Author Topic: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean  (Read 15280 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rulesapply

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #345 on: July 05, 2021, 10:14:21 PM »

For me Sandra Lean appears to have a low level conscience and her morality is highly questionable
The next time someone asks me for proof I'm going to have to say, it's not in the public domain.

Offline Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #346 on: July 05, 2021, 10:20:18 PM »
The next time someone asks me for proof I'm going to have to say, it's not in the public domain.

or ‘make of that what you will’ 🙄

For me her low level conscience and seemingly lack of morality was clear when she chose to attempt to deny Simon halls factual guilt

And choosing to use having two daughters around [Name removed]’s age as some sort of weapon or crutch to bolster her claims isn’t far behind that
« Last Edit: July 05, 2021, 10:27:14 PM by Nicholas »
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2136
  • Total likes: 786
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #347 on: July 06, 2021, 12:38:00 AM »
  A reminder------please keep on topic.

Thanks !

Offline Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #348 on: July 12, 2021, 03:40:19 PM »
And who fact checked her book?


How long did she refer to herself as a ‘journalist’ ⬇️

(Top of page 7) https://ewds.strath.ac.uk/Portals/50/IASMiscarriages_Justice_Report.pdf

anyone know?
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline rulesapply

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #349 on: July 12, 2021, 03:49:42 PM »

How long did she refer to herself as a ‘journalist’ ⬇️

(Top of page 7) https://ewds.strath.ac.uk/Portals/50/IASMiscarriages_Justice_Report.pdf

anyone know?
Please read this. It's from the BBC at the time of LM's trial. I suspect that a lot of information wasn't shared.

Offline rulesapply

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #350 on: July 12, 2021, 03:53:22 PM »

Offline rulesapply

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #351 on: July 12, 2021, 03:54:48 PM »
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4192947.stm

The press should never be gagged IMO because it leaves the door open for anyone to come along years later and say whatever they like.

Offline Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #352 on: July 12, 2021, 05:26:30 PM »
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4192947.stm


There’s an error in this article ⬆️ re the year Killer Luke Mitchell murdered [Name removed]’s


Jodi Jones: A uniquely hard case (21st January 2005)
By Rosalind McInnes
BBC Scotland lawyer

‘The Jodi Jones murder case is, it has been said, the longest Scottish murder trial against a single accused.
For the jurors, and for anyone with even a professional interest in this especially disturbing case, it certainly must feel that way.

The millennium has already seen some outstandingly protracted and terrible Scottish murder proceedings - the mass slaughter of Lockerbie, the carnage of William Beggs, the calculating horror of Nat Fraser's crime.

Each represents an unimaginable tragedy for those intimately involved. Each also poses delicate legal questions.

How does a journalist do the job of letting the public know what is going on, in a case evoking widespread outrage and fear, whilst protecting vulnerable participants and the presumption of innocence?

The law tries to hold the values of open justice, human sensitivity and legitimate public interest in a workable tension.

Fraught trial

First, we have the Contempt of Court Act 1981. This makes it a contempt to publish anything which gives rise to a substantial risk of serious prejudice to court proceedings - whether a journalist intended to do any harm, or not.

The act allows a banning order to be made even in relation to facts the jury have already heard. The journalist has to give a fair and accurate report of what goes on in court.

Secondly, there are various legal rules to protect the privacy of children who are caught up in legal proceedings.

Thirdly, the judge has authority to protect the integrity of his courtroom.

Luke Mitchell's trial was fraught from the very beginning. At the time of Jodi's murder, he was, as defence counsel was later to stress, 14.

Everyone in Dalkeith, and soon throughout the UK, knew who he was. When he was arrested, at the age of 15, the legal rules protecting the anonymity of children kicked in.

As a mere suspect, he could be named, and was. As an arrested minor, his name could not be published.

The outcome was an ironic happy birthday from some chagrined tabloids when Luke Mitchell turned 16, and, later, contempt proceedings against some newspapers which were felt by the Procurator Fiscal to have jumped the gun.

The publicity before the arrest, including the boy's own television interview, denying Jodi's murder, helped to muddy the waters.

As preparations went ahead for the trial, the court reporters felt increasingly embattled.

Swingeing demands by the defence to recover vast amounts of material from broadcasters, without a reason being offered, were only trimmed back after a hearing before the trial judge, Lord Nimmo Smith.

The defence made an early, unsuccessful attempt to have the BBC found in contempt for reporting on the planned reconstruction of the wall behind which the victim's body was found.

The Telegraph was also called into court to apologise for an article it published early in the trial

Defence counsel apparently even objected at one point to being sketched by BBC courtroom artist Julia Quenzler, who had flown up from London for the trial.

Unusual structure

Broadcasters especially began to struggle to make meaningful packages. The tight Scottish approach to identification evidence means photographs of the accused are rarely shown.

In the Mitchell trial, however, it was made clear by the judge that shots of the crime-scene might themselves amount to contempt.

This unusual stricture began to make sense as the Crown's case developed, but would have been difficult to predict.

The trial judge, although in no way obstructive to the media's need to do their job, felt unable to give a pre-trial briefing, beyond saying that the media could report what went on in court.

For television reports, this resulted in a continual struggle to describe adequately to the audience images - of photographs, of weapons, of maps - which the people in this public court were seeing; hence the poignant over-use of the home video of Jodi Jones.

The challenge to make television coverage relevant and comprehensible, especially when the evidence was complicated and circumstantial, was at least partly mitigated by the courtroom sketches, but increased as the weeks wore on.

In the context of the trial of a young man for the brutal murder of a young girl, reporters' difficulties pall into insignificance.

A combination of factors in the Jodi Jones murder trial, however - the young age and the late arrest of the accused, the nature of the evidence, the aggressive approach of the defence to coverage and the absence of visual material - made this a uniquely hard case for 21st century court reporting.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2021, 05:29:15 PM by Nicholas »
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline rulesapply

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #353 on: July 12, 2021, 05:32:46 PM »

There’s an error in this article ⬆️ re the year Killer Luke Mitchell murdered [Name removed]’s


Jodi Jones: A uniquely hard case (21st January 2005)
By Rosalind McInnes
BBC Scotland lawyer

‘The Jodi Jones murder case is, it has been said, the longest Scottish murder trial against a single accused.
For the jurors, and for anyone with even a professional interest in this especially disturbing case, it certainly must feel that way.

The millennium has already seen some outstandingly protracted and terrible Scottish murder proceedings - the mass slaughter of Lockerbie, the carnage of William Beggs, the calculating horror of Nat Fraser's crime.

Each represents an unimaginable tragedy for those intimately involved. Each also poses delicate legal questions.

How does a journalist do the job of letting the public know what is going on, in a case evoking widespread outrage and fear, whilst protecting vulnerable participants and the presumption of innocence?

The law tries to hold the values of open justice, human sensitivity and legitimate public interest in a workable tension.

Fraught trial

First, we have the Contempt of Court Act 1981. This makes it a contempt to publish anything which gives rise to a substantial risk of serious prejudice to court proceedings - whether a journalist intended to do any harm, or not.

The act allows a banning order to be made even in relation to facts the jury have already heard. The journalist has to give a fair and accurate report of what goes on in court.

Secondly, there are various legal rules to protect the privacy of children who are caught up in legal proceedings.

Thirdly, the judge has authority to protect the integrity of his courtroom.

Luke Mitchell's trial was fraught from the very beginning. At the time of Jodi's murder, he was, as defence counsel was later to stress, 14.

Everyone in Dalkeith, and soon throughout the UK, knew who he was. When he was arrested, at the age of 15, the legal rules protecting the anonymity of children kicked in.

As a mere suspect, he could be named, and was. As an arrested minor, his name could not be published.

The outcome was an ironic happy birthday from some chagrined tabloids when Luke Mitchell turned 16, and, later, contempt proceedings against some newspapers which were felt by the Procurator Fiscal to have jumped the gun.

The publicity before the arrest, including the boy's own television interview, denying Jodi's murder, helped to muddy the waters.

As preparations went ahead for the trial, the court reporters felt increasingly embattled.

Swingeing demands by the defence to recover vast amounts of material from broadcasters, without a reason being offered, were only trimmed back after a hearing before the trial judge, Lord Nimmo Smith.

The defence made an early, unsuccessful attempt to have the BBC found in contempt for reporting on the planned reconstruction of the wall behind which the victim's body was found.

The Telegraph was also called into court to apologise for an article it published early in the trial

Defence counsel apparently even objected at one point to being sketched by BBC courtroom artist Julia Quenzler, who had flown up from London for the trial.

Unusual structure

Broadcasters especially began to struggle to make meaningful packages. The tight Scottish approach to identification evidence means photographs of the accused are rarely shown.

In the Mitchell trial, however, it was made clear by the judge that shots of the crime-scene might themselves amount to contempt.

This unusual stricture began to make sense as the Crown's case developed, but would have been difficult to predict.

The trial judge, although in no way obstructive to the media's need to do their job, felt unable to give a pre-trial briefing, beyond saying that the media could report what went on in court.

For television reports, this resulted in a continual struggle to describe adequately to the audience images - of photographs, of weapons, of maps - which the people in this public court were seeing; hence the poignant over-use of the home video of Jodi Jones.

The challenge to make television coverage relevant and comprehensible, especially when the evidence was complicated and circumstantial, was at least partly mitigated by the courtroom sketches, but increased as the weeks wore on.

In the context of the trial of a young man for the brutal murder of a young girl, reporters' difficulties pall into insignificance.

A combination of factors in the Jodi Jones murder trial, however - the young age and the late arrest of the accused, the nature of the evidence, the aggressive approach of the defence to coverage and the absence of visual material - made this a uniquely hard case for 21st century court reporting.

I don't see that error.

Offline Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #354 on: July 12, 2021, 05:47:22 PM »
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline rulesapply

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #355 on: July 12, 2021, 07:27:27 PM »
It’s in the link you posted  underneath the first photograph

Thanks for pointing it out.  I see the error now. Thank you.

Offline Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #356 on: July 18, 2021, 10:01:21 PM »
Excerpt from Prof Jane Monckton Smith book ‘In Control: Dangerous Relationships & How They End in Murder’

The calm before the storm

’Threats of suicide and threats to kill are not necessarily idle; both could signal a future homicide in this context and should be taken very seriously every time.


https://www.waterstones.com/book/in-control/jane-monckton-smith/9781526613219

Has anyone found out anymore on killer Luke Mitchell’s ‘threats of suicide’?

What type of conversations did he have with Jodi about this subject baring in mind this is how her father died?


Luke Mitchell
“I was always bullied by teachers and considered suicide, but all that went away”
https://www.glasgowtimes.co.uk/news/16881794.amp/

What does Corinne Mitchell say about this ⬆️?

And was his school notified of the above?

”Why can’t I die?
Is there a purpose in my life?
If not, then suicide is my best option!”

https://expressdigest.com/murderer-luke-mitchell-in-fresh-bid-to-clear-his-name/

What was said about the above written on Luke Mitchell’s school jotters?
« Last Edit: July 18, 2021, 10:06:28 PM by Nicholas »
‘I legitimately think that the word “innocence” is enough for people - that’s their due diligence’ (Devon Tracey)

Offline rulesapply

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #357 on: July 19, 2021, 07:13:57 PM »
Has anyone found out anymore on killer Luke Mitchell’s ‘threats of suicide’?

What type of conversations did he have with Jodi about this subject baring in mind this is how her father died?


What does Corinne Mitchell say about this ⬆️?

And was his school notified of the above?

What was said about the above written on Luke Mitchell’s school jotters?

You seen this? Thought you may be interested.

Offline Parky41

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #358 on: July 28, 2021, 02:13:25 PM »
Now for the actual book, to run through chapter by chapter. A brief conclusion of opinion, based on that invitation by Ms Lean. "To make of it what you will?"

The introduction from page 13:

Quote
"Truth seeking is a precarious and often maligned pursuit. To be labelled a crazy conspiracy theorist, interfering do-gooder, fame seeker, evil bitch, murderer lover, sicko......these are the reactions of many who are afraid of the truth.That fear is understandable"

Amidst the claims of the book being the true story of Injustice, for Jodi and her family, for Luke and his family, and for every person - it is the story of Injustice perpetrated in our names:

Clever? Manipulative - definitely. Ms Lean instantly sows those seeds, she is telling the reader that what she is doing is for them, that she is speaking the truth, that any backlash than may ensue should be treated as people being "afraid of the truth." Where she uses lot's of "we" to highlight this unity, telling us that Justice, those who take care of it, are at the very core of our safety, that ultimately we put blind faith in this, we trust them. That those who react " so negatively" do so out of "fear" That they -

Quote
"miss the most central point of truth-seeking: It is not only to ensure that the correct person has been convicted, but also to discover what really happened - in this case, to a fourteen-year-old girl, whose death is unimaginable"

And there is that first clear basis is it not? To ignore the negativity of those who are clearly afraid of the "truth." To focus on the death of Jodi, that Ms Lean is doing what she does, for her, for her family. - That first double meaning?

In every piece of information I have sourced around this case, where Ms Lean is involved directly - I have seen mention of Jodi's family and direct contact with Ms Lean three times. One where she claims that Judith at one point wished to speak with her, that the discussion did not go ahead. To note here, this appeared to be Judith reaching out, not Ms Lean. Secondly where Ms Lean made claim to Judith leaving flowers (sunflowers) some distance from Ms Leans house, and thirdly a visit to Ms Leans door by Jodi's brother. From Ms Leans clear involvement in supporting Mitchell that amounts to several years. To actually writing of this case not once but twice. Ms Lean has never reached out to this girls family. Never attempted to speak with them. Yet Ms Lean has written this book, where she clearly implies at the beginning, that, her actions are just as much for Jodi and her family, as they are for Mitchell and his. - Poppycock.

As the book goes on this Injustice that Ms Lean speaks of, for Jodi and her family changes meaning: Ms Lean clearly knows the meaning (double) as above, the readers however fooled into believing that of the opposite. As it becomes apparently clear that the Justice Ms Lean speaks of, is that which she wishes to serve upon them. From those days of Jigsawman, to that hypothetical line of reasoning around Jodi's brother, to cast dispersion upon their honesty. 

I mentioned, when first speaking of this case (again) of Ms Leans personal grievances towards Jodi's family. This was brushed aside by MrSwah, who stated that they saw nothing of this is Ms Leans work? I used the word hatred, it is a personal word, where many (group) who have read this book took exactly that from it. A personal war towards Jodi's family. And met with, in retaliation that word back, from Faith and others. Of my and every other posters criticism of Ms Lean being that of hatred - And we can see right away, that introduction in Ms Leans book works - Any criticism, any negatives towards Ms Lean is to be treated as "fear of the truth" - That shifting sand of onus..

So Ms Lean introduces these notions, continually telling the reader of truth, of doing what she does for them, for the Mitchells and ultimately for Jodi and her family - yet Ms Lean, not once, of these people she writes clearly about, has ever tried to discuss anything with them, from taking that step herself. And as the book goes on, it becomes clear why. - For Jodi's family are very much central to every seed sown, of doubt, to cast dispersion upon them - In Ms Lean version of "truth" (cough) "injustice" (cough), where Mr Bowman's advice could not be any clearer. Uses that psychological approach to draw the readers to self interest of others. If people are afraid of the truth, then they must have something to be afraid of, to hide. And it does not stop at the Jones family, but of the police, every witness all the way through the system - And the only people Ms Lean has spoken to, are the Mitchells, anyone who has a tale or two to tell and some experts to give that sense of professionalism.

And that biggest sense of adding any worth to how a system may at times be held to account - Ms Lean uses Hillsborough, those deaths of 96 people to make the reader sit up and think, she is correct. And we can for now jump to the very last page, where in 2018 Ms Lean claims to be using any proceeds from the book sales to fund a website, called "The long Road Justice" - Again the reader is left with that false sense of worth. Of an author who can pretty much say anything and do nothing?

People speak of legalities, of all being true? She is telling you it is a STORY, her story, an ordinary mums path of "truthseeking" Where only around 5% of what she is actually saying is categorically true. Where in chapter one, Ms lean informs her readers that the police were "monitoring"  her phone? - as above, and spot on the money "crazy conspiracy theorist".

This is not Hillsborough, neither an act of terrorism. It is a woman with an axe to grind. Egotistical. For most are not blinded by the trees. Transparent. Those who do not see the woods, they readily accept that book of 'others.' Where they can say "No family is whiter than white" - That contradiction of, in one hand saying, they do not see Ms Leans attack upon Jodi's family, yet in the other state this slight upon them. To further it with, it is only natural to "wonder" about them? Indeed, if one first and foremost takes the stance of, "having no reason to doubt" what Ms Lean says. That clear blind faith in a stranger, of her story, of her plight.

Offline Parky41

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #359 on: July 28, 2021, 02:22:52 PM »
Innocents Betrayed: - My follow up to "Make of it what you will"

Chapter 1 ......Why Bother?

P 25-26
Quote
"To add insult to injury, a former online supporter of Luke suddenly changed tack and became a strident critic of the case and those involved in fighting it. It would be several years before I realised there are people whose favourite pastime is scouring the internet for people to attack - they take some form of warped delight from spewing their hate-filled nonsense everywhere they can."

"I watched in horror as lie after lie spread across the internet like a filthy oil slick. Threats began to emerge - to post my home address and pictures of my house - to publish my daughters' names and pictures - to expose "the truth" about me (that one actually made me laugh - how many people would be interested in two divorces and some parking tickets)? Someone posted, "I saw Sandra in uni the other day...she looked like she was carrying the weight of the world on her shoulders..." Was that true? Had I been so physically close to someone who had expressed real hatred for me and not even known who they were?"

This had followed the introduction of the WAP forum to the book, that first thwart on the tabloids, running stories of deluded supporters and the comments section vile in it's response, where one yet again get's that clear impression of worth that Ms Lean places upon herself. Where she tells her readers that every action, every involvement was at a cost to herself. One of the first of many misconceptions. Where everything in it's nature, at the very core of it, is, completely OTT. As above, that need to exaggerate, to blow something out of proportion. For any who knew of it at the time, the WAP forum was rotten to it's very core. Where posters, families of the victims and witnesses were hounded. Their personal lives scoured, social media searched, looking for anything to cast slight upon them.  And we have it again, on another scale where those deluded have grown in numbers. Where those 'lies after lies are spreading across the internet like that filthy oil slick'. Nothing has changed, nothing is new. Ms Lean yet again describes the actions of those promoting that witch hunt against 'others' That shifting sand of onus, and those teachings of the WAP - Ours is the truth, the light and the way. We have all the answers, all the evidence, everything you need to know of the Mitchell case - those were the lies, those are still the lies are they not?

And she tells her readers, that play on words where they are blinded by those trees, they can not see the woods. That, "Everything you read in this book has been taken from the defence papers, information in the media, or was discovered by witnesses who came forward long after the case ended - anything that is missing was also missing from the defence files."  And those clearly blinded, translate this into - Ms Lean holds everything on the case, she knows everything there is to know of this case, she is a criminologist who has spent 18yrs of her life devoted to this case. - She tells them she has not done this, she tells them of her break away from it, and they still add those arms and legs on. Why? For they only see what they want to see, led by words that hold double meanings, and they choose the wrong one. Missing  is not inclusive, not actually missing.

The reality, that stark fact in all of this is - There is masses of information not inclusive of those defence files. And Ms Lean works consistently around this with innuendo. Her own assumption, her opinion and narrative. Using that clear lack of insight, knowledge to morph this case into something else. And she just keeps on giving and they just keep soaking it all up - For Ms Lean has already made it clear, to those susceptible of mind, that anyone who says anything against what she is preaching, is  AFRAID OF THE TRUTH.

Where we get a real sense above, of the exaggeration applied by Ms Lean to it's opposite extremity of Luke Mitchell, of that "half a Mars bar" situ. Where this poster who made comment around the weight of the world, is morphed into someone being physically close, who was expressing "real hatred" towards her. Hatred is personal, and it certainly does not match the words of the person who posted. Hatred is something I picked up on from Ms Lean, against the system, against her perceived Injustice towards the Mitchells. That personal blight she has taken from this and dished out that hatred towards others. Where yet again, those who have been easily led have taken on Ms Leans feelings, added to them and pushed them out, in the "real" vile way she expressed when passing the onus to others?

She tells us it is her personal story, her personal plight against Injustice. Of a system that failed the Mitchells. And for every action she felt was wrongly beset upon them - Ms Lean sets out to do the same, unto others. Top of that list are the police with the Jones family coming a close second. She blames them for Luke Mitchell being in jail. And she is letting anyone who will listen know, and tells them not to be "willfully ignorant" and accept this.

And we go further into that manipulation, of sowing seeds and that clear contradictory account of Jodi's brother visiting Ms Lean. Where she gives the impression of fear, of a lad threatening to kill her her. In daytime, in the middle of a council housing scheme, where her house is surrounded and looked onto by many others. So terrified is Ms Lean, she does not shut her door, she does not tell him to leave her property, she does not instantly tell him she is going to call the police. She keeps him talking. She offers to go fetch those defence papers to show him he is wrong. She tells the readers he believed she was home alone (telepathy). Let us be completely honest here, that whole rotten account stinks of over exaggerated nonsense, does it not? For not one sensible action was carried out to merit what she is claiming happened. We have already seen above of those words "weight of the world on .. shoulders" being morphed into "real hatred."  Just how exaggerated is this visit?  That Ms Lean then adds the police, of her phone being monitored, of taking herself into her campervan out of fear!? Ok, really? Away from the safety of brick and mortar! to the tin of a van, in a car park alone. To put her phone off, so no instant 999 either? Away from houses and all else - absolute nonsense. But of course Ms Lean can back all this up, who is there to discount it? - She has a witness, a source who was hiding behind the door. A male who just b....red off and left her to it? - I do not condone any threat or actions of violence, towards anyone. Neither do I condone a person using such to blow out of all sense of proportion, to add weight to air. - In those first seeds sown of that conspiracy theory, that everyone was out to get Ms Lean, over the case of a boy murdering his girlfriend. - And they were sown, for one of the most talked about areas of this case is that of "conspiracy!" And of course that pathway onto Jodi's brother set, those seeds of doubt sown.

Because all the way through the book Ms Lean tells them what to think;  That manipulative language, that power of persuasion. That blind faith set in that introduction. Those clear warnings and seeds sown.  None as manipulative as when we come to that header of "The Agreed Facts."