Is DR Sandra Lean a credible source?

[Paranoid Android]

This murder has haunted the area since the time of the murder - you can't drive or walk past Roan's Dyke path without being reminded of it - I knew some of the people, and I know a few things.

I stopped debating things like the timeline around the time of the earliest appeals because it's pointless.

There was nothing new in the recent documentary apart from the death of MK, which I was sad to hear.

If there was anything meaningful in Lean's book, we'd know about it, and someone would have acted on it.

[faithlilly]

This murder has haunted the area since the time of the murder - you can't drive or walk past Roan's Dyke path without being reminded of it - I knew some of the people, and I know a few things.

I stopped debating things like the timeline around the time of the earliest appeals because it's pointless.

There was nothing new in the recent documentary apart from the death of MK, which I was sad to hear.

If there was anything meaningful in Lean's book, we'd know about it, and someone would have acted on it.

Do you think that Luke was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt?

[Paranoid Android]

Do you think that Luke was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt?

I've told you this before - hope you pay attention this time - to all of the points.

LM clearly wasn't convicted beyond all reasonable doubt - I've been clear on this many times.

That doesn't mean he didn't commit the crime

He was found guilty by majority verdict by a jury of his peers who were privy to all of the evidence presented, and all appeals have failed - there could be reasons for that.

There are things you/we/Dr Lean don't know.

There is a possibility that LM killed Jodi, if only you and Dr Lean would admit that possibility.

You won't, though.

[Parky41]

Sandra Lean is treating her podcast followers like imbeciles

Blood was not put into a wine glass and knocked over 

Absolute nonsense - I smell (poo) Spilt her 125 mls indeed. Does she buy her wine in those little bottles that she knows it is 125mls. Anyhow, what fools are there that have been saying that LM would not have been blood stained in some way? One did not have to dispose of his clothing for no reason.  Furthermore - That lovely white towel, in her office - ready at hand to sop up this red wine, we all do it? - grab a white towel to sop up red wine? - Men might but the bloody missus would be having kittens? Did she use it for the slavers as well?

Now children, I am going to give you a lesson today on what not to do if you spill red wine? - Don't use a white towel.
So we know that there was not 5 1/2 litres of blood on Jodi's clothing. We don't need any lessons for that. And we know, without a shadow of a doubt that there would be blood upon LM. His jacket, trouser even - on his shoes/soles and of course hands. That is of course if he did not have gloves with him. See, we do not know. What we do know is that LM did not in the slightest have to be covered from head to foot - literally. Ms Leans white towel set up - proves absolutely nothing, other than how much red wine would show up on a white towel. - blood in itself being a substance that is of course much denser. Thus why it congeals. So it is nothing like her explanation in the slightest. - common sense and intelligence do not go hand in hand it would seem. - I am actually quite taken aback at this nonsense - does not however surprise one in the slightest. - She knows her audience, those who gobble up any nonsense readily.

Make of that what you will indeed?

[Nicholas]

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/

[Nicholas]

Make of that what you will indeed?

She held up ONE wine glass and said ‘here are my wine glasses’ 

[mrswah]

I've told you this before - hope you pay attention this time - to all of the points.

LM clearly wasn't convicted beyond all reasonable doubt - I've been clear on this many times.

That doesn't mean he didn't commit the crime

He was found guilty by majority verdict by a jury of his peers who were privy to all of the evidence presented, and all appeals have failed - there could be reasons for that.

There are things you/we/Dr Lean don't know.

There is a possibility that LM killed Jodi, if only you and Dr Lean would admit that possibility.

You won't, though.

I will.

I do recommend the book, however !

[Nicholas]

I will.

I do recommend the book, however !

Does the book include all of Luke and Corinne Mitchell’s police witness statements in full and if not why not?

And what does it say about Luke Mitchell’s suicide threats/idealisations ?

What does Luke Mitchell’s 29th October 2004 psychiatric report say in relation to his suicide idealisations ?

”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/


‘I was always bullied by teachers and considered suicide’

How old was Luke when he wrote about dying, suicide and ‘a purpose’ to his life on his school jotters?

And how old was he when he allegedly considered suicide or made the threats?

And dis he disclose any of the above to the forensic psychologist who assessed him?

[faithlilly]

I've told you this before - hope you pay attention this time - to all of the points.

LM clearly wasn't convicted beyond all reasonable doubt - I've been clear on this many times.

That doesn't mean he didn't commit the crime

He was found guilty by majority verdict by a jury of his peers who were privy to all of the evidence presented, and all appeals have failed - there could be reasons for that.

There are things you/we/Dr Lean don't know.

There is a possibility that LM killed Jodi, if only you and Dr Lean would admit that possibility.

You won't, though.

True, I did ask you the question before and you avoided it in the same way then, hence me having to ask it again.

The judicial standard is beyond reasonable doubt. The jury heard all the Crown’s best evidence and that standard was not met in the opinion of , possibly, seven members of the jury.

That’s not, however what I’m asking. I’m asking do YOU, with the knowledge that you have at your disposal now, think Luke’s guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt?

There is always information that both the prosecution and defence have access to that we, and the jury, don’t but as it obviously wasn’t thought of as of sufficient importance to present in court I think, for our purposes, it can be discarded.

We have seen the judgements of the appeal judges and we know why the appeals failed. We have also seen numerous other appeal judgements, in the same vein, of convictions which were eventually overturned.

You can’t deem someone guilty because there’s, possibly, incriminating evidence that we don’t know about.

So, taking the above into consideration, do you, on the evidence available now, think Luke’s guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt ( no pressure ) ?

[Nicholas]

True, I did ask you the question before and you avoided it in the same way then, hence me having to ask it again.

The judicial standard is beyond reasonable doubt. The jury heard all the Crown’s best evidence and that standard was not met in the opinion of , possibly, seven members of the jury.

That’s not, however what I’m asking. I’m asking do YOU, with the knowledge that you have at your disposal now, think Luke’s guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt?

There is always information that both the prosecution and defence have access to that we, and the jury, don’t but as it obviously wasn’t thought of as of sufficient importance to present in court I think, for our purposes, it can be discarded.

We have seen the judgements of the appeal judges and we know why the appeals failed. We have also seen numerous other appeal judgements, in the same vein, of convictions which were eventually overturned.

You can’t deem someone guilty because there’s, possibly, incriminating evidence that we don’t know about.

So, taking the above into consideration, do you, on the evidence available now, think Luke’s guilt has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt ( no pressure ) ?

I’ve not seen the Mitchell’s - or Sandra Lean - explain the lies they (the Mitchell’s) told

How did Luke know what Jodi was wearing on Monday night if he claimed to not have seen her?

[faithlilly]

Absolute nonsense - I smell (poo) Spilt her 125 mls indeed. Does she buy her wine in those little bottles that she knows it is 125mls. Anyhow, what fools are there that have been saying that LM would not have been blood stained in some way? One did not have to dispose of his clothing for no reason.  Furthermore - That lovely white towel, in her office - ready at hand to sop up this red wine, we all do it? - grab a white towel to sop up red wine? - Men might but the bloody missus would be having kittens? Did she use it for the slavers as well?

Now children, I am going to give you a lesson today on what not to do if you spill red wine? - Don't use a white towel.
So we know that there was not 5 1/2 litres of blood on Jodi's clothing. We don't need any lessons for that. And we know, without a shadow of a doubt that there would be blood upon LM. His jacket, trouser even - on his shoes/soles and of course hands. That is of course if he did not have gloves with him. See, we do not know. What we do know is that LM did not in the slightest have to be covered from head to foot - literally. Ms Leans white towel set up - proves absolutely nothing, other than how much red wine would show up on a white towel. - blood in itself being a substance that is of course much denser. Thus why it congeals. So it is nothing like her explanation in the slightest. - common sense and intelligence do not go hand in hand it would seem. - I am actually quite taken aback at this nonsense - does not however surprise one in the slightest. - She knows her audience, those who gobble up any nonsense readily.

Make of that what you will indeed?

I have to agree, a silly stunt that proved nothing.

If Luke was guilty he would, indeed, have blood on him. That last desperate fight of Jodi’s, evidenced by the blood on the branches. The removal of the clothes and the constraining of her arms...no avoiding blood contamination there.....and yet....and yet...absolutely no mention of blood contamination by RW and LF on the boy they saw standing, in his murderer’s mantle, leaning on the gate without a care in the world. Odd that. No mention of a bloodstained boy bolting across the road, trying to put as much distance between himself and the scene of his horrific crime by any of those occupants of the numerous cars passing by. Most odd.

As an aside...when you claim that between 6.30 and 7.30 Luke wasn’t seen, what do you think he was doing?

[faithlilly]

I’ve not seen the Mitchell’s - or Sandra Lean - explain the lies they (the Mitchell’s) told

How did Luke know what Jodi was wearing on Monday night if he claimed to not have seen her?

What was the date of the interview when the information was given?

[Nicholas]

a silly stunt

?

[Paranoid Android]

There is a possibility that LM killed Jodi, if only you and Dr Lean would admit that possibility.

You won't, though.

Told ya! 

[Paranoid Android]

True, I did ask you the question before and you avoided it in the same way then, hence me having to ask it again.

Mother of God!

I've clearly answered your question - the problem is that you are unable to discern shades of grey - that's on you.

Let's have no further interaction, thanks.