Is DR Sandra Lean a credible source?

[Nicholas]

And of this graffiti and make shift posters - it is down to two or three individuals. Namely SD and his female side kick

Yes JT 

[Nicholas]

But the nonsense that Nicholas highlighted earlier - of writing to MPs and so forth - about the Jury, Judge, Lothian and Borders, detectives, DF and the pathologist to boot - shows how out of touch with reality - these people really are.

There’s a copy of Sandra’s email template kicking around somewhere

[Nicholas]

It is not to protect the case - it is to keep the truth hidden?

The truth is out.

Sandra Lean is incapable of admitting she’s wrong

And to reiterate - this isn’t about ‘truth’ or ‘justice’ and I’m not sure it ever was

[Nicholas]

No what is wrong, is that that they looked at the evidence, the investigation and not Ms Leans version of it, of her "information" to cancel it out.

She did a podcast with a bloke called Ed Johnston from Bristol Uni and has made claim the 10 facts of the case printed by the media have been debunked 

[Nicholas]

I think very fortunately that is somewhat delusional - I have just watched a little more of one of these Q&A - even the new people on board are stating that Ms Lean is repeating herself

I’ve just now briefly looked at a few minutes of Sharon, Kenny, Steph and Dani’s Q&A

I noticed how none of them answered the question of how Luke Mitchell knew what [Name removed] was wearing that night nor did they comment on the hair scrunchie

And they seem to think they know how Luke reacted that night because of what Sandra has said was written in statements.

JaJ said he looked shocked because his eyes were wide

On reflection - following the initial shock it’s obvious JaJ realised this was not what his eyes were saying at all

[Admin]

Posters are reminded of the forum rules and in particular the use of the term 'con artist' in posts in respect of any living person.

[mrswah]

Yes JT 

Who are SD and JT?

[mrswah]

A couple of thousand people isn’t ‘a lot of the public’ 🙄

It is when one considers that the vast majority of people wouldn't be interested either way.

[faithlilly]

I’ve just now briefly looked at a few minutes of Sharon, Kenny, Steph and Dani’s Q&A

I noticed how none of them answered the question of how Luke Mitchell knew what [Name removed] was wearing that night nor did they comment on the hair scrunchie

And they seem to think they know how Luke reacted that night because of what Sandra has said was written in statements.

JaJ said he looked shocked because his eyes were wide

On reflection - following the initial shock it’s obvious JaJ realised this was not what his eyes were saying at all

Unless Luke described Jodi’s clothes in his first interview he could have discovered what Jodi was wearing that night in a myriad of ways....from her mother, from the police etc.

[Nicholas]

Quite disturbing is it not? - What level of intellect do we have here. We know those vying for blood are the very ones who hung LM out to dry via the media. Of Devil worshipping and so forth. He got done for murder for being a Manson fan and for being odd? Now trying everyone else on the basis of Ms Lean and the documentary - are they turning their children into having those same narrow minds? Perhaps they took a picnic with them - made it a real day out. Murder mystery tour?

What do they hope to achieve - do they want the new generations of those they have tried to suffer at the hands of their own offspring? - Mini vigilantes? We have witnessed these comments online, the "Knock knock ya beasty b******s" "There were five of them, cotter wiz the lookout" The vile attacks on those who dare mention guilt? - one dreads to imagine the conversations had around those innocent ears of their children. Swallowing back the Buckie, in what was witnessed with a video of the "four amigos" around their camp fire. - those poor children.

Is this what LM meant with his message via Ms Lean - are those who speak of guilt going to be unsafe, the word is spreading and the vigilantes are unleashed? - We see the abuse they get from these foul mouthed creatures. The reporter Jane Hamilton. There are no reigns on these people - exactly the type needed for LM, for his freedom campaign? or for his conniving dirty work? And if any person should be harmed via this message, Ms Lean can step back and say - I was only acting on behalf of Luke, I am only his messenger? This trade off perhaps - those exclusive rights to his case?

Police Scotland arrested and charged a woman last week who wanted Jane Hamilton ‘set on fire’ because she didn’t share her views.

[Parky41]

I’ve just now briefly looked at a few minutes of Sharon, Kenny, Steph and Dani’s Q&A

I noticed how none of them answered the question of how Luke Mitchell knew what [Name removed] was wearing that night nor did they comment on the hair scrunchie

And they seem to think they know how Luke reacted that night because of what Sandra has said was written in statements.

JaJ said he looked shocked because his eyes were wide

On reflection - following the initial shock it’s obvious JaJ realised this was not what his eyes were saying at all

Definitely - On reflection, once that initial haze lifted - which on reflection shows us how traumatised this poor girls family were. And rightly so. That once that haze had lifted a little - that reflection showed exactly how LM was. And if fitted in exactly with how the police found him. Unfazed. Cool and collective. Of his time at the station. Happily sitting away, filling them in with every rehearsed lie - No breaks, no tears - nothing. And this was how he remained throughout. This is the LM the Jury saw every day of that trial. The media and every other person who crammed into that court room.

Of his interview on the Friday (4th) with a social worker present - not once did they have to intervene - As LM told the police how to do their Job, taking control - this is the LM that was found guilty. Who came across as exactly the type to carry out such a brutal crime.

[Parky41]

Police Scotland arrested and charged a woman last week who wanted Jane Hamilton ‘set on fire’ because she didn’t share her views.

Oh dear - horrendous.

[Nicholas]

Quite disturbing is it not? - What level of intellect do we have here. We know those vying for blood are the very ones who hung LM out to dry via the media. Of Devil worshipping and so forth. He got done for murder for being a Manson fan and for being odd? Now trying everyone else on the basis of Ms Lean and the documentary - are they turning their children into having those same narrow minds? Perhaps they took a picnic with them - made it a real day out. Murder mystery tour?

What do they hope to achieve - do they want the new generations of those they have tried to suffer at the hands of their own offspring? - Mini vigilantes? We have witnessed these comments online, the "Knock knock ya beasty b******s" "There were five of them, cotter wiz the lookout" The vile attacks on those who dare mention guilt? - one dreads to imagine the conversations had around those innocent ears of their children. Swallowing back the Buckie, in what was witnessed with a video of the "four amigos" around their camp fire. - those poor children.

Is this what LM meant with his message via Ms Lean - are those who speak of guilt going to be unsafe, the word is spreading and the vigilantes are unleashed? - We see the abuse they get from these foul mouthed creatures. The reporter Jane Hamilton. There are no reigns on these people - exactly the type needed for LM, for his freedom campaign? or for his conniving dirty work? And if any person should be harmed via this message, Ms Lean can step back and say - I was only acting on behalf of Luke, I am only his messenger? This trade off perhaps - those exclusive rights to his case?

Sandra Lean still hasn’t bothered to inform her followers she was wrong about Jane Hamilton’s article

Her excerpts read,
‘What's on my mind is Jane Hamilton of the Daily Record. I'm not sharing her article for obvious reasons, but I did want to address a couple of points.

‘Finally, journalists are supposed to have a reasonable grasp of the English language. The new evidence hasn't been "poured over" - nobody upended a jug of liquid over it. She means, of course, pored over.

How many more times

‘Pored’ was used in Jane’s article.

The spelling mistake appears to have occurred when the article was uploaded to the DR website. Maybe spellchecker changed it to ‘poured’?

Regardless, Sandra Lean was wrong again

[Nicholas]

Oh dear - horrendous.

The perpetrator of these threats hasn’t been named and shamed although I suspect many of those within the campaign group will know who she is

Given the involvement of Johnnyboy Steel and the so called ‘ice cream wars’ which culminated in the murders of James Doyle, 53, his daughter Christina Halleron, 25, her 18-month-old son Mark and three of Mr Doyle's sons, James, Andrew (the target of the intimidation), and Tony, aged 23, 18, and 14 respectively - I’m surprised this women wasn’t sent to jail

[mrswah]

Police Scotland arrested and charged a woman last week who wanted Jane Hamilton ‘set on fire’ because she didn’t share her views.

This is disgusting, and there is no excuse for this kind of behaviour by "campaigners"------threatening people, defacing property, etc etc.

I have some doubts re the guilt of Luke Mitchell, I don't much  like Jane Hamilton's reporting, and I do like Sandra Lean's book (not the podcasts/interviews, which I don't watch), but it is appalling the way some of these campaigners behave.