"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[faithlilly]

The police will know who it was if Sandra Lean contacted them

I see your abhorrence of male violence towards females does not extend to Sandra Lean.

[Nicholas]

I see your abhorrence of male violence towards females does not extend to Sandra Lean.

I abhor what Billy Middleton did to Sandra Lean - and in front of her daughter I was told

[faithlilly]

I abhor what Billy Middleton did to Sandra Lean - and in front of her daughter I was told

I’m afraid from reading your posts that’s not the impression you give. You appear to be victim blaming.

[faithlilly]

Plus there were witnesses to smelling smoke coming from the Mitchell’s back garden at around 10pm


‘Luke Mitchell's neighbours, George Ramage, 37, and Nicholas Frankland, 41, told the court they smelt smoke coming from the back garden.
The duo said they became aware of the smell and smoke at about 2200 BST on the evening in June last year.
Mr Ramage, whose home backs onto the Mitchell family home in Newbattle Abbey Crescent, Dalkeith, said he told his wife it was a strange time for them to be having a barbeque.
Mr Frankland, the Mitchell's next door neighbour in the same street, described seeing a brick-built log burner alight in the garden on 30 June last year.
He said the burner was "typically" used by Mr Mitchell's mother.
Mr Frankland added: "It would be just before 2200 BST.
"I might have been aware of it earlier than that but I don't recall anything specific."
He had been busy doing DIY and clearing his tools away when he became aware of burning.
He told the court on Monday: "I could see it and smell it. It wasn't a food smell."
He told police he heard voices but could not definitely say who the people were.
The same night, he also saw Luke Mitchell walking in the street as he settled down to watch television at about 2200 BST. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4072447.stm


And Corrine apparently said Luke came back into the house prior to phoning JuJ - in response to her text message - right toad you’re grounded

Was the ‘Luke returns to the house and tells his mother what Judy has said’ a story which had grown arms and legs at some point or was this what Corrine Mitchell said?

And if true where was he coming into the house from - the back garden maybe ?

So the small tray of the wood burner was used to burn clothes at least until 10 pm, the ashes were then tipped somewhere else as there was no sign of any metal or material in the ashes when forensically tested and Corrine then burned some more logs to provide the ashes that were tested. Is that what’s being suggested?

[Parky41]

It’s almost as if you were there...but oh wait....you weren’t. One thing I will agree with you on...the statements were messy. The first statements, which all experts agree, are the mostly likely to be true, simply did not marry with the evidence later given in court. Not opinion or interpretation but demonstrable fact. The only question after that should be why?

Neither of us were faithlilly - I like many others have looked at many avenues of evidence rather than solely depending on the word of SL - Faith indeed, blind perhaps?

I started from the guilty stance - understanding completely, for some time, why LM became a suspect almost from the start - hardly the result of statements being in harmony, they were not. 

All of the above is from witness statements, evidence heard, court documents and so forth - Some from Ms Lean herself.

Does not change the plain simple fact that you are avoiding - It was the clear difference in those very first statements that brought suspicion upon LM. He was NOT where he said he was - therefore the dogs actions are irrelevant. DF knew this - simple. As did experts.

Let's play ball - ALL  of the statements, that you are referring too, every word of them, not the tiny extracts, were in the hands of the defence.

Deciphered with a fine tooth comb, precognitions that would have been carried out -  DF making many attempts to confuse witnesses, much like the prosecution. The Jury hearing it all. - A wall being set up to show the jury the sequence of events and let's use that word again, the time - 10mins approx:

I have noticed how SL has mocked the use of this wall, why? When she herself uses much more 'amateur' dramatics to tell her tall tales - the added arms and legs.

If you want to go on first statements word for word - Then SM, LM and CM were clearly lying? don't you think?

SM said he arrived home at 3.30pm
CM said she arrived home around 5.05pm
LM said he was not out the house that night once he got back from the Abbey around 9pm

SM arrived home around 4.30 - it was discovered he had stopped to help a friend.  He changed his statements three times in approx 36-40 hrs. His mother gently guiding him.
CM did not arrive home until 5.15pm or after - she was on CTV in a shop at 5.05pm - yet had time to finish cooking dinner, plate it up, LM to eat his and say he was at the estate entrance around 5.30pm Under 10mins again to do all of this.
LM was seen returning to his house after 10pm by a neighbour.

SL has before put this down to shock - clearly the girls family suffered none- Messy.

[faithlilly]

Neither of us were faithlilly - I like many others have looked at many avenues of evidence rather than solely depending on the word of SL - Faith indeed, blind perhaps?

I started from the guilty stance - understanding completely, for some time, why LM became a suspect almost from the start - hardly the result of statements being in harmony, they were not. 

All of the above is from witness statements, evidence heard, court documents and so forth - Some from Ms Lean herself.

Does not change the plain simple fact that you are avoiding - It was the clear difference in those very first statements that brought suspicion upon LM. He was NOT where he said he was - therefore the dogs actions are irrelevant. DF knew this - simple. As did experts.

Let's play ball - ALL  of the statements, that you are referring too, every word of them, not the tiny extracts, were in the hands of the defence.

Deciphered with a fine tooth comb, precognitions that would have been carried out -  DF making many attempts to confuse witnesses, much like the prosecution. The Jury hearing it all. - A wall being set up to show the jury the sequence of events and let's use that word again, the time - 10mins approx:

I have noticed how SL has mocked the use of this wall, why? When she herself uses much more 'amateur' dramatics to tell her tall tales - the added arms and legs.

If you want to go on first statements word for word - Then SM, LM and CM were clearly lying? don't you think?

SM said he arrived home at 3.30pm
CM said she arrived home around 5.05pm
LM said he was not out the house that night once he got back from the Abbey around 9pm

SM arrived home around 4.30 - it was discovered he had stopped to help a friend.  He changed his statements three times in approx 36-40 hrs. His mother gently guiding him.
CM did not arrive home until 5.15pm or after - she was on CTV in a shop at 5.05pm - yet had time to finish cooking dinner, plate it up, LM to eat his and say he was at the estate entrance around 5.30pm Under 10mins again to do all of this.
LM was seen returning to his house after 10pm by a neighbour.

SL has before put this down to shock - clearly the girls family suffered none- Messy.

And when Jodi’s family’s statements don’t corroborate each other or the times are slightly out or information was not revealed at the first opportunity or the statements are changed...what then? Is it just the Mitchell family who are held to such a high standard of recall and transparency?

BTW is it at all possible for us to discuss this case without mentioning Sandra Lean? You know, just rely on the facts.

[Nicholas]

Corrine had prawns too apparently

It was a Monday - she told James English she did her shopping on a Tuesday - so Luke had beans apparently - ‘cos he ruined the broccoli and beans were all they had until Corrine went shopping the following day

So where did these prawns come from?

The freezer?

It takes around 8 hours to defrost prawns from frozen apparently

Fresh?

If Corrine had brought the prawns on the Tuesday before - when she usually did her shopping - they’d have been off by Friday

What does Sandra Lean say in her book about Corrine’s prawns?

Caught in the lie

Sandra Lean states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452006.html#msg452006
Luke spoke to his mum before 16.30 and therefore before the exchange of texts between his and Judith's phones at 16.34 - 16.38 and he called the speaking clock at 16.54.
His mum came home at 17.15, according to all three of the Mitchell family, and dinner was ready (This time is also supported by CCTV of Corinne leaving her work, stopping in at a local shop and reconstruction timings of the journey between the three places.)

According to Luke Mitchell his mother helped him finish off making dinner and according to Corrine Mitchells evidence given during trial, and depending on what version you believe, Luke asked her if he should cook broccoli.

“She said Luke asked her if he should cook broccoli to accompany their meal, but then heated some beans instead

Shane Mitchell said his brother was standing at the cooker “mashing tatties.”

Yet “The High Court in Edinburgh heard that his mother had given a statement the previous day also claiming that Luke was in the kitchen that evening "cooking pies and mashing potatoes (Note: no mention of the broccoli/bean story)

So dinner couldn’t have been ready as Sandra Lean claims.

She also stated here http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg451997.html#msg451997
“Luke called his mum's work at either 4.15 or 4.25pm (I'll have to check the phone logs to confirm which one) to ask what to cook for tea. There's no requirement for store bought pies to be defrosted - they're usually cooked from frozen and take around 30 - 45 minutes to cook - if Luke put the pies in the oven after the phone call to his mum, they'd be ready for 5.15pm - maybe he put them on the top shelf instead of the middle, or maybe he set the temperature a bit too high.

There are several anomalies with this particular version of events, not only with timings but linked to the broccoli, tatties, bean and chicken and/or steak pie stories. Who’s version of events should be believed? Why did Luke need to ask his mother when she got home if he should cook broccoli or beans? Hadn’t he already telephoned her to ask what to cook for dinner? He was an intelligent lad remember; could hold his own when interrogated by the police

Yet Shane Mitchell said; “Luke was standing at the cooker mashing tatties. I could smell burnt steak pies. I did not mention the smell because I did not want to insult him.

[faithlilly]

Corrine had prawns too apparently

It was a Monday - she told James English she did her shopping on a Tuesday - so Luke had beans apparently - ‘cos he ruined the broccoli and beans were all they had until Corrine went shopping the following day

So where did these prawns come from?

The freezer?

It takes around 8 hours to defrost prawns from frozen apparently

Fresh?

If Corrine had brought the prawns on the Tuesday before - when she usually did her shopping - they’d have been off by Friday

What does Sandra Lean say in her book about Corrine’s prawns?

Prawns can be defrosted in cold water in a matter of minutes.

[Parky41]

And when Jodi’s family’s statements don’t corroborate each other or the times are slightly out or information was not revealed at the first opportunity or the statements are changed...what then? Is it just the Mitchell family who are held to such a high standard of recall and transparency?

BTW is it at all possible for us to discuss this case without mentioning Sandra Lean? You know, just rely on the facts.

 When things are being put forward almost verbatim to the teachings of Ms Lean I see no harm in referring to her by name.

Is it not from this very person the subject we are discussing arose from - that of changing statements, centered by yourself around the search party, making claims that these statements were changed, inferring that they were in harmony with LM's at the start - information that has come forth from Ms Lean. Via books, forums, podcasts and lately a documentary.

I understand, to a degree why Ms Lean has to do this - when taking the stance of innocence there is no choice but to try and dismantle every piece of evidence.
It is however messy - Often going down roads that inadvertently do the very opposite of what she claims to be seeking - Truth and Justice.

Continuously sullying the names of factual innocent people - it is wrong.

Take MK for example - may he rest in peace, no - it is wrong.
This persons movements were traced. It was with SF and the greed of money that really brought the truth to light.
MK was on CTV that evening, his face was NOT covered in scratches. He was not on Newbattle Road for the F & W sighting, wait no, in the documentary he was running through fields back to the Abbey. Messy

Nothing but mismatched theories with a massive dose of finger pointing. No sequence of events. Zero. Why? Because someone must be guilty if LM is innocent, to hell with truth and Justice.

[Parky41]

Corrine had prawns too apparently

It was a Monday - she told James English she did her shopping on a Tuesday - so Luke had beans apparently - ‘cos he ruined the broccoli and beans were all they had until Corrine went shopping the following day

So where did these prawns come from?

The freezer?

It takes around 8 hours to defrost prawns from frozen apparently

Fresh?

If Corrine had brought the prawns on the Tuesday before - when she usually did her shopping - they’d have been off by Friday

What does Sandra Lean say in her book about Corrine’s prawns?

I have honestly not idea - were the prawns frozen or fresh? Even if they were ready to go into the pan or oven they still needed to be cooked. Unless they were cooked and ready to eat cold? Whatever they were it was a very fine timeline - once the actual real times were established of course and the whole story was that - a story? a fairy tale.

10mins at a push to cook the prawns, the bean, dish up and LM be on Newbattle road - Magic!

Revert back to statements and what is said at first - no statement is taken at face value at first, timings etc need to be established. Investigations done.

Voldemort - believes first statements should be used only, just the one liners that suit of course. They make some song and dance around the search trios guesswork at times that night, until the police established correct timings with phone records and so forth.  Much like they did with everyone, would be a fair assumption- Like CM's ?

[Venturi Swirl]

What reason did Corinne Mitchell give for using the woodburner on that April  night?

[faithlilly]

 When things are being put forward almost verbatim to the teachings of Ms Lean I see no harm in referring to her by name.

Is it not from this very person the subject we are discussing arose from - that of changing statements, centered by yourself around the search party, making claims that these statements were changed, inferring that they were in harmony with LM's at the start - information that has come forth from Ms Lean. Via books, forums, podcasts and lately a documentary.

I understand, to a degree why Ms Lean has to do this - when taking the stance of innocence there is no choice but to try and dismantle every piece of evidence.
It is however messy - Often going down roads that inadvertently do the very opposite of what she claims to be seeking - Truth and Justice.

Continuously sullying the names of factual innocent people - it is wrong.

Take MK for example - may he rest in peace, no - it is wrong.
This persons movements were traced. It was with SF and the greed of money that really brought the truth to light.
MK was on CTV that evening, his face was NOT covered in scratches. He was not on Newbattle Road for the F & W sighting, wait no, in the documentary he was running through fields back to the Abbey. Messy

Nothing but mismatched theories with a massive dose of finger pointing. No sequence of events. Zero. Why? Because someone must be guilty if LM is innocent, to hell with truth and Justice.

Is it worth pointing out that Frontline Scotland suggested Mark Kane (I can’t remember if he named him) had questions to answer in regards to his movements on the night of Jodi’s murder? As far as I’m aware SL had nothing to do with that documentary.

TBH I don’t think you care whether Luke is guilty or not  just that Sandra Lean is wrong...and that, as you say, is messy.

[Nicholas]

So the small tray of the wood burner was used to burn clothes at least until 10 pm, the ashes were then tipped somewhere else as there was no sign of any metal or material in the ashes when forensically tested and Corrine then burned some more logs to provide the ashes that were tested. Is that what’s being suggested?

Para 154 (from CoA judgement)

‘The first of these replies is that at page 17 of the transcript concerning the fire at the log burner in the back garden on 30 June 2003. The appellant agreed that his mother and brother had had a fire. Looking at the questioning to which that reply was given, no unfairness strikes us as being involved. Furthermore, evidence of the existence of such a fire had been laid before the jury from Mr and Mrs Frankland and Mr Ramage

[faithlilly]

Para 154 (from CoA judgement)

‘The first of these replies is that at page 17 of the transcript concerning the fire at the log burner in the back garden on 30 June 2003. The appellant agreed that his mother and brother had had a fire. Looking at the questioning to which that reply was given, no unfairness strikes us as being involved. Furthermore, evidence of the existence of such a fire had been laid before the jury from Mr and Mrs Frankland and Mr Ramage

But there would have to have been two fires, one to burn the heavy jacket, which would have taken some time. The ashes would then have to have cooled and been thrown away as there was no residual material matter in the ashes when they were forensically tested. Corrine would then have to have burned logs to provide the ashes that were tested. Is that what you think she did?

[Parky41]

But there would have to have been two fires, one to burn the heavy jacket, which would have taken some time. The ashes would then have to have cooled and been thrown away as there was no residual material matter in the ashes when they were forensically tested. Corrine would then have to have burned logs to provide the ashes that were tested. Is that what you think she did?

Facts concerning the log burner -

There was a fire in the Mitchel garden that evening - The smell and the smoke was witnessed by the closest neighbours. - corroboration. Only two needed.
This fire, initially, was denied until evidence to the contrary was produced. - pretty standard with quite a lot of the evidence, denial until proved otherwise.
School jotters and pampas grass was burned that week.

There is nothing to show either way that the burner taking away was the only item in the garden that could have been used for burning. Burning however definitely took place.

Opportunity for disposal - The evidence of the burning was at different intervals of time.
The log burner in question was not taken away for 4 days.
There was NO police presence 24/7
There was NO media presence 24/7
The bins were emptied the following day. 

Lets be real here - If you are using something to burn evidence, you are going to make sure any traces are removed at that crucial time. Would you really leave zips and the like behind.
Fires can be cooled rapidly - when this is done you get a lot of smoke and smell.- exactly what was witnessed.
We know LM stated he had stayed in when returning home from the Abbey - until evidence came forward from a neighbour who saw him going home around 10pm approx.
This housing estate is surrounded by woodland - a haven for disposal.
.   
It has been mentioned before that, SM after returning home from going out around 5.30pm - went back out again later that evening? Why does SL not mention this? Could and possibly was very innocent, why not mention it though? - Let others make up their mind?

The weather - CM spent a lot of her time in the garden that evening, it was overcast with low temperatures.
We know this as she claimed to have eaten her dinner outside after being cooped up all day.
We know this as LM stated that "how would you know if Jodi has been, you are in the garden" This was the call when he was heading into the Abbey after 7pm
How did he know his mother was in the garden? CM " Mia would let me know if Jodi was at the door"