Author Topic: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!  (Read 8067 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


Offline Nicholas

Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
« Reply #16 on: June 29, 2019, 01:23:42 PM »
its said there was a big falling out between luke and sandra and corine, i dont think luke and sandra have spoken for many years. can anyone shed some light on this?

It was reported on 14th April 2014:

“JODI Jones’ killer, Luke Mitchell, has demanded the right to be given Satanic textbooks in prison because of his “religious beliefs”.
Mitchell has reportedly asked for six books, including The Devil’s Notebook and Satan Speaks, after claiming access to occult materials was his human right.
Among the texts is The Satanic Bible, which exhorts the creation of a lawless society where human sacrifice and murder is not just tolerated but encouraged.
The 25-year-old is understood to have made the request to the chaplain of Shotts prison, where he is serving life for murdering Jodi in June 2003. Mitchell’s Satanic links as a teenager were highlighted during his trial.
The Scottish Prison Service is said to be considering the request although it can ban inmates from obtaining books not on the approved list of suppliers.
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/killer-luke-mitchell-demands-satanic-books-in-jail-1-3375463


Then on 16th July 2014
“A CRIMINOLOGIST who spearheaded efforts to overturn Luke Mitchell’s conviction for the murder of his girlfriend Jodi Jones has withdrawn from the campaign to free him.
Dr Sandra Lean, who highlighted his case in her book No Smoke! The Shocking Truth About British Justice, led the battle against Mitchell’s life sentence alongside his mother, Corinne.
Her withdrawal follows a ruling by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which found there were no grounds to challenge the guilty verdict.
Following the report’s publication, Dr Lean admitted it was a “shattering blow” to the long-running campaign to clear 25-year-old Mitchell’s name, but said he would “not give up his fight”.
Sources said Mrs Mitchell had become unhappy with Dr Lean’s involvement in the wake of the SCCRC ruling, which followed two years of investigation by Scotland’s official justice watchdog.
Dr Lean would not comment on any factors behind her departure, adding the “reasons would remain private as a matter of respect”.
Mrs Mitchell confirmed Dr Lean had left, but did not want to comment further.
Dr Lean said: “I really have nothing to say about this. I believe Luke is 100 per cent completely innocent. The reason for my withdrawal will remain private as a matter of respect.”
Dr Lean added she would not be involved with the website and forum set up to promote Mitchell’s cause as “I no longer have power of attorney”.
But a source said: “Mrs Mitchell blames Dr Lean for the SCCRC appeal failing, which is completely wrong. Dr Lean has dedicated ten years of her life to the cause and has done a really good job.
“It’s appalling for her to be treated this way and it’s left the campaign in disarray.”

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/criminologist-withdraws-from-fight-to-free-luke-mitchell-1-3478153

Wonder if the source was Billy Middleton?
« Last Edit: June 30, 2019, 08:31:09 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
« Reply #17 on: July 06, 2019, 01:19:30 PM »
16th July 2014
“A CRIMINOLOGIST who spearheaded efforts to overturn Luke Mitchell’s conviction for the murder of his girlfriend Jodi Jones has withdrawn from the campaign to free him.
Dr Sandra Lean, who highlighted his case in her book No Smoke! The Shocking Truth About British Justice, led the battle against Mitchell’s life sentence alongside his mother, Corinne.
Her withdrawal follows a ruling by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which found there were no grounds to challenge the guilty verdict.
Following the report’s publication, Dr Lean admitted it was a “shattering blow” to the long-running campaign to clear 25-year-old Mitchell’s name, but said he would “not give up his fight”.
Sources said Mrs Mitchell had become unhappy with Dr Lean’s involvement in the wake of the SCCRC ruling, which followed two years of investigation by Scotland’s official justice watchdog.
Dr Lean would not comment on any factors behind her departure, adding the “reasons would remain private as a matter of respect”.
Mrs Mitchell confirmed Dr Lean had left, but did not want to comment further.
Dr Lean said: “I really have nothing to say about this. I believe Luke is 100 per cent completely innocent. The reason for my withdrawal will remain private as a matter of respect.”
Dr Lean added she would not be involved with the website and forum set up to promote Mitchell’s cause as “I no longer have power of attorney”.
But a source said: “Mrs Mitchell blames Dr Lean for the SCCRC appeal failing, which is completely wrong. Dr Lean has dedicated ten years of her life to the cause and has done a really good job.
“It’s appalling for her to be treated this way and it’s left the campaign in disarray.”

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/criminologist-withdraws-from-fight-to-free-luke-mitchell-1-3478153

Wonder if the source was Billy Middleton?

Wrongly Accused Person Organsation, Billy Middleton, explains in his latest rendering...

The road to where things now are for Luke and his case has been a long, difficult and often stressful one for all those who have genuinely believed in and supported him. I say genuinely because, as we know from experience, not everyone who becomes involved in cases such as this have genuine motives. Sandra became involved at a much earlier stage than most, but I don't think anyone with any credibility would suggest she has been anything other than supportive, or that she hasn't tried hard for almost 11 years, at great personal hardship, and often in difficult circumstances, to both help and to expose facts of the case which otherwise would probably still not be known.

Unfortunately, shortly before the SCCRC refusal, at a time when she knew it's decision was imminent, Sandra came to a point whereby she was no longer prepared to carry on and wrote to Luke explaining why. She remains supportive to this day. Anyone involved in the horror of fighting a wrongful conviction will understand the ever present difficulties of the situation.

Luke was merely a child himself when he was incarcerated, now, although he's not been allowed to develop as he should have been, he's a man. What he does now, and the choices he now makes are his alone to make and his responsibility. I wish him well, hope he makes wise choices and is someday successful. For me every day longer will be yet another too long for both him and Jodi to finally get the justice they deserve. However, in the absence of the connection that once existed, and the mandate which went along with it to validate what has been exposed both here on the forum and on his caseblog, WAP is in a difficult position. It is the most sensitive of cases, and the extent and nature of what has been highlighted could only be done in large part due to the fact it has been done on the basis of having access to the supporting documents. Clearly that is no longer the case, and while I had hoped to be able to archive it due to a SCCRC referral, I don't really see how it can remain available.

So while I wish Luke well and hope for a positive outcome, anything which depends on access to his paperwork will have to be taken offline in a week's time roughly. It does not in any way reflect a change in opinion on his case, and if anyone wants to start a topic which isn't notably said to be backed up by case papers they are perfectly free to do so in the general forum area as with any other deserved case providing discussion remains polite, respectful to all concern and dignified.l

Considerable thought has been given to this decision, and it has not been arrived at lightly, but sadly I can't see how, given the nature of the case and all that goes along with it how it can remain now.



www.forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder-general/150/
« Last Edit: July 06, 2019, 01:25:58 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
« Reply #18 on: July 06, 2019, 01:29:11 PM »
Wrongly Accused Person Organsation, Billy Middleton, explains in his latest rendering...


Unfortunately, shortly before the SCCRC refusal, at a time when she knew it's decision was imminent, Sandra came to a point whereby she was no longer prepared to carry on and wrote to Luke explaining why. 


Oh dear
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
« Reply #19 on: July 06, 2019, 11:27:20 PM »
Oh dear

@ 36.09 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uK7OVE_5L7Y

Sandra Lean stated: “When the commission refused to refer the case back - I had no idea what else could be done. With a case as strong as we put forward..... ” and I didn’t know what else I could do emotions were running high obviously it was a major blow that they refused to refer it back but I didn’t know where we could go after that..


Billy Middleton stated: “Unfortunately, shortly before the SCCRC refusal, at a time when she knew it's decision was imminent, Sandra came to a point whereby she was no longer prepared to carry on and wrote to Luke explaining why.
« Last Edit: July 06, 2019, 11:39:46 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
« Reply #20 on: July 07, 2019, 03:46:55 PM »
Billy Middleton stated: “Unfortunately, shortly before the SCCRC refusal, at a time when she knew it's decision was imminent, Sandra came to a point whereby she was no longer prepared to carry on and wrote to Luke explaining why. 

“no longer prepared to carry on” doesn’t seem to fit in with what’s been claimed elsewhere around the time?

prepared
adjective UK ​  /prɪˈpeəd/ US ​  /prɪˈperd/

 ready to deal with a situation:
When she called on me, I wasn't prepared.
They were prepared for the worst.

made earlier:
The spokesperson read a prepared statement.

be prepared to do sth​
to be willing, or happy to agree to do something:
Would you be prepared to help me get things ready for the party?
People are not really prepared to talk about these kinds of personal problems.



She was prepared before but no longer prepared at that time? What changed? What happened around that time?

Why was she longer willing or happy?

« Last Edit: July 07, 2019, 04:17:21 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Parky41

Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
« Reply #21 on: July 09, 2019, 09:57:48 AM »
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.4560.html

(Luke’s clothing, am I correct in saying this was meant to be the same clothes he wore to school that day that he was still in that night? If so who corroborated this?) Quote Bullseye.


[Yes. again, from memory, there were some witnesses from school who described those clothes, then the boys he was out playing with in the early evening also described those  clothes.

There are 30 - 40 boxes of documents. When they were returned from the SCCRC, the papers were just chucked in wily-nily and have never been properly sorted ever since. It will take me a long time to sort them all into the sort of order that would allow me to access specific papers quickly. I know what's there because it was me who sorted them before they went to the Commission in the first place.]


Were the 30-40? boxes of documents in their "wily-nily" state, handed into MOJO as such? Ms Lean visited MOJO offices at least once or twice a week, claiming she was the only person who accessed the files whilst there.
What did she do with the paper work, over this lengthy period of time, if not organize it into order? Was Ms Mitchell helping her with the files? Just a thought. Another thought being (working around response here) Would memory, of a case studied for 16yrs, books written around and so forth, not have information of importance steadfast in memory. 

Offline Nicholas

Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
« Reply #22 on: July 09, 2019, 10:49:41 AM »
Well, knock me down with a feather!!...Sandra Lean gets it wrong again!!

After many long years promoting the 'Luke Mitchell is innocent' agenda, Dr Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton have called it a day and exited from the case.  Has this something to do with what I predicted quite some time ago and that it that the SCCRC have refused to refer the case to Edinburgh's Court of Appeal.

Sandra Leans co admin at Wrongly Accused Person Organsation, Billy Middleton, explains in his latest rendering...

The road to where things now are for Luke and his case has been a long, difficult and often stressful one for all those who have genuinely believed in and supported him. I say genuinely because, as we know from experience, not everyone who becomes involved in cases such as this have genuine motives. Sandra became involved at a much earlier stage than most, but I don't think anyone with any credibility would suggest she has been anything other than supportive, or that she hasn't tried hard for almost 11 years, at great personal hardship, and often in difficult circumstances, to both help and to expose facts of the case which otherwise would probably still not be known.

Unfortunately, shortly before the SCCRC refusal, at a time when she knew it's decision was imminent, Sandra came to a point whereby she was no longer prepared to carry on and wrote to Luke explaining why. She remains supportive to this day. Anyone involved in the horror of fighting a wrongful conviction will understand the ever present difficulties of the situation.

Luke was merely a child himself when he was incarcerated, now, although he's not been allowed to develop as he should have been, he's a man. What he does now, and the choices he now makes are his alone to make and his responsibility. I wish him well, hope he makes wise choices and is someday successful. For me every day longer will be yet another too long for both him and Jodi to finally get the justice they deserve. However, in the absence of the connection that once existed, and the mandate which went along with it to validate what has been exposed both here on the forum and on his caseblog, WAP is in a difficult position. It is the most sensitive of cases, and the extent and nature of what has been highlighted could only be done in large part due to the fact it has been done on the basis of having access to the supporting documents. Clearly that is no longer the case, and while I had hoped to be able to archive it due to a SCCRC referral, I don't really see how it can remain available.

So while I wish Luke well and hope for a positive outcome, anything which depends on access to his paperwork will have to be taken offline in a week's time roughly. It does not in any way reflect a change in opinion on his case, and if anyone wants to start a topic which isn't notably said to be backed up by case papers they are perfectly free to do so in the general forum area as with any other deserved case providing discussion remains polite, respectful to all concern and dignified.l

Considerable thought has been given to this decision, and it has not been arrived at lightly, but sadly I can't see how, given the nature of the case and all that goes along with it how it can remain now.



www.forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder-general/150/

”although he’s not been allowed to develop as he should have been”

Who’s he blaming here? Corrine Mitchell? The prison? Luke?

What is known about Luke Mitchell’s development at 14 nearly 15?

What was it the police said about him, yet Corrine Mitchell has publicly claimed her 14/15 year old son was more intelligent than the police? How did she arrive at this perception?

What is Corrine Mitchell’s understanding of how a child develops; in particular - socially and emotionally.

For example, she claimed before meeting JJ, Luke spent much time with his pony and would often go out riding with her. How did this impact on him socially and emotionally?
« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 11:27:49 AM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
« Reply #23 on: July 09, 2019, 11:43:55 AM »
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.4560.html

(Luke’s clothing, am I correct in saying this was meant to be the same clothes he wore to school that day that he was still in that night? If so who corroborated this?) Quote Bullseye.


[Yes. again, from memory, there were some witnesses from school who described those clothes, then the boys he was out playing with in the early evening also described those  clothes.

There are 30 - 40 boxes of documents. When they were returned from the SCCRC, the papers were just chucked in wily-nily and have never been properly sorted ever since. It will take me a long time to sort them all into the sort of order that would allow me to access specific papers quickly. I know what's there because it was me who sorted them before they went to the Commission in the first place.]


Were the 30-40? boxes of documents in their "wily-nily" state, handed into MOJO as such? Ms Lean visited MOJO offices at least once or twice a week, claiming she was the only person who accessed the files whilst there.
What did she do with the paper work, over this lengthy period of time, if not organize it into order? Was Ms Mitchell helping her with the files? Just a thought. Another thought being (working around response here) Would memory, of a case studied for 16yrs, books written around and so forth, not have information of importance steadfast in memory.

Re Luke’s clothing - this is a crucial aspect of the case.

We don’t know if he changed after school, nor in between taking Mia out for a walk between 9pm and when he received a text from JJ’s Mum. We don’t know if he hid items of clothing that day nor whether any were burnt in the garden that night.

Excerpt from “No Smoke”
Furthermore, witnesses who claimed to have noticed “burning smells” coming from the garden that evening reported these as being “between 6.30pm and 7.30pm” and later “some time around 10pm.

(Didn’t Corrine and Shane have a fire that night?)
[19] There was evidence that the appellant had owned and worn a parka-style jacket in the months prior to the murder, that he was wearing such a jacket early in the evening of the deceased's murder and that no such jacket was found when the appellant's home was searched on 4 July 2003. The Crown sought to link this with evidence that a log burner in the back garden of the appellant's home was used on 30 June at around 1830 - 1930 and later, at around 2200, and with evidence of an unusual smell emanating from it. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

Ashes from the log burner could have been emptied at any time up to when the house was first searched. I find it difficult to imagine how one family liaison officer could watch all three Mitchell’s at the same time. Plus Shane was left behind when the police took Luke to the station.

Although she was assigned to the family the following day, this didn’t include moving in with them. She wasn’t with them at all times. Which still left time for any bulky items not burned down in the fire to have been removed and discarded elsewhere.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 01:36:11 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
« Reply #24 on: July 09, 2019, 11:59:44 AM »
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.4560.html

(Luke’s clothing, am I correct in saying this was meant to be the same clothes he wore to school that day that he was still in that night? If so who corroborated this?) Quote Bullseye.


[Yes. again, from memory, there were some witnesses from school who described those clothes, then the boys he was out playing with in the early evening also described those  clothes.

There are 30 - 40 boxes of documents. When they were returned from the SCCRC, the papers were just chucked in wily-nily and have never been properly sorted ever since. It will take me a long time to sort them all into the sort of order that would allow me to access specific papers quickly. I know what's there because it was me who sorted them before they went to the Commission in the first place.]


Were the 30-40? boxes of documents in their "wily-nily" state, handed into MOJO as such? Ms Lean visited MOJO offices at least once or twice a week, claiming she was the only person who accessed the files whilst there.
What did she do with the paper work, over this lengthy period of time, if not organize it into order? Was Ms Mitchell helping her with the files? Just a thought. Another thought being (working around response here) Would memory, of a case studied for 16yrs, books written around and so forth, not have information of importance steadfast in memory.


Good points re the 30-40 boxes Parky (highlighted in blue)

Personally I would have ensured I had COPIES of anything and everything I’d submitted to the CCRC in case anything were lost during said review. The CCRC would have received one set and I’d have kept an identical second set.

Did Sandra Lean hand over 30-40 boxes to the CCRC and not keep a copy of what she/they had submitted?

Sandra Leans co admin at Wrongly Accused Person Organsation, Billy Middleton, explains in his latest rendering...


Unfortunately, shortly before the SCCRC refusal, at a time when she knew it's decision was imminent, Sandra came to a point whereby she was no longer prepared to carry on and wrote to Luke explaining why. She remains supportive to this day. Anyone involved in the horror of fighting a wrongful conviction will understand the ever present difficulties of the situation.
 

www.forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder-general/150/

According to Billy Middleton Sandra Lean wrote to Luke before the SCCRC’s refusal.

What happened to her notes on the case and all other case related paperwork? Was it given to Corrine Mitchell? Did Luke or Corrine Mitchell ask for it back?

However, last month Mitchell's mother Corinne blasted MOJO for "doing nothing" since taking on her son's case and recovered his case files from their office
https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1439054-miscarriages-of-justice-charity-stripped-of-lottery-funding/

Mitchell's mum Corinne is calling for the knife to be tested, and yesterday she removed files from the Glasgow office of the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation (Mojo) claiming they hadn't done enough.
She says that she is trying to find a new lawyer to launch a fresh appeal with the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC).
Mojo bosses said to the Record that they were only providing "space and facilities" and "some administrative and casework support" – and never said they would prepare an application to the SCCRC.

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/luke-mitchell-supporters-want-kitchen-16444615

(Note: Underlined above)

Did Sandra Lean also write to Corrine Mitchell or ONLY to Luke? Because to this day I do not understand why she chose to contact me following the revealing of Simon Halls guilt and subsequent confession? Why choose to contact the messenger? She claimed to have spoken to others, who’s cases she highlighted in “No Smoke” yet chose to not write to Simon Hall?

Stephanie also thinks No Smoke should have been withdrawn or revised. I understand Stephanie’s right to feel that way. While she is also entitled to ask questions, I am under no obligation to answer them. However, on this occasion, I choose to address a couple of matters raised by Stephanie for the benefit of others who may be interested.
I spoke with many people (including others whose cases were mentioned or discussed) about the question of withdrawing the book. Not one of them wanted the book withdrawn. There were discussions about possible revisions which would, of necessity, have taken a great deal of time and effort - time and effort that I was not capable of devoting to the matter at that time.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382961.html#msg382961

I don’t understand her reasoning?

Wouldn’t basic logic suggest going direct to the source?

She goes on:
We will never know if Simon Hall’s confession was genuine, or the confused utterings of a crumbling sanity. The decision about whether to take up, or continue to carry, the baton for claimed Miscarriages of Justice is a matter for the person deciding to do so, and their own conscience.” You see, to this day, we have only Stephanie’s word about the circumstances leading up to the confession, .......

She stated this in January 2017, yet back in 2014 she claimed to me, “I’ve wasted 10 years of my life!” amongst other disclosures.

This self serving stance was a quite obvious strategic move designed to achieve HER long-term and overall aim, which for me is not grounded in truth-seeking or fact finding - its game planning.

Following the news MOJO Scotland are being investigated by the governments criminal justice division

Lean told STV News: "Part of the problem was the promises being made were not being kept. The case review itself was something of a farce. There was no central strategy. There was no planned route to how this review was going to take place. https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1439054-miscarriages-of-justice-charity-stripped-of-lottery-funding/

Following my experiences and having learned I was conned by Simon Hall;

In order to be a con artist you have to take advantage of other people's belief in you.”

Why We All Fall for Con Artists
Con artists surround us: Bernie Madoff. Nigerian princes. Psychics. But we never think we’ll fall prey to their wiles. We can spot a gimmick a mile away, while those who become victims are foolish, or greedy, or both. Well, that’s not quite the case. If the NSA can be hacked, so can the average — or even exceptional — human mind. Our capacity to trust, which makes us successful, also makes us vulnerable — as does the natural bias to overrate our own bullshit detection.

Are certain types of people more skilled or motivated in conning?
In my book I talk about the dark triad of traits: psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism. Any of those can predispose someone to being a con artist. In order to be a con artist you have to take advantage of other people’s belief in you, and psychopaths don’t really have a conscience, so it’s much easier for them to take that step. Narcissism, you have to have an overinflated sense of self in order to rationalize conning other people, especially if you’re not a psychopath. If you’re someone who feels emotion normally, narcissism will protect you, because you say, “Well, I deserve it.” And finally, Machiavellianism is a textbook definition of a con artist, because it’s someone who is like Machiavelli’s “ideal prince,” someone who uses the tools of persuasion and deception and connivance to get what he wants. The ends justify the means. But a lot of it, as with so many things in psychology, is a meeting of predisposition and opportunity.
https://www.thecut.com/2016/01/why-we-all-fall-for-con-artists.html
« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 01:31:06 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
« Reply #25 on: July 09, 2019, 02:26:13 PM »
Good points re the 30-40 boxes Parky (highlighted in blue)

Personally I would have ensured I had COPIES of anything and everything I’d submitted to the CCRC in case anything were lost during said review. The CCRC would have received one set and I’d have kept an identical second set.

Did Sandra Lean hand over 30-40 boxes to the CCRC and not keep a copy of what she/they had submitted?

According to Billy Middleton Sandra Lean wrote to Luke before the SCCRC’s refusal.

What happened to her notes on the case and all other case related paperwork? Was it given to Corrine Mitchell? Did Luke or Corrine Mitchell ask for it back?

However, last month Mitchell's mother Corinne blasted MOJO for "doing nothing" since taking on her son's case and recovered his case files from their office
https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1439054-miscarriages-of-justice-charity-stripped-of-lottery-funding/

Mitchell's mum Corinne is calling for the knife to be tested, and yesterday she removed files from the Glasgow office of the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation (Mojo) claiming they hadn't done enough.
She says that she is trying to find a new lawyer to launch a fresh appeal with the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC).
Mojo bosses said to the Record that they were only providing "space and facilities" and "some administrative and casework support" – and never said they would prepare an application to the SCCRC.

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/luke-mitchell-supporters-want-kitchen-16444615

(Note: Underlined above)

Did Sandra Lean also write to Corrine Mitchell or ONLY to Luke? Because to this day I do not understand why she chose to contact me following the revealing of Simon Halls guilt and subsequent confession? Why choose to contact the messenger? She claimed to have spoken to others, who’s cases she highlighted in “No Smoke” yet chose to not write to Simon Hall?

Stephanie also thinks No Smoke should have been withdrawn or revised. I understand Stephanie’s right to feel that way. While she is also entitled to ask questions, I am under no obligation to answer them. However, on this occasion, I choose to address a couple of matters raised by Stephanie for the benefit of others who may be interested.
I spoke with many people (including others whose cases were mentioned or discussed) about the question of withdrawing the book. Not one of them wanted the book withdrawn. There were discussions about possible revisions which would, of necessity, have taken a great deal of time and effort - time and effort that I was not capable of devoting to the matter at that time.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382961.html#msg382961

I don’t understand her reasoning?

Wouldn’t basic logic suggest going direct to the source?

She goes on:
We will never know if Simon Hall’s confession was genuine, or the confused utterings of a crumbling sanity. The decision about whether to take up, or continue to carry, the baton for claimed Miscarriages of Justice is a matter for the person deciding to do so, and their own conscience.” You see, to this day, we have only Stephanie’s word about the circumstances leading up to the confession, .......

She stated this in January 2017, yet back in 2014 she claimed to me, “I’ve wasted 10 years of my life!” amongst other disclosures.

This self serving stance was a quite obvious strategic move designed to achieve HER long-term and overall aim, which for me is not grounded in truth-seeking or fact finding - its game planning.

Following the news MOJO Scotland are being investigated by the governments criminal justice division

Lean told STV News: "Part of the problem was the promises being made were not being kept. The case review itself was something of a farce. There was no central strategy. There was no planned route to how this review was going to take place. https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1439054-miscarriages-of-justice-charity-stripped-of-lottery-funding/

Following my experiences and having learned I was conned by Simon Hall;

In order to be a con artist you have to take advantage of other people's belief in you.”

Why We All Fall for Con Artists
Con artists surround us: Bernie Madoff. Nigerian princes. Psychics. But we never think we’ll fall prey to their wiles. We can spot a gimmick a mile away, while those who become victims are foolish, or greedy, or both. Well, that’s not quite the case. If the NSA can be hacked, so can the average — or even exceptional — human mind. Our capacity to trust, which makes us successful, also makes us vulnerable — as does the natural bias to overrate our own bullshit detection.

Are certain types of people more skilled or motivated in conning?
In my book I talk about the dark triad of traits: psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism. Any of those can predispose someone to being a con artist. In order to be a con artist you have to take advantage of other people’s belief in you, and psychopaths don’t really have a conscience, so it’s much easier for them to take that step. Narcissism, you have to have an overinflated sense of self in order to rationalize conning other people, especially if you’re not a psychopath. If you’re someone who feels emotion normally, narcissism will protect you, because you say, “Well, I deserve it.” And finally, Machiavellianism is a textbook definition of a con artist, because it’s someone who is like Machiavelli’s “ideal prince,” someone who uses the tools of persuasion and deception and connivance to get what he wants. The ends justify the means. But a lot of it, as with so many things in psychology, is a meeting of predisposition and opportunity.
https://www.thecut.com/2016/01/why-we-all-fall-for-con-artists.html

”There were discussions about possible revisions which would, of necessity, have taken a great deal of time and effort - time and effort that I was not capable of devoting to the matter at that time

”Time and effort” to write a new book but no ”time and effort” to revise an old one?

WHY? Why would someone choose to allow errors in their reasoning to stand without correction and choose to carry those errors of reasoning forward, presumably in the hope no one would notice? What type of person would make a conscious choice to do this?

Why choose to carry on regardless knowing mistakes have been exposed and have not been corrected?

Articles of interest:

Snowball lie
A lie or deception that takes on a life of its own, spiraling out of the control of the ones who started it and often mutating in the process. What distinguishes a Snowball Lie from a "Fawlty Towers" Plot lie is that it attracts other characters to keep it alive and expand it, either by explicitly furthering the deception for their own purposes or by sincerely buying into it and carrying it on in the honest belief that it is real — or to avoid being embarrassed by their "ignorance" or "inexperience".
Usually a Snowball Lie will eventually grow to a point where it will collapse, either under the weight of its internal contradictions or after some insightful person Pulls The Thread on it. Sometimes, though, a perfect Snowball Lie will show no signs of ever stopping, and its creators will find themselves forced to kill it — with varying degrees of success, and varying degrees of repercussions to themselves. In particularly ironic situations, the Snowball Lie can become an unstoppable juggernaut that displaces the truth and becomes a new "truth" in its own right.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SnowballLie

Neuroscientists show how tiny fibs snowball into big lies
A little dishonesty goes a long way. Scientists who studied the brain activity of people who told small lies to benefit themselves found that these fibs appeared to pave the way to telling whoppers later.
The findings, published in the journal Nature Neuroscience, demonstrate how self-serving lies can escalate, and offer a window into the processes in the brain at work.
It’s commonly held wisdom that small transgressions often lead to bigger and bigger ones, study co-author Tali Sharot of University College London said in a news briefing.
“Whether it’s evading tax, infidelity, doping in sports, making up data in science or financial fraud, deceivers often recall how small acts of dishonesty snowballed over time and they suddenly found themselves committing quite large crimes,” Sharot said.
The researchers suspected this had to do with a biological process known as emotional adaptation, where over time the brain responds less and less strongly to a repeated stimulus.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/if-you-tell-little-lies-your-brain-may-get-used-to-it-and-let-you-easily-tell-big-ones/2016/10/28/eeedfc3a-9b9f-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html?utm_term=.4de6b37d7e8e

Lying as a skill-The development of deception in children
https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=eHV_8YC_NL0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA271&dq=the+snowball+effect+and+deception&ots=78yZTicLjM&sig=IlxrURpkHqfuTij3qNgAAVd48jw#v=onepage&q&f=false

The lies we tell and what they say about us
http://oro.open.ac.uk/34401/1/JU%2CLK%2CLFF.2011.pdf

And so, I would simply revise the book to reflect the known facts, as they currently stand.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382961.html#msg382961

What about the known facts of Luke Mitchell’s movements on the night JJ was murdered?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10768.msg544394#msg544394

Excerpt from “No Smoke”
Given that there were no positive sightings of Jodi that evening, there is no proof of what time she left the house. When police later claimed that they were interested in Luke because he had been “the last person to see her alive, and the first to find her dead,” they appear to have missed this critical factor? In an interesting display of double standards, the police accept, without corroboration, the word of one mother, but not another! Similarly, there is nothing to prove that Mr Ovens told Luke that Jodi had “left to meet him,” except Mr Ovens own contention that this is so. Had he said, “Jodi’s gone out,” or “Jodi’s not here,” the whole insinuation surrounding the reasons for Luke not calling back collapses.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 02:55:54 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
« Reply #26 on: July 09, 2019, 03:24:15 PM »
Were the 30-40? boxes of documents in their "wily-nily" state, handed into MOJO as such? Ms Lean visited MOJO offices at least once or twice a week, claiming she was the only person who accessed the files whilst there.
What did she do with the paper work, over this lengthy period of time, if not organize it into order? Was Ms Mitchell helping her with the files? Just a thought. Another thought being (working around response here) Would memory, of a case studied for 16yrs, books written around and so forth, not have information of importance steadfast in memory.

I wonder if Corrine Mitchell organised for the 30-40 boxes to be handed to MOJO after requesting them from the CCRC?

Her comment to James English about apparently not being able to watch Luke’s lie detector test, because it reminded her of a death row inmate or something or other, could suggest a possible dissociative state.

Dissociation as avoidance coping usually happens because of a traumatic event. Being powerless to do anything to change or stop a traumatic event may lead people to disconnect from the situation to cope with feelings of helplessness, fear or pain. Dissociation can help people get through to the end of the traumatic experience. People who dissociate during trauma are more likely to develop a pattern of dissociating as a coping strategy.
https://depts.washington.edu/hcsats/PDF/TF-%20CBT/pages/7%20Trauma%20Focused%20CBT/Dissociation-Information.pdf

And if, in a dissociative state, I would imagine if would have been made worse at that time by the fact her and Luke no longer had anyone fighting their cause?

And following her public attack on MOJO and Donald Findlay etc it’s far to assume they’ve burned many, if not all bridges, apart from Sandra Lean?

But why choose to go back to Sandra Lean?

Would memory, of a case studied for 16yrs, books written around and so forth, not have information of importance steadfast in memory.”

I’d have thought so but then I’m basing that on my cognitions. (I believe I’ve got a memory like an elephant.) 8(0(*


cognition
/kɒɡˈnɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses
.

Is It True That Elephants Never Forget
”Elephants are incredible creatures. The largest land mammals on earth, they show a wide range of behavioral and emotional patterns in their up-to-60-year lifespans. They grieve over the bodies of dead herd members, and can even recognize their own reflections in a mirror. And, of course, there's that old saying: "Elephants never forget." While it may be an exaggeration, there's more truth to the adage than you might realize.

In the wild, an elephant’s memory is key to its survival—and its herd’s. Each herd has a matriarchal structure, with one older female in charge. When younger males in the group reach sexual maturity—usually around 14 years of age—they leave the herd to roam solo or occasionally form groups with other males. Proof of elephants' long memories lies in their behavior: When confronted with an unfamiliar elephant, matriarchs will huddle in defensive positions because they realize that those elephants could pose a threat to the herd's safety.

Science has also proven that elephants have great memories. In 2007, researchers at the University of Saint Andrews in Scotland placed urine samples in front of female elephants at the Amboseli National Park in Kenya; according to Scientific American, the elephants "acted up" when they smelled urine that didn't come from an elephant in their herd. The researchers concluded that elephants can recognize and track as many as 30 of their companions. "Imagine taking your family to a crowded department store and the Christmas sales are on," said psychologist Richard Byrne, one of the scientists who participated in the study. "What a job to keep track of where four or five family members are. These elephants are doing it with 30 traveling-mates." Elephants “almost certainly know every [member] in their group,” Byrne said, and exhibit cognitive abilities “far in advance of anything other animals have been shown to have.”

Elephants don't just remember companions they've spent long stretches of time with, either. A pair of captive elephants have shown that these animals can recognize other friendly elephants even when they had only spent short periods of time together. At The Elephant Sanctuary—a non-profit organization based in Hohenwald, Tennessee, that is the U.S.'s largest natural-habitat refuge developed specifically for endangered elephants—in 1999, an elephant named Jenny became very animated when a new elephant named Shirley arrived. After looking into the animals’ backgrounds, workers at the Sanctuary found that the two had performed with the same circus for only a few months—22 years earlier.

Their superb memories help elephants stay alive in ways that go beyond just recognizing threats. Matt Lewis, a Senior Program Officer with the World Wildlife Fund’s Species Conservation Program, tells mental_floss that one of the best examples of elephant cognition “comes from desert-adapted elephants, where the matriarchs remember where reliable water can be found and are able to guide their herds to water over very long distances, and over the span of many years. This is a pretty clear indication that elephants have a great ability to remember details about their spatial environment for a very long time.” Studies have also shown matriarchs who have lived through dry spells before will lead their herds to more fertile land, while younger matriarchs who haven't experienced a drought are more likely to stay put.

The elephants are able to use their whopping 10.5-pound brains to encode identification and survival details, imprinting the key data to their memory to be recalled later. But an elephant's amazing memory comes only with age and experience—and older, larger elephants are often a target of hunters. “The tragedy," says Lewis, "is that when one of these [elephants] is lost to poaching, the information dies with her,” leaving the rest of the herd at a disadvantage—and having severe consequences for the species as a whole.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/52381/it-true-elephants-never-forget

the information dies with her” (reminds me of Sandra Leans comment to James English about why she claimed to have written a second book)

Would memory, of a case studied for 16yrs, books written around and so forth, not have information of importance steadfast in memory.”

Q - How many times over the years has Sandra Lean said she needs to check her notes, check the case papers etc? Imo her actions would suggest her memory recall is poor or lacking for some reason?

Recall in memory refers to the mental process of retrieval of information from the past. Along with encoding and storage, it is one of the three core processes of memory. There are three main types of recall: free recall, cued recall and serial recall. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_(memory)
« Last Edit: July 09, 2019, 04:07:21 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Nicholas

Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
« Reply #27 on: July 10, 2019, 04:32:44 PM »
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.4560.html

(Luke’s clothing, am I correct in saying this was meant to be the same clothes he wore to school that day that he was still in that night? If so who corroborated this?) Quote Bullseye.


[Yes. again, from memory, there were some witnesses from school who described those clothes, then the boys he was out playing with in the early evening also described those  clothes.

There are 30 - 40 boxes of documents. When they were returned from the SCCRC, the papers were just chucked in wily-nily and have never been properly sorted ever since. It will take me a long time to sort them all into the sort of order that would allow me to access specific papers quickly. I know what's there because it was me who sorted them before they went to the Commission in the first place.]


Were the 30-40? boxes of documents in their "wily-nily" state, handed into MOJO as such? Ms Lean visited MOJO offices at least once or twice a week, claiming she was the only person who accessed the files whilst there.
What did she do with the paper work, over this lengthy period of time, if not organize it into order? Was Ms Mitchell helping her with the files? Just a thought. Another thought being (working around response here) Would memory, of a case studied for 16yrs, books written around and so forth, not have information of importance steadfast in memory.

Do you think the CJS/SCCRC are aware of Sandra Leans paltering?

Paltering increases the odds of not reaching an agreement at the bargaining table and can greatly harm one’s reputation if the counterpart finds out about the deception — as it often happens after the fact.

It’s difficult for negotiators to realize that the world really is small,” Gino says. “When we use deception in negotiations, oftentimes the other side finds out. If that’s the case, the reputation could be harmed to the point that you’re unlikely to engage in negotiations with the same person. We’re so focused on the short term, we don’t think this through enough.”

https://hbr.org/2016/10/theres-a-word-for-using-truthful-facts-to-deceive-paltering

What knowledge do you think they gained from the way in which she presented Luke Mitchell’s submissions?

Using the truth to mislead (paltering) feels less bad than lying, but will cost you in the long run
Paltering then, is a form of deception that’s effective at actively leading other parties to false conclusions, just like straight-out lying. Perpetrators can enjoy a sense of plausible deniability, as the statements are technically true, but the harm they cause to their relationships is no less palpable.
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/01/11/paltering-feels-less-bad-than-lying-but-will-cost-you-in-the-long-run/
« Last Edit: July 10, 2019, 04:49:58 PM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes

Offline Parky41

Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
« Reply #28 on: July 10, 2019, 09:46:20 PM »
Do you think the CJS/SCCRC are aware of Sandra Leans paltering?
Quote

Having all documentation, the ability to gain weight through paltering is removed. Their decision based on their conclusion of 'all' the facts and not of theories. Referral subsequently refused. Experienced, legal bodies making the submission would have been a better avenue of choice. IMO.

Paltering in itself, will to a point, gain what it seeks with those who have no access to 'all' the facts of any case. If blind trust is put in the person/s putting it out. Those who cry, "we know everything" we can back it up IF required to do so leaves an open ended 'get out clause' Produce what I can, when I can, if legally I can or permitted to do so.  Thus if it doesn't exist, the probability of finding out the non existence is highly unlikely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK7OVE_5L7Y&lc=z23ciztb3xvqwj1at04t1aokg4uwqqfrvpvevcqnyw1pbk0h00410.1561985025591331

Ms Leans comment of "Why do they feel the need to embellish stories, or just make up stories, fed into the swirling mass of misinformation"


Why indeed?  Double edged sword again?
« Last Edit: July 10, 2019, 10:22:08 PM by Parky41 »

Offline Nicholas

Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
« Reply #29 on: July 11, 2019, 06:39:21 AM »
Quote
14th July 2014
Wrongly Accused Person Organsation, Billy Middleton, explains in his latest rendering...


Unfortunately, shortly before the SCCRC refusal, at a time when she knew it's decision was imminent, Sandra came to a point whereby she was no longer prepared to carry on and wrote to Luke explaining why. 

Did she recognise (As I eventually did re Simon Hall) she’d been the one doing all the work and Luke Mitchell wasn’t pulling his weight?

Did the content of the below articles, for example, trigger her into writing to him?

Was she annoyed with him for showing his true colours?

Was HIS behaviour perceived as “a slap in the face?”

14th April 2014
Killer Luke Mitchell demands Satanic books in jail
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/killer-luke-mitchell-demands-satanic-books-in-jail-1-3375463

12th July 2014
Sordid jail letters from
 Luke Mitchell have opened a window into the warped mind of Jodi Jones’s murderer
Mitchell wrote the letters from Polmont Young Offenders Institution after falling headlong into a honeytrap,
The 16-year-old he believed he was writing to was in fact an undercover journalist investigating the workings
of his mind.
Mitchell wrote his letters in 2008 but they have never been published.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-sleazy-letters-brutal-3845609

In 2008 he would have been around 19-20 years old?  “although he’s not been allowed to develop as he should have been” (Billy Middleton) http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4792.msg544349#msg544349

Did she wonder if she was being duped yet again?

I ask because of this:
"I refer to your recent communications with me, your posts on the Bamber forum, and our previous exchanges.

While I appreciate that fighting a MOJ is an uphill struggle, and a steep learning curve, there are some "mistakes" which cannot be explained as ignorance, enthusiastic but misguided belief, or any of the other well trodden routes most people take on their journey towards justice.

I personally believe that your recent online behaviour, the way you handled Simon's confession to the other burglary, and the consequent attacks of Shaun and Stephanie Bon have all been detrimental to public support for Simon. The letter, supposedly from Simon, was a disgraceful slap in the face to many, many people who have tried to help Simon over the years.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg384705.html#msg384705

What Sandra Lean perceived as “mistakes” was in fact Simon Halls guilt being exposed. His true colours were being laid bare for all to see.

In 2012 it was stated here: http://www.optimumadvocates.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/lie-detector-tests-article.pdf
37. As for the uploading of the test footage into the public domain, it seems that no prison rules were broken and Luke Mitchell does have a post-conviction right to freedom of expression.

Yet Corrine Mitchell claimed the same year:

It’s only right that he should finally have this opportunity to have his say.”

This is the first time Luke has been allowed to talk. He wasn’t even allowed to take the stand at the trial. It gives the public the chance to see the real Luke after all of the made-up rubbish in the tabloids.”
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/killer-luke-mitchell-breaks-silence-with-letter-in-own-words-1-2279505

It doesn’t add up!

Snowball lie
A lie or deception that takes on a life of its own, spiraling out of the control of the ones who started it and often mutating in the process. What distinguishes a Snowball Lie from a "Fawlty Towers" Plot lie is that it attracts other characters to keep it alive and expand it, either by explicitly furthering the deception for their own purposes or by sincerely buying into it and carrying it on in the honest belief that it is real — or to avoid being embarrassed by their "ignorance" or "inexperience".
Usually a Snowball Lie will eventually grow to a point where it will collapse, either under the weight of its internal contradictions or after some insightful person Pulls The Thread on it. Sometimes, though, a perfect Snowball Lie will show no signs of ever stopping, and its creators will find themselves forced to kill it — with varying degrees of success, and varying degrees of repercussions to themselves. In particularly ironic situations, the Snowball Lie can become an unstoppable juggernaut that displaces the truth and becomes a new "truth" in its own right.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SnowballLie

Has the Luke Mitchell case become an unstoppable juggernaut as referred to above?

Why hasn’t Luke Mitchell used his right to freedom of expression for all these years and instead allowed others to do his bidding for him?
« Last Edit: July 11, 2019, 08:58:27 AM by Nicholas »
A Lie Can Travel Halfway Around the World While the Truth Is Putting On Its Shoes