Is it courage, or is it a way of making a name and career for oneself? I wonder….
All down to perception. Where exactly has Ms Lean been brave? Ms Lean has not spent years, tirelessly campaigning away for Mitchell. She has spent most of those years as a student. Goal? To become a budding criminologist/author. This two way street of give and take. This high profile case of using controversary to gain attention. Of trying to push out that Mitchell could be innocent. Attempting to show that a MOJ may have taken place, in any format. Right down to a technical error. Where she has attempted to tick every single box. Based upon half truths, misinformation and downright lies. All done on the back of pretence, of pushing out some sense of false worth.
Devious and deceitful - very brave components. are they not? This latest debacle yet again, of Ovens. Of myself stating several weeks ago of Ovens being a witness at court in response to WW. I spend no time tirelessly at points sourcing, as one of the main points I try to enforce, is that Lean does not do this. I have no interest in whether people choose to believe the Crowns case, or of other information that has come to light over these years through many discussions. Of what I myself gained in knowledge whilst studying. To show to people, that whilst Lean may claim to have this knowledge, of pulling those rabbits out of a hat, by way of this 5% verbatim. She is proving nothing, no context. That her assumptions and narrative are not the missing context. That lying by omission only works for those foolish enough to put blind faith in something, the unknown.
Another area I have tried to highlight is this fallacy of Ms Lean holding everything in her hands. Nonsense. Which had been getting touted out before "No Smoke" was written, of those blatant half truths in the book. Of "careful examination of witness statements" - The half truth, that Ms Lean had witnessed hearing, parts of witness testimony. Which morphed itself into that false premise, of actually having those statements. And one can work themselves right up to IB. Through every discussion, every claim made prior to this. That fallacy again. That in her hands she held everything upon this case. When all she has ever had is DF's hand me downs along with any media reports, and whatever has been fed direct by the Mitchells. Fed to her at a time, they, the murderer, his mother and self, believed there would be no arrest. Where she has built upon those shaky foundations borne of lies, and added to them. By using this imaginary power tool, to fool people, to gain support, support for the half truths, misinformation and downright lies.
That complete false premise that the book is "The true story of the murder of Jodi Jones" where by way of deceit, Ms Lean has done nothing more than tarnish the memory of this girl. By way of that misinformation, half truths and lies. Where those foolish enough believe every word on the basis of that lie. That she has held everything on this case, thus accept every wrongful claim about the police, the Jones family, other witnesses and on it goes. Over LM. Using this case, in it's notoriety has she not, to pave the way for her own goals. To become some criminologist/author. To be recognised. For is is certainly not the truth that she seeks, nor speaks.
Areas I have highlighted, just a couple. Going to start with Ovens here. Of what I have always said. That what Ms Lean has always had is limited. She did not attend the trial, and she does not have the full trial transcripts. To only now, bring to light, after it being pushed in her face (yet again) by way of getting directly asked. That she is claiming to have been unaware that Ovens had been a witness at trial. That she had not found anything herself through "MSM" or the trial transcripts. And onto Mr Kelly's statement of alibi. Onto those phone logs, and onto the elimination of people in the investigation. Where on the latter she uses JF as way of her half truth. That due to it being in a statement, of him making this claim. Not the police, not any direct information and knowledge of the actual investigation. She has applied this notion across the board. As she has done with most everything. And it is all hogwash.
She has never had near enough of anything, to be making any claims that she does. It is all founded upon lies. Directly from the Mitchells in that calm before the storm period in time. Where she has built from this, seeking only to prove her self. For gain in this two way street, based from that clear collusion of bias between those three people. A liar, plus another liar and onto the third. - You could not get a better combination of craws together. Where it could not be clearer to those not readily fooled, that they have become mere puppets for these people. Spreading those lies, spreading that hate upon Jodi's family, the police, these others, the system. Passing the blame from Mitchell upon it being Jodi's fault that day, from his mother for also blaming Jodi and onto Lean. Whom we know carries no responsibility, no blame. As we see yet again with Ovens. Where she knew fine well he had testified at court. She has let this all, as she does grown it's arms and legs. Until pushed to the point, of passing the buck.
