuse it - that is entirely up to you. You again ignore the point of the manipulation by Lean, again entirely up to you. I firmly believe that it was with Mitchell, that they shared that joint just before he murdered her.

He was not home, again if you believe that concocted story of a dinner tale squeezed into less than 15mins - Then you are going to believe every single lie you are told. - Does that seem fair to assume?

[mrswah]

Jodi was in school all afternoon. The pathology report stated up to two hours before death. So not from lunchtime. Not a scrap of evidence to suggest she smoked before stepping on that school bus with her friends. Highly unlikely to have went home stoned! whilst being on a punishment for smoking. Equally unlikely that she smoked in the house. Or had the means to have on that short walk to meeting with Luke.

You accept every lie he told and excuse it - that is entirely up to you. You again ignore the point of the manipulation by Lean, again entirely up to you. I firmly believe that it was with Mitchell, that they shared that joint just before he murdered her.

He was not home, again if you believe that concocted story of a dinner tale squeezed into less than 15mins - Then you are going to believe every single lie you are told. - Does that seem fair to assume?

You are implying that SL and the Mitchells tell lies, while you tell the truth-------I haven't yet seen any reason why I should believe you rather than them .  That is not saying that Luke told no lies (he obviously WAS familiar with the woods, for example), or that Sandra gets some things wrong. It may also be the case that Luke is as guilty as sin------but I certainly don't have your confidence!  How do you know, for sure, that he wasn't at home? How do you know for sure that he didn't cook dinner? How do you know for sure that he met up with Jodi that evening?

[rulesapply]

You are implying that SL and the Mitchells tell lies, while you tell the truth-------I haven't yet seen any reason why I should believe you rather than them .  That is not saying that Luke told no lies (he obviously WAS familiar with the woods, for example), or that Sandra gets some things wrong. It may also be the case that Luke is as guilty as sin------but I certainly don't have your confidence!  How do you know, for sure, that he wasn't at home? How do you know for sure that he didn't cook dinner? How do you know for sure that he met up with Jodi that evening?

I
I was careful to state it's only my opinion.

[rulesapply]

I
I was careful to state it's only my opinion.

I once asked Sandra Lean where she first met SF. This was in the comments section of a YouTube video. Sandra Lean told me she first met SF at Scott's Caravans when SF went there to tell CM everything he knew because apparently no one was listening. Sandra Lean told me this was at the end of 2006. She told me she was there with Corinne. This seemed like a huge coincidence to me that SL happened to be there so I asked if the meeting was prearranged. She had also stated that after that she would occasionally meet with SF at Stirling for coffee but the first time they met was at Corinne's place of work. SL didn't answer me or any of my questions after that. The thread has been deleted but others must have read it too. On other videos, SL is adamant that the first time she ever met SF was at Stirling University where they both studied. Both stories can't be true. Also, if no one was listening to SF before he visited with Corinne in 2006, why is he now saying he gave a sworn statement to an honest lawyer in 2005?
Why would Corinne Mitchell put a note through the door of the local alternative therapist looking for help? SL wasn't  a criminologist then. They were complete strangers apparently. Didn't CM have friends and family to turn to? The woman who ran the local disco Luke attended told a newspaper that Luke had support and that she herself supported Luke so why the note to a complete stranger? As I've said, it's only my opinion but I don't believe it. I don't expect anyone else to agree with me.

[faithlilly]

‘And as for the Judges direction. Of course they can give direction. They did give direction.’

No they didn’t.

‘utter BS?’

Absolutely agree

[faithlilly]

Two sides of the same coin - She is asking for this review in the hope that it will lead into this child killer being freed.  By way of half truths, misinformation and downright lies - of that there is not doubt. From the very first source, the Mitchells who were lying.  And you hit the nail on the head. A trial SHE believed to be unfair. So this woman, this nobody who got into cahoots with liars felt in her non expert opinion, it was not fair? And she felt this because she chose to push the side of liars first and foremost. As she has done with others. Of which she has been wrong, to gather some money now? And where is she? - Certainly not having a break after years of endless campaigning for there has been none. It has always been a woman using for her own gain, via study material and so forth. To be a budding author, those goals - at others expense? Has it not? That clear two way street of give and take.

Of course the lies, the misinformation and all else - will not gain him any freedom, nor a review. Just cause harm to the pawns she uses along the way.

Of course Dr Lean is supported in her efforts by various experts in their fields.

[Dexter]

I once asked Sandra Lean where she first met SF. This was in the comments section of a YouTube video. Sandra Lean told me she first met SF at Scott's Caravans when SF went there to tell CM everything he knew because apparently no one was listening. Sandra Lean told me this was at the end of 2006. She told me she was there with Corinne. This seemed like a huge coincidence to me that SL happened to be there so I asked if the meeting was prearranged. She had also stated that after that she would occasionally meet with SF at Stirling for coffee but the first time they met was at Corinne's place of work. SL didn't answer me or any of my questions after that. The thread has been deleted but others must have read it too. On other videos, SL is adamant that the first time she ever met SF was at Stirling University where they both studied. Both stories can't be true. Also, if no one was listening to SF before he visited with Corinne in 2006, why is he now saying he gave a sworn statement to an honest lawyer in 2005?
Why would Corinne Mitchell put a note through the door of the local alternative therapist looking for help? SL wasn't  a criminologist then. They were complete strangers apparently. Didn't CM have friends and family to turn to? The woman who ran the local disco Luke attended told a newspaper that Luke had support and that she herself supported Luke so why the note to a complete stranger? As I've said, it's only my opinion but I don't believe it. I don't expect anyone else to agree with me.

No one was  listening to SF.  He did that 2006 BECAUSE no one had taken any notice of his actions / statement in 2005. Kind of confirms what he is saying doesn't it.

[faithlilly]

Jodi was in school all afternoon. The pathology report stated up to two hours before death. So not from lunchtime. Not a scrap of evidence to suggest she smoked before stepping on that school bus with her friends. Highly unlikely to have went home stoned! whilst being on a punishment for smoking. Equally unlikely that she smoked in the house. Or had the means to have on that short walk to meeting with Luke.

Not unlikely to have smoked in the house. Her brother had asked his mum to cancel an appointment I believe at the doctors so he could smoke dope in his bedroom with JF. Perhaps Jodi asked for a fly drag or two?

You accept every lie he told and excuse it - that is entirely up to you. You again ignore the point of the manipulation by Lean, again entirely up to you. I firmly believe that it was with Mitchell, that they shared that joint just before he murdered her.

He was not home, again if you believe that concocted story of a dinner tale squeezed into less than 15mins - Then you are going to believe every single lie you are told. - Does that seem fair to assume?

[mrswah]

I
I was careful to state it's only my opinion.

My reply was for Parky!

[Bullseye]

The problem with everything is we don’t know anything

It’s said she would not smoke in her home, her brother was apparently smoking in his room that afternoon, how do we know she didn’t sneak some of his when he was out the room, or smoke it with him, we don’t.

How do we know Jodi was going to meet Luke there and then, she left the house saying she was meeting Luke but maybe she was going somewhere first, like maybe her friend Yvonnes as it is where they were alleged to smoke from time to time. We don’t know.

How do we know she didn’t bump into the boys on the bike on the path and have a smoke with them in behind the wall? We don’t.

How do we know she was killed at 5.15 behind the wall, because some boy heard a noise, come on! Again we don’t know.

Just because nobody came forward does not mean she didn’t meet someone else before she was killed. Just because someone hear a noise at a certain time does not mean that’s when [Name removed] was killed, also does not mean it was not Luke, what if she met someone first had a smoke, then met Luke just after 6, he could have killed her then, plenty time.

Also it could have been Luke she had a smoke with behind the wall at 515, then he killed her, but we don’t know that, you may believe it but that doesn’t mean it is true.

This whole case is based on what we believe. How we interpret the information to hand. Unfortunately there is no smoking gun, no hard fact evidence and over time the information on the case has been twisted and distorted to fit whatever each side want you to believe.

I’ve been reading about this case for over 10 years and I’m still not sure either way. There are a couple of things that would convince me, for example evidence of Luke having a parka before the murder, I read Luke’s ex gf had photos to prove this but I’ve never heard of that being used in court so can only assume is misinformation??
Dna retested and Luke’s dna confirmed
Luke’s brother, if he doesn’t support Luke that would certainly make me rethink, again I’ve heard both he and the dad fully support Luke and always have and also the other side saying sm will tell anyone who asks that Luke is the killer. I would only believe a statement from the family which is not going to happen any time soon.

Unless there is a full review we will never be any closer to know for sure and I really can’t see that happening!