Sandra's exit - The real reasons

[faithlilly]

mrswah, I want to be really clear here. I have never asked anyone for proof of educational qualifications. I have asked if certain people are allowed to talk for others who, apparently, are unable to speak for themselves for whatever reason. Because the information has been presented as second hand information I asked for proof.  Never once have I asked anyone for proof of qualifications. Others have turned their question into a "joke" question, not a serious  issue and have never been pulled up for BS. Perhaps if, from now on, I say that none of my questions are serious ones,  I'll be allowed too? As for SL showing proof of anything,  of course the author should. If not,, why not? What's to hide? Not in the public domain so I can't give you proof, illegal for me to show you proof...... Then, if that's the case, why expect people to believe? Blind faith is cult stuff. Why doesn't SL wait until she can show the proof before she whips up a crowd? I'll tell you why,  IMO, because she whips up a crowd that needs nothing more than being whipped up.  They don't require proof. This is a cult. IMO.

Let me ask you this. Do you believe Parky when he claimed that the judge directed the jury that he would only accept a majority verdict of 13 or more?

[rulesapply]

Why can't you ever answer or address a straight question with a straight answer? Why do you always have to involve someone else? What about Parky? What does Parky have to do with my answer? Nothing.  But, but, but.... what about anyone else but you answering a straight question? How about that, faithlilly? Parky is a different conversation.

[Guiltyascharged]

  Can you prove the judge didn't?

[Parky41]

I absolutely agree. The judge’s direction claim was my particular favourite.

And there we have yet again the blameless directing blame elsewhere. That stark difference between someone claiming you are a liar to actually being one. Where proof has been shown time and again of the lies told from those spearheading this farce of a campaign. Half truths, misinformation and downright lies. Money by menace and much more.

22nd January 2005

Boyfriend led search with joint in his hand CANNABIS

LUKE Mitchell was a drug dealer as well as a murderer.

The teenager, his fingers visibly black with tar from burning cannabis, joined in the torchlight hunt for Jodi's body with a joint in hand.

He later told a psychiatrist that he was rolling the equivalent of 300 joints a week before the murder, and said he doubled his consumption after it.

Although this level of usage was dismissed by police and a pharmacologist, experts said the use of cannabis was undoubtedly rife among his age group.


Users news from the HeraldScotland

Can you tell us exactly when it was LM had bloods take for analysis? For we know without a shadow of a doubt those claimed blood samples, between 5 - 6am. Were not of the morning of July the 1st. Or if they were, they were not for the purpose of substance abuse. Where in one of Ms Leans 'lives' over this past couple of months she was asked about this. To do yet again with cannabis in Jodi's system. Where she made claim to Luke only smoking prior to 7pm. That perhaps he had lost track of real time due to this? That he had stepped into the Abbey for a smoke, that this would explain why he possibly could have missed Jodi passing by? Given reason as to why he asked his mother if she had been to the house?

Not only this, one went into great detail about different strengths. That Luke, his age group were unlikely to have had the means to obtain a "super strength" variety. That what he had was of the weak variety, thus why it did not show in his system.That the possibility that it showed in Jodi's system, was due to someone given her a joint laced with strong stuff. That this then could account for rendering her senseless prior to the attack.

We already know he had been smoking after 7pm with the boys. We know strength has nothing to do with being in someones system when they died. What is wrong will all of this, is the feeding of more misinformation to back up lies already told. In these blatant attempts to weakly, and shamefully try to prove, that Jodi could not have smoked cannabis with Luke Mitchell just prior to her death.

To not only continue to try and squirm away from the lies already told, the assumptions and misinformation - but to attempt to stick to what she wants others to believe. What has always been intended, of Jodi having that smoke, up to two hours before her death with someone closer to home.

When we know the only person that Jodi was smoking with that day was LM, the person she usually smoked it with. At a place they often went to do this, in the RD wood. Where they hung out.

[faithlilly]

Why can't you ever answer or address a straight question with a straight answer? Why do you always have to involve someone else? What about Parky? What does Parky have to do with my answer? Nothing.  But, but, but.... what about anyone else but you answering a straight question? How about that, faithlilly? Parky is a different conversation.

You posted this

‘  Not in the public domain so I can't give you proof, illegal for me to show you proof...... Then, if that's the case, why expect people to believe? Blind faith is cult stuff. ’

From this I think it’s sensible to assume that if you don’t see proof of a claim you don’t tend to believe it so I’ll ask again, do you believe Parky’s claim, without proof, or not? I know it may be uncomfortable answering but consistency is all I’m asking for.

[faithlilly]

And there we have yet again the blameless directing blame elsewhere. That stark difference between someone claiming you are a liar to actually being one. Where proof has been shown time and again of the lies told from those spearheading this farce of a campaign. Half truths, misinformation and downright lies. Money by menace and much more.


Lovely but are you now willing to substantiate your claim about the judge’s direction with proof?

Can you tell us exactly when it was LM had bloods take for analysis? For we know without a shadow of a doubt those claimed blood samples, between 5 - 6am. Were not of the morning of July the 1st. Or if they were, they were not for the purpose of substance abuse. Where in one of Ms Leans 'lives' over this past couple of months she was asked about this. To do yet again with cannabis in Jodi's system. Where she made claim to Luke only smoking prior to 7pm. That perhaps he had lost track of real time due to this? That he had stepped into the Abbey for a smoke, that this would explain why he possibly could have missed Jodi passing by? Given reason as to why he asked his mother if she had been to the house?

All very interesting but are you now willing to substantiate your claim about the judge’s direction with proof?

Not only this, one went into great detail about different strengths. That Luke, his age group were unlikely to have had the means to obtain a "super strength" variety. That what he had was of the weak variety, thus why it did not show in his system.That the possibility that it showed in Jodi's system, was due to someone given her a joint laced with strong stuff. That this then could account for rendering her senseless prior to the attack.

You keep chipping away but while you do could you please substantiate your claim about the judge’s direction with proof?

We already know he had been smoking after 7pm with the boys. We know strength has nothing to do with being in someones system when they died. What is wrong will all of this, is the feeding of more misinformation to back up lies already told. In these blatant attempts to weakly, and shamefully try to prove, that Jodi could not have smoked cannabis with Luke Mitchell just prior to her death.

To not only continue to try and squirm away from the lies already told, the assumptions and misinformation - but to attempt to stick to what she wants others to believe. What has always been intended, of Jodi having that smoke, up to two hours before her death with someone closer to home.

That’s settled then so are you now willing to substantiate your claim about the judge’s direction with proof?

When we know the only person that Jodi was smoking with that day was LM, the person she usually smoked it with. At a place they often went to do this, in the RD wood. Where they hung out.

[rulesapply]

I think you need to take a breath, you appear to be getting rather overwrought.

You posted this

‘  Not in the public domain so I can't give you proof, illegal for me to show you proof...... Then, if that's the case, why expect people to believe? Blind faith is cult stuff. ’

From this I think it’s sensible to assume that if you don’t see proof of a claim you don’t tend to believe it so I’ll ask again, do you believe Parky’s claim, without proof, or not? I know it may be uncomfortable answering but consistency is all I’m asking for.

I require the same proof over the board. I would like proof of what Parky says but I've never commented on it. I give it no more credence than I give the claims of SL without proof. Don't worry about me being over wrought. That would take more than you. It's all obvious defletion. Worthless at best. Straight answers are all that's required. The differences, IMO, between SL and Parky are,  Parky doesn't want my money and IF Parky IS lying to me, he was never heading the campaign to have a child killer released anyway.

[rulesapply]

I think you need to take a breath, you appear to be getting rather overwrought.

You posted this

‘  Not in the public domain so I can't give you proof, illegal for me to show you proof...... Then, if that's the case, why expect people to believe? Blind faith is cult stuff. ’

From this I think it’s sensible to assume that if you don’t see proof of a claim you don’t tend to believe it so I’ll ask again, do you believe Parky’s claim, without proof, or not? I know it may be uncomfortable answering but consistency is all I’m asking for.

Back to my question if you would please,  faithlilly.

[rulesapply]

Why can't you ever answer or address a straight question with a straight answer? Why do you always have to involve someone else? What about Parky? What does Parky have to do with my answer? Nothing.  But, but, but.... what about anyone else but you answering a straight question? How about that, faithlilly? Parky is a different conversation.

Ah! There's my question,  faithlilly. 

[mrswah]

I require the same proof over the board. I would like proof of what Parky says but I've never commented on it. I give it no more credence than I give the claims of SL without proof. Don't worry about me being over wrought. That would take more than you. It's all obvious defletion. Worthless at best. The usual, awful sarcasm one can expect from someone who can't do any different. Straight answers are all that's required. The differences, IMO, between SL and Parky are,  Parky doesn't want my money and IF Parky IS lying to me, he was never heading the campaign to have a child killer released anyway.

Does Sandra Lean want your money?   Why?

Was SL ever heading a campaign "to have a child killer released", or was she heading a campaign to secure a review of an investigation and trial that she believed to have been unfair?

[rulesapply]

LM was found guilty by a jury of his peers for the murder of a child so, yes, SL was most definitely campaigning for the release of a convicted child killer. Please remember that his appeals were never based on his supposed innocence. Why not? As for the money, she's not getting it anyway, however she dresses up her begging bowl. Good night to all.

[mrswah]

And there we have yet again the blameless directing blame elsewhere. That stark difference between someone claiming you are a liar to actually being one. Where proof has been shown time and again of the lies told from those spearheading this farce of a campaign. Half truths, misinformation and downright lies. Money by menace and much more.

Can you tell us exactly when it was LM had bloods take for analysis? For we know without a shadow of a doubt those claimed blood samples, between 5 - 6am. Were not of the morning of July the 1st. Or if they were, they were not for the purpose of substance abuse. Where in one of Ms Leans 'lives' over this past couple of months she was asked about this. To do yet again with cannabis in Jodi's system. Where she made claim to Luke only smoking prior to 7pm. That perhaps he had lost track of real time due to this? That he had stepped into the Abbey for a smoke, that this would explain why he possibly could have missed Jodi passing by? Given reason as to why he asked his mother if she had been to the house?

Not only this, one went into great detail about different strengths. That Luke, his age group were unlikely to have had the means to obtain a "super strength" variety. That what he had was of the weak variety, thus why it did not show in his system.That the possibility that it showed in Jodi's system, was due to someone given her a joint laced with strong stuff. That this then could account for rendering her senseless prior to the attack.

We already know he had been smoking after 7pm with the boys. We know strength has nothing to do with being in someones system when they died. What is wrong will all of this, is the feeding of more misinformation to back up lies already told. In these blatant attempts to weakly, and shamefully try to prove, that Jodi could not have smoked cannabis with Luke Mitchell just prior to her death.

To not only continue to try and squirm away from the lies already told, the assumptions and misinformation - but to attempt to stick to what she wants others to believe. What has always been intended, of Jodi having that smoke, up to two hours before her death with someone closer to home.

When we know the only person that Jodi was smoking with that day was LM, the person she usually smoked it with. At a place they often went to do this, in the RD wood. Where they hung out.

How do you know that Luke was the only person Jodi had been smoking with on that day???

[faithlilly]

Ah! There's my question,  faithlilly.

That’s was more of a rhetorical rant than a question.

[rulesapply]

That’s was more of a rhetorical rant than a question.

Please forget your personal take on my question and take it as a straight question that only requires a straight answer.

[rulesapply]

That’s was more of a rhetorical rant than a question.

Anyway, it's half one and I'm definitely going to sleep now. Any last word you can't resist,  I'll pick up on in the morning. Think we're getting off topic again anyway. Good night.