Is DR Sandra Lean a credible source?

[mrswah]

I too have read that Shane had a collection of knives ... don't ask me where, one reads so much.  I think boys who appear to have a fixation on knives should have been a grave concern given the prevalence of youth knife crime around that time.

I think the incidence of knife crime is even worse now, listening to the news every day. I suspect many of these young people are buying them via the internet, without their parents' knowledge.

[Brietta]

What Sandra Leans behaviour shows too is she clearly has no idea how the media works

Jane Hamilton doesn’t run the Daily Records website - she’s a journalist - she writes

The fact that Sandra Lean has chosen to perpetuate the lie actually tells us so much more about her and her standards than it does about anything else.

In the first instance it was not worthy of snide comment to begin with - in the second instance, that she did and continued with it says it all about her 😁

[Brietta]

I think the incidence of knife crime is even worse now, listening to the news every day. I suspect many of these young people are buying them via the internet, without their parents' knowledge.

I'm not sure about that (in Scotland).  I've not studied it at all but my impression is that it is not as bad now as it was back in the early nineties when it was of real concern.

I think a 'skunting' knife was specifically designed for skinning and boning.  I believe it was ideal for cutting the blocks of cannabis in Mitchell's possession.  Chilling to contemplate is that Jodi's eyelids had been slit off and care had been taken that the eyeball had not been touched.

Anyway, whatever its purpose Corrine Mitchell certainly condoned and approved of Mitchell's knife fetish - she bought his replacement.
Stupid thing to do in my opinion given the death and mutilation Jodi suffered - but proof that they arrogantly thought Mitchell had got away with it.

[Parky41]

I'm not sure about that (in Scotland).  I've not studied it at all but my impression is that it is not as bad now as it was back in the early nineties when it was of real concern.

I think a 'skunting' knife was specifically designed for skinning and boning.  I believe it was ideal for cutting the blocks of cannabis in Mitchell's possession.  Chilling to contemplate is that Jodi's eyelids had been slit off and care had been taken that the eyeball had not been touched.

Anyway, whatever its purpose Corrine Mitchell certainly condoned and approved of Mitchell's knife fetish - she bought his replacement.
Stupid thing to do in my opinion given the death and mutilation Jodi suffered - but proof that they arrogantly thought Mitchell had got away with it.

Thought they would get away without them noticing it was a replacement? - which is pretty much the evidence led. They bought the knife hoping to bring it out as the one the police were looking for - which backfired, firstly by tracking the order online, and of the handle being black as opposed to brown. And of course the police knowing this. Then looking for this new one, realising it was missing. Asked about it after the house search. Of CM going home, fetching the replacement, taking it to Beumont claiming it was in a bag beside the dogs dinner bowls?  all the time? - As with the jacket. Hoping in vane to purchasing this and morphing it into the clothing he had. They knew the police were looking for this. They tried any means to replace it, desperately. - But they were being watched, and the FLO was waiting to take that receipt off them. - and of CM, of highlighting this "orignial army surplus" of putting it into a tiny burner - knowing the exact make of said jacket.

[faithlilly]

Thought they would get away without them noticing it was a replacement? - which is pretty much the evidence led. They bought the knife hoping to bring it out as the one the police were looking for - which backfired, firstly by tracking the order online, and of the handle being black as opposed to brown. And of course the police knowing this. Then looking for this new one, realising it was missing. Asked about it after the house search. Of CM going home, fetching the replacement, taking it to Beumont claiming it was in a bag beside the dogs dinner bowls?  all the time? - As with the jacket. Hoping in vane to purchasing this and morphing it into the clothing he had. They knew the police were looking for this. They tried any means to replace it, desperately. - But they were being watched, and the FLO was waiting to take that receipt off them. - and of CM, of highlighting this "orignial army surplus" of putting it into a tiny burner - knowing the exact make of said jacket.

I hope members who require evidence for contentious claims give your posts the weight they deserve.

[Nicholas]

The fact that Sandra Lean has chosen to perpetuate the lie actually tells us so much more about her and her standards than it does about anything else.

In the first instance it was not worthy of snide comment to begin with - in the second instance, that she did and continued with it says it all about her 😁

Now factor in what she chooses to do with the various witness statements she has access to

She does a very similar with them

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean
‘If I didn't have books to sell, would I still be here? I was still here, doing this, when I worked in an office. I was still here when I was teaching. I was still here, unpaid, facing all the hate and threats throughout the early years. Those people who think I do this for money are laughable, but it's an easy (and cheap) shot.

The first book was withdrawn to correct one typo where the wrong name was printed in error and to be updated because some of the people whose cases were featured have since died. But for some people, what they don't know, they'll just make up.

It wasn’t a ‘typo’ though was it  ➡️ http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10768.msg642470#msg642470

More lies.

And yes what she doesn’t know she makes up 🙄

It is clear from this article https://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2010/06/20/mitchells-mum-points-finger-at-another-man-for-jodi-killing/ the SK reference was NOT a typo

Sandra Lean
‘Oh, dear, B, you're way off the mark here. Everything I say about Jodi's family is backed up by statements they, themselves gave. If I make people furious by telling the truth, that says more about the people getting furious than it does about me, don't you think?

What do you mean Jodi's family "can't watch anything on the screen"? What a ridiculous statement - I update on my own Youtube and facebook pages  and occasionally as a guest on other people's channels. Jodi's family was invited to participate/comment on the Channel 5 documentary (which is the only thing available via mainstream media). If Jodi's family are seeing me on the screen, as you put it, they would have to be looking for me.

The first book was not withdrawn because it was full of lies and mistakes - I already explained that, but I guess you'll just carry on believing what you want to believe anyway. If you watched this update, you'll have heard what I said about confident ignorance - thanks for demonstrating it for people.

I still talk about Susan May, Gordon Park and Simon Hall as well. I didn't say I stopped talking about them - I said that No Smoke was withdrawn to be UPDATED about their deaths. It really does help if you read my replies properly, otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time - including your own.”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nJP-1NLfrhc

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean
‘Oh, dear, B, you're way off the mark here. Everything I say about Jodi's family is backed up by statements they, themselves gave. If I make people furious by telling the truth, that says more about the people getting furious than it does about me, don't you think?

What do you mean Jodi's family "can't watch anything on the screen"? What a ridiculous statement - I update on my own Youtube and facebook pages  and occasionally as a guest on other people's channels. Jodi's family was invited to participate/comment on the Channel 5 documentary (which is the only thing available via mainstream media). If Jodi's family are seeing me on the screen, as you put it, they would have to be looking for me.

The first book was not withdrawn because it was full of lies and mistakes - I already explained that, but I guess you'll just carry on believing what you want to believe anyway. If you watched this update, you'll have heard what I said about “confident ignorance’ - thanks for demonstrating it for people.

I still talk about Susan May, Gordon Park and Simon Hall as well. I didn't say I stopped talking about them - I said that No Smoke was withdrawn to be UPDATED about their deaths. It really does help if you read my replies properly, otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time - including your own.”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nJP-1NLfrhc

‘Wilfully ignorant’ was what she last labelled those of us who see through her

[Nicholas]

It wasn’t a ‘typo’ though was it  ➡️ http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10768.msg642470#msg642470

It is clear from this article https://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2010/06/20/mitchells-mum-points-finger-at-another-man-for-jodi-killing/ the SK reference was NOT a typo

Sandra and Corinne are clearly referring to SK ⬇️

‘They claim on an internet forum that DNA evidence links the man with the brutal 2003 stabbing.

And the man in question said he was aware of the claims against him.

He said: “I know what these people are saying about me.

“I will deal with this in my own time.”

Luke Mitchell, 22, was convicted of the murder of his 14-year-old girlfriend in 2005.

But his mum recently posted on an internet forum that evidence points to someone else.

She wrote: “X’s semen and blood were on Jodi’s T-shirt…his description and clothing matched a witness statement of a male ‘following Jodi’…he was known to the police.

“Is it me or is anyone else adding things up here?

“Description of man seen behind Jodi – grey hooded top.

“Several days after the murder X hands his grey hooded top to the police saying it has been washed.

“At 5pm X’s alibi is Janine (Jodi’s sister).

“The police accepted that Janine said, ‘he was with me’ and from him ‘ I was with her’.”

And Sandra Lean, author and researcher on miscarriages of justice, added: “Our Mr X is emerging as more and more suspicious.

“The info that’s coming our way is shocking, especially as the police should have been onto this stuff right from the beginning.”

[Nicholas]

Sandra and Corinne are clearly referring to SK ⬇️

Link to June 2010 media article https://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2010/06/20/mitchells-mum-points-finger-at-another-man-for-jodi-killing/

‘They claim on an internet forum that DNA evidence links the man with the brutal 2003 stabbing.

And the man in question said he was aware of the claims against him.

He said: “I know what these people are saying about me.

“I will deal with this in my own time.”

Luke Mitchell, 22, was convicted of the murder of his 14-year-old girlfriend in 2005.

But his mum recently posted on an internet forum that evidence points to someone else.

She wrote: “X’s semen and blood were on Jodi’s T-shirt…his description and clothing matched a witness statement of a male ‘following Jodi’…he was known to the police.

“Is it me or is anyone else adding things up here?

“Description of man seen behind Jodi – grey hooded top.

“Several days after the murder X hands his grey hooded top to the police saying it has been washed.

“At 5pm X’s alibi is Janine (Jodi’s sister).

“The police accepted that Janine said, ‘he was with me’ and from him ‘ I was with her’.”

And Sandra Lean, author and researcher on miscarriages of justice, added: “Our Mr X is emerging as more and more suspicious.

“The info that’s coming our way is shocking, especially as the police should have been onto this stuff right from the beginning.”

Where did Corinne Mitchell get all of the above ⬆️ ⬆️ from re SK?

So many things Lean claims keep getting contradicted by people who were actually there at the time...

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean
‘Oh, dear, B, you're way off the mark here. Everything I say about Jodi's family is backed up by statements they, themselves gave. If I make people furious by telling the truth, that says more about the people getting furious than it does about me, don't you think?

What do you mean Jodi's family "can't watch anything on the screen"? What a ridiculous statement - I update on my own Youtube and facebook pages  and occasionally as a guest on other people's channels. Jodi's family was invited to participate/comment on the Channel 5 documentary (which is the only thing available via mainstream media). If Jodi's family are seeing me on the screen, as you put it, they would have to be looking for me.

The first book was not withdrawn because it was full of lies and mistakes - I already explained that, but I guess you'll just carry on believing what you want to believe anyway. If you watched this update, you'll have heard what I said about confident ignorance - thanks for demonstrating it for people.

I still talk about Susan May, Gordon Park and Simon Hall as well. I didn't say I stopped talking about them - I said that No Smoke was withdrawn to be UPDATED about their deaths. It really does help if you read my replies properly, otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time - including your own.”
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nJP-1NLfrhc

Why am I not surprised 🙄

[Brietta]

Mitchell's defence at trial was ALIBI and INCRIMINATION.

The jury did not believe his alibi that he was somewhere else around the time it was deduced that Jodi was slaughtered.

The jury did not believe that the crime had been carried out by anyone else:  his conviction stood despite appeals as there was no rebuttal to his failed defence.

It is horrible to see that what was overturned at his trial as a result of rigorous investigation by the police is still rearing its ugly head on pro Mitchell fora and being repeated day and daily.

There has been some talk here of "dignity" for Jodi - in my opinion part and parcel of that would be giving her mother and family the space to grieve which they have never been allowed as the result of the innuendo and downright make believe which has been in circulation from day one of Mitchell's sentence.


Of interest was the discussion about when Sandra Lean took up the cudgels on Mitchell's behalf.  According to her it was when Corrine paid her a visit having heard of Lean's interest in the case which prompted her career change.

According to a Mitchell apologist on this forum Lean attended the trial where she was photographed alongside Corrine, one wonders which version of events is the correct one or is there a smattering of truth in either or none.
A condition which seems to accompany everything associated with the meddling which strips everyone of their "dignity" particularly those who have been falsely accused over the years.
Funny how so called "justice campaigners" wouldn't recognise justice if it reared up and bit them on the bum 😑

[faithlilly]

Mitchell's defence at trial was ALIBI and INCRIMINATION.

The jury did not believe his alibi that he was somewhere else around the time it was deduced that Jodi was slaughtered.

The jury did not believe that the crime had been carried out by anyone else:  his conviction stood despite appeals as there was no rebuttal to his failed defence.

It is horrible to see that what was overturned at his trial as a result of rigorous investigation by the police is still rearing its ugly head on pro Mitchell fora and being repeated day and daily.

There has been some talk here of "dignity" for Jodi - in my opinion part and parcel of that would be giving her mother and family the space to grieve which they have never been allowed as the result of the innuendo and downright make believe which has been in circulation from day one of Mitchell's sentence.


Of interest was the discussion about when Sandra Lean took up the cudgels on Mitchell's behalf.  According to her it was when Corrine paid her a visit having heard of Lean's interest in the case which prompted her career change.

According to a Mitchell apologist on this forum Lean attended the trial where she was photographed alongside Corrine, one wonders which version of events is the correct one or is there a smattering of truth in either or none.
A condition which seems to accompany everything associated with the meddling which strips everyone of their "dignity" particularly those who have been falsely accused over the years.
Funny how so called "justice campaigners" wouldn't recognise justice if it reared up and bit them on the bum 😑

You are funny Brietta.
 

[Nicholas]

You are funny Brietta.

What would be hilarious - if it didn’t all stem from the brutal murder of 14 year old Jodi Jones🌻 

is the fact Sandra Lean has mentioned the ‘Cadder ruling’ in her latest podcast and referred to ‘the media’

Would that be the very same media who she and the Mitchell’s falsely claim ‘tried’ Luke Mitchell 🙄

“...the media were openly saying, they were speaking to lawyers and solicitors (what’s the difference between the two?) and they were all openly saying, in this case it’s a classic ‘Cadder case’ they would have to overturn Luke’s conviction, they would have to, but we had to first apply to the Scottish courts for permission to include a ‘Cadder’ point or a ‘Cadder ‘ appeal and then if they rejected it we could go direct to the Supreme Court now this is nonsense - we could go direct to the Supreme Court but only after we’d been to the Scottish court and been turned down. So we went to the Scottish court and basically because of that they knew we were going to be relying on the sentence court the sentence appeal as being still live proceedings. They turned us down and we got the application ready to go to the Supreme Court and two days before we were ready to lodge it they made a decision in the sentence appeal and the Supreme Court wouldn’t accept it because there were no longer love proceedings in the case. That I I thought id seen every dirty trick in the book up to that point that one it just it was so transparent it was so transparent these level experts were saying in Luke’s case the ‘Cadder’ point would would definitely mean the conviction had to be overturned and they got us two days two days before in the technicality that there were no longer live proceedings in the case so yeah there is an example of how of how they can manipulate their own rules to suit themselves”    (sic)

[Nicholas]

What would be hilarious - if it didn’t all stem from the brutal murder of 14 year old Jodi Jones🌻 

is the fact Sandra Lean has mentioned the ‘Cadder ruling’ in her latest podcast and referred to ‘the media’

Would that be the very same media who she and the Mitchell’s falsely claim ‘tried’ Luke Mitchell 🙄

“...the media were openly saying, they were speaking to lawyers and solicitors (what’s the difference between the two?) and they were all openly saying, in this case it’s a classic ‘Cadder case’ they would have to overturn Luke’s conviction, they would have to, but we had to first apply to the Scottish courts for permission to include a ‘Cadder’ point or a ‘Cadder ‘ appeal and then if they rejected it we could go direct to the Supreme Court now this is nonsense - we could go direct to the Supreme Court but only after we’d been to the Scottish court and been turned down. So we went to the Scottish court and basically because of that they knew we were going to be relying on the sentence court the sentence appeal as being still live proceedings. They turned us down and we got the application ready to go to the Supreme Court and two days before we were ready to lodge it they made a decision in the sentence appeal and the Supreme Court wouldn’t accept it because there were no longer love proceedings in the case. That I I thought id seen every dirty trick in the book up to that point that one it just it was so transparent it was so transparent these level experts were saying in Luke’s case the ‘Cadder’ point would would definitely mean the conviction had to be overturned and they got us two days two days before in the technicality that there were no longer live proceedings in the case so yeah there is an example of how of how they can manipulate their own rules to suit themselves”    (sic)

Were the media saying this or were they repeating what the lawyers were suggesting?


‘JODI JONES’ killer, Luke Mitchell, is set to have his conviction quashed by the Supreme Court in England, three eminent legal experts have told the Scottish Sunday Express.
In a move that will signal an astonishing escalation in the row over the independence of Scots Law, the senior solicitors insist judges in London will have no choice but to recommend freeing him on the grounds his human rights were breached. 
Mitchell, now 22, was sentenced to life in 2005 for murdering his girlfriend, Jodi, 14, in Dalkeith, Midlothian, two years before.
But he is claiming his trial was unfair because he had no access to a lawyer during interview, which has since been declared a breach of EU human rights under the controversial Cadder ruling.
In April, the Appeal Court in Edinburgh ruled that his conviction should stand as his case pre-dated the law change brought about by teenager Peter Cadder.
His lawyers had successfully argued that his human rights had been breached by an assault conviction based on evidence gained before he spoke to his solicitor
However Mitchell’s legal team is now going directly to the UK Supreme Court – the new institution which First Minister Alex Salmond has accused of undermining Scots Law – to plead “exceptional circumstances”.
Senior lawyers on both sides of the Border say this will result in his conviction being quashed. Nicholas Scullion, who has successfully represented clients using the Cadder ruling, is certain the First Minister knows the likely decision, which could come within weeks.
He said: “I do not think the public of Scotland will be behind any court that releases Luke Mitchell, but the reality is the Supreme Court probably will call this in and if so they have to release him.
“There are three bullet points of Cadder and Luke Mitchell fits every one. If they don’t quash the conviction it really calls into question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.
“The only reason for not doing it would be because they are afraid of Alex Salmond, and that would be a breach of European convention.”
Mr Scullion, managing partner of Scotland’s criminal law firm of the year Nicholas Scullion and Co, added: “Alex Salmond knows this and he knows it’s not going to be popular, so it could not have gone better for him. English judges freeing a Scottish child murderer? Imagine if the James Bulger killers had gone to Brussels and been released.
“They haven’t reversed any convictions in England, so I think the court is being tested on Scotland, almost like the Poll Tax.
“The court is not going to pick a fight with David Cameron, so it is testing the waters in Scotland.”
English barrister Jodie Blackstock, who acted as counsel for Peter Cadder in his landmark ruling last October, said Mitchell’s case is very similar and revealed that Mitchell’s conviction could be quashed before the summer recess.
“They need to request a special leave hearing,” she said. “It depends whether they can get that in before the summer recess. If not, then it will be heard after the recess in October.”
Jodi was 14 when her mutilated body was found near her home in Dalkeith, Midlothian, hours after she had gone to meet Mitchell.
Police spent months building a case against Mitchell, who carried knives, smoked cannabis and confessed to being a Satanist. In January 2005, he was convicted following a 42-day trial and ordered to serve at least 20 years.
He wants that decision overturned on human rights grounds, arguing he was questioned by police without a lawyer.
But two weeks ago, at the Court of Criminal Appeal, Lord Justice General Lord Hamilton and two other judges dismissed his claim, leaving the Supreme Court the next option.
Advocate Niall McCluskey yesterday stressed the Cadder ruling only applied to ‘live’ cases – and Mitchell’s was closed when his appeal failed back in 2008.
However he said: “In Mitchell’s case there is an argument about whether it is entirely concluded because there is an
outstanding sentencing appeal to be resolved.
“The question is do the Supreme Court judges think there are exceptional circumstances to look at his case?”
He added: “I can’t really comment on Luke Mitchell’s chances but in a case where there are categoric 
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/253701/Luke-Mitchell-set-to-have-his-conviction-quashed-by-Supreme-Court-in-England