Is DR Sandra Lean a credible source?

[Nicholas]

That complete mess in the way it is pushed out - that leaves most of the followers, scratching their heads - trying to piece these suspects together, to solve this 'who done it'.  To the point of empowering some into a frenzy - making statements such as this from MR "admit it, you and your b/f killed you sister .... you evil b........s"

Lies and innuendo - John Morris did something similar with mass murderer and child killer David Morris

https://t.co/PLKKVVrEyJ?amp=1

And ironically Anthony Malcolm Daniels aka Theodore Dalrymple stated of Morris’s book ‘the Clydach murders’,

‘Morris lays bare a story of police corruption and incompetence, lawyerly dishonesty’

And like many others - Anthony Michael Daniels https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zk-PHDHqlqU failed to carry out his due diligence and didn’t bother to fact check the contents of John Morris’s book

[Nicholas]

That complete mess in the way it is pushed out - that leaves most of the followers, scratching their heads - trying to piece these suspects together, to solve this 'who done it'.  To the point of empowering some into a frenzy - making statements such as this from MR "admit it, you and your b/f killed you sister .... you evil b........s"

False accusations are still being levelled at the Jones family - including towards Jodi Jones mother Judith

She’s still being accused of ‘smirking’ in a photo outside court  - which didn’t happen

If they bothered to fact check they would recognise the JuJ had short hair around the time Luke Mitchell murdered her daughter

[Parky41]

Sandra Lean
‘I’d never have believed that simply telling the truth could be twisted so far out of recognition’

‘One tiny grain of truth submerged in a deluge of half truths and outright lies - there’s no way to counter that’

Exactly what one believes and practices that accusation stemming from self awareness of ones own actions? Is it not? From that complete false premise of stating the book is "The true story of the murder of Jodi Jones". It could not be further from the truth. Of using information that is impossible to be fact such as the bike at the V. Of those continuous shots in the dark against an abundance of evidence that proves the exact opposite. Of those continuous slithers of truth and the mountains made from the molehills they are? The very reason why there are not multiple legal persons taking this case on board on the basis of this nonsense is it not? Exactly the reason they are podcasts and far out documentaries for entertainment - from the makers of Big Fat Gypsy Weddings. Exactly the reason these wannabe gangsters and odd ball sleuths are solving the case on crazed up theories. That involve transportation and transfiguration, not to forget transgender to boot - Of boys cutting hair to look like their female cousin - due to genetic similarities when there is no blood relation. And of course the bias. and yes we know it is claimed to be on the basis of putting LM's side forward, for the first time? - that blindness in not realising that his side has been getting touted out since day dot. - His truthful side????

By the very person who is speaking for him, and of altering his evidence as the mood suits? - That biggest red flag of them all. No evidence should need to be altered. The truth should not need to be changed. As we have with bringing LM back to this V break to tie in with the search trio. - When the clear facts of his testimony is one of the main reasons he is in jail - For it was completely different to that of the search trio. You can not scrub that 20yards turn it into feet then into nothing, not even a mm. - They did not go past this V break in the wall.

And that grasping to find lies in each and every person - from the police right through to the Judge - to transform LM, his mother and brother - into being truthful - when we know for certainty they were not? were they? Of all that has been said being put down to simply being mistaken. - And it is the very reason one is continuously asked to switch to "what about them?" To somehow make their lies, mistakes in their abundance - OK? By scraping up, namely that of JF as an example. And this ridiculous claim, and lies that are told blatantly to show that Jodi's direct family/mother were "not quite as honest as you'd have us believe, eh?" -The very mere fact there has to be scraping, that nothing can be found to show they actually lied at all - tell us all we need to know. - Does it not?

And to then sit back and say that two families have been wronged if the wrong person is in jail? - Whilst watching the results of the information, already pushed out - has gotten that effect first desired? - to have two families treated the same? - That the police somehow failed in their duty by not giving Jodi's family the same treatment as that of Luke's? - This type of sticks and stones? This type of double standards? - this type of Justice?

[faithlilly]

As an investigation does - and exactly why LM is in Jail. Where everyone holds a question mark above them in those first days of a murder. Of anyone close to the victim. Bash on with your simple ten minutes lapse in CM memory. - It does not change the truth. And SM did not give his first statement days after, giving time for any memory lapse.

SM gave his first statement on the 3rd of July, some 3 days after Jodi’s murder and claimed that he got home from work at 3.30. Of course evidence from his friend, who’s car he was helping fix, categorically proved that SM had got home much later. So three days after fixing his friend’s car SM had no recollection, when giving his first statement, of actually fixing it. He had to be reminded. This was no different to his mum reminding him of what happened when he did arrive home. If SM couldn’t remember something as labour intensive as fixing his friend’s car what hope did he have remembering categorically if his little brother was cooking in the kitchen?

 And when his memory was given to him, he remembered the impossible. Of having a conversation with his mother when she arrived home at her "usual" time. And those exact reasons set upon solid foundations - for that suspicion. - the exact reason why Ms Lean had him (SM) down as suffering from PTSD upon discovering Jodi was dead. - somewhat rich to say the lease

Not interested in Dr Lean’s reasoning. You merely add her to distract, to use member’s dislike of her to your advantage.

. However. Those clear reasons for suspicion, of knowing the whole thing was concocted, of striving to give an alibi. Of every detail of that 40mins from five past five until a qtr to six. Of multiple changes in statements. - Can you remember the TV programme Luke claimed to be watching which went up in smoke also, once he had to have been out the door by 5.30pm. - I'm sure it will come back to you. However:

Multiple changes to statements…indeed there were and those changes were given voice, under oath. An absolutely deplorable exhibition of lies and half-truths.


Just to clarify a couple of things to clear up some misunderstandings being branded out - as always down to that jumble of misinformation from one's leader. There was no bike seen at the V - it is physically impossible.

Then that is odd because the witness who recalled the moped being at the v, a witness who had no prior knowledge of JF’s movements and had no axe to grind, must be psychic because their recollection exactly mirrored the evidence given, under oath by JF himself in court.

“ The witness agreed that the moped had been stopped at a break in a wall, behind which Jodi’s body was discovered, ”

https://www.scotsman.com/news/ex-drug-dealer-denies-he-was-behind-murder-cousin-jodi-2509760

How’s that for a coincidence?





There was CCTV footage of both boys, JF and GD. Together. There were other witnesses least not the ones who saw them arriving home at 5.30pm. They were on RDP onto LP for less than 20mins. Every male connected to the deceased or near to the locus had DNA samples taken. Both JF and GD could be eliminated from any partials or otherwise found at the crime scene. There can be no similar DNA - neither JF nor GD were genetically connected to Jodi. They were neither cousin nor second cousins. He could not have cut his hair to look like his cousin. - Not cousins.

What period did the CCTV footage cover and where are the witnesses who saw the boys arrive home at 5.30? Where are their statements? Did they give evidence in court?



That potential sighting of a male walking along Easthouse's Road was a false trail. It did end after the ID of of him and the guy on Morris Road - This man had been on Easthouse's Road but it was not the 30th of June. The person who made claim to further ID this male carrying this girls coffin, was not ignored. He had already been ID and eliminated - it was not that day. Furthermore the people carrying this girls coffin were staff from the funeral directors. - We do not need much common sense to realise people are being led down the garden path - common sense tells us one thing clearly. If there had been a positive sighting of Jodi Jones around 5pm on the 30th of June, heading in the direction of AB's sighting - it would have been used. And to remember one clear fact in all of this - Ms Lean does not hold everything. These are nonsense claims of things being buried and so forth - they simply had no merit in being kept in those defence files. DF knew everything around these possible sightings as did the Crown and onto the SCCRC.

And we know without a shadow of doubt the reasons why JF is highlighted above GD. For that simple basis of the simplicity of him. After DF had questioned him about the possibility of  being that potential suspect that AB had witnessed, reasons as to why he had cut his hair - "i dunno". AD asked him "if you were here then you could not have been there, is that correct?" - his reply "I dunno" - which tells us everything we need to know about JF. And as stated, tells us exactly why he is picked on.

The simple, picked upon JF ? Doesn’t quite square with the true picture of him as a rather cunning drug dealer who, it appears, supplied most of the youths in the area, including Luke, with copious amounts of cannabis. The drug dealer who, although he admitted supplying drugs to the local youths avoided charges of any sort. Odd that.

“ He admitted having supplied cannabis to friends and relatives, and said that Mitchell regularly bought the drug from him, and still owed him for his last purchase, on the day before Jodi’s death.”

Reasons as to why he cut his hair-“I dunno”.


“Asked why he had been so desperate to get rid of if, he replied: "I do not like curly hair."

https://www.scotsman.com/news/ex-drug-dealer-denies-he-was-behind-murder-cousin-jodi-2509760



And of Faithlilly in whichever role suits the moment? - These nonsense claims that there was the same if not more circumstantial evidence against JF - as above. That whilst LM could not be eliminated from those multiple DNA samples, that law of averages - these lads could.

Luke was eliminated and if Luke could commit a brutal murder and erase every vestige of the victim from him then it is entirely possible so could JF and GD.

And these nonsense claims of failing to keep an appointment that evening. - That will be that gazelle and looking for criminality in everything - Where was JF and GD - there were two of them remember.These lads had went about their evening. In the company of different people.

I’m not sure what that is supposed to prove? Luke spent part of his evening with his friends. There was no signs of a guilty conscience with him either.

“ He added that he was supposed to go to Jodi’s home that night to see her brother, Joseph, but decided against it. Mr Findlay described that as "another remarkable coincidence".

Indeed.


Why was LM not at cadets? Why did LM say he had went up to borrow a torch off SM when he was up town. Travelling around 8 miles to fuel up a car when there were multiple stations close at hand? - What did JF say about the bike at the railings, the yellow one? This nonsense yet again that these lads were not investigated? - They were investigated to the max. They had to to be. - Exactly for the purpose of elimination and precisely for any cross reference of evidence upon the stand.

I agree…if the investigation had been a little more competent and a little less tunnel-visioned then they would have to be investigated‘ to the max’ but, unfortunately, we know that this investigation was anything but competent. 


And of elimination - Ms Lean does not actually know when they were eliminated, what she does do is go by information gathered. It was the boys whom were telling people they had been eliminated - and it is partly to do with this, that she tells us yet again, reason as to why [Name removed] was not happy with THEM. Not just JF but both of them.  - Therefore this touting out that these boys had been eliminated within 12? days of this murder, came from their mouths. Not the police - as we know that the police, do not go around telling people, if they would have been eliminated or not. 

So that garden path - No bike at the V and no boys in the woods.

From JF’s own testimony the bike was at the v and the witness did see what they claimed,

On these paths for less than 20mins.

There is no evidence for this. JF failed to keep an appointment with [Name removed] and didn’t contact [Name removed] with an explanation. Why? What was happening at that time?

Witnessed. Yes, we hear continuously about JF - he was with GD, they were part of two people on this path. JF is picked on like that lion with it's gazelle - to claw away at the remains of anything one can try to use - to distract away from LM. - As always, Faithlilly you do a startling job of describing your very actions to a T along with Ms Lean?

As Nicholas pointed out - that vital element of that feel of a witness when taken that information first hand. And of that vital necessity of doing precognitions. For both the Crown and the defence. To go over those very statements with the people who had given them - face to face. And whilst Faithlilly may say - about it being naive, to not realise that Ms Lean would naturally have been influenced by the Mitchells - she was not, for even a second - meaning she was wrong, in anything.  - was she? For she puts complete trust and recites it all, and speaks in that remarkable mirror likeness of her?

Dr Lean has been wrong in many things as have you. So where does that get us?
 
Whatever role, from whatever ego/person - That strength in numbers? - Does not give strength to the nonsense being pushed out. These sticks and stones against others. - The blemishes on their characters. - This constant "what about them" - Does not change the evidence that convicted LM.  That compete naivety - Of having to declare LM in theory innocent. To brush him to the side. - To then look for that criminality in all else. That complete mess in the way it is pushed out - that leaves most of the followers, scratching their heads - trying to piece these suspects together, to solve this 'who done it'.  To the point of empowering some into a frenzy - making statements such as this from MR "admit it, you and your b/f killed you sister .... you evil b........s"


A majority verdict. Beyond reasonable doubt? Not in any mature, developed judicial system.

And back to this - influenced by the Mitchells - And that New York journalist, the rights he was given to tell the story, exactly how the murderer wanted it told? -When he was professing innocence. - All those crosses to bare? Which one has to ask themselves. - Do the Mitchells hold Jodi responsible for upsetting LM that day? ( A thought not a fact. IMO) Was it her fault that he turned on her? Is it by way of fault of the Jones family, of the truth they told, that complete contradiction to LM's account - Of Jodi getting out earlier. Of this ban on the path. Of this "mucking around up here". Of Jodi getting changed. Of not having something of Jodi's for the dog to scent with. Of LM climbing the wall at the Gino spot. Of LM not going past this V break. Of saying he thought Jodi had been grounded - And onto the "notorious little liar" (CM) for saying Luke had told him "she is not coming out" And onto frequenting this woodland, of knowing of this existence of this V break - Of every single excuse made for LM. That "half a mars bar" situ. Those ridiculous attempt at trying to simplify everything about him - and onto those complete OTT sticks and stones of others.



Of having a knife sharp enough to cut cannabis in the house. Of threatening someone with a knife. Of having large quantities of cannabis. Of selling it on. Of missing appointments. - Every shady dubious nature of these others, these sticks and stones we are being shown - Every one of them completely over taken with that of LM and SM. Of his age that all and sundry want to use as this meek little boy. Of being 14 - Of carrying knives, of using them on others, (Jodi being one, when jabbing her in the leg with it)  of describing the best way to kill someone. Of having more than one knife sharp enough to cut cannabis on person as well as his home. A certain type of knife, a skunting knife. A lockblade. Of having large quantities of cannabis. Of selling it on. Of sticking his middle finger up to every type of authority including his mother. Of being allowed to have underage sex at home. Of smoking/drinking at home. Of being the person Jodi was meeting that day. Of being ID not once but twice at both ends of this path. Of being a compulsive liar. Of leading this girls family straight to her, which only the murderer could have done. In that record breaking time of less than 10mins. Of entering this woodland. NO unfamiliarity, no trepidation - straight to her. Of describing those clothes, that hair fastener and that tree. - They passed a lie detector - so did Ted Bundy.  on more than one occasion. - He was not at home, that alibi they strived to give - completely dissolved back into the hot air from where it came.

So many experts explaining why they think this conviction is unsound. So many putting their reputation on the line to ask those hard questions. It speaks volumes.

And Ted Bundy might have passed a lie detector test ( did his mother too? ) but that was over 30 years ago. The technology has moved on significantly since then and I believe is now being used to manage sex offenders within the community. 

So dig away at these others - try as one might. These others do not even touch the surface of the circumstantial case against LM. We have been shown that DNA does not make a murderer. We have been shown that being close to the scene of crime does not make you responsible for it. - We have been shown without a doubt - that LM was no ordinary 14yr old. From every action that came from himself, his person, his personality - Those who are hidden amongst us?

What we have shown is that JF’s moped was, from his own mouth, at the exact spot at the exact time Jodi was murdered. Not one witness has ever testified to seeing Luke there. That JF failed to come forward in the first days after Jodi’s murder, even though he knew that he was at the wall over which Jodi’s body was found at  the time the murder was allegedly taking place. That he lied about the time he was on RDP even though he and GD had discussed that afternoon
. That JF failed to keep an appointment that night with his ‘cousin’ without explanation. That he was threatened by that same ‘cousin’ and ostracised by the rest of the family. That his personality changed after the murder. That he changed his appearance for no rational reason days after the murder. That he admitted to selling drugs to the local youths yet faced not one charge. That he carried knives to cut up his drugs. That he was very familiar with the woodland where Jodi’s body was found.

Of course it is all circumstantial but nonetheless compelling.

Imagine if all the above had been put before a jury?

[Paranoid Android]

False accusations are still being levelled at the Jones family - including towards Jodi Jones mother Judith

She’s still being accused of ‘smirking’ in a photo outside court  - which didn’t happen

Dr Lean was also recently talking about someone in the family allegedly expecting a 'nine-bar' on the night of the murder.

She also does plenty of smirking herself.

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean
I’d never have believed that simply telling the truth could be twisted so far out of recognition’

‘One tiny grain of truth submerged in a deluge of half truths and outright lies - there’s no way to counter that

Exactly what one believes and practices that accusation stemming from self awareness of ones own actions? Is it not?

‘Self awareness’ no definitely not

Her psychological projections more like

[Nicholas]

From that complete false premise of stating the book is "The true story of the murder of Jodi Jones". It could not be further from the truth. Of using information that is impossible to be fact such as the bike at the V. Of those continuous shots in the dark against an abundance of evidence that proves the exact opposite.

Even though I’ve not read Sandra Lean’s second book - based on the years worth of material she’s posted on various forums over the years, her interviews with James English. Sharon ‘Indy Sunshine’, jibber jabber etc and her various other podcasts, the tv show and ‘No Smoke’

No it couldn’t be further from the truth - especially given the fact she wasn’t there on the night Luke Mitchell took the search party trio to the V in the wall in a feeble attempt at pretending to find [Name removed]’s in less than 10 minutes

[Nicholas]

Exactly what one believes and practices that accusation stemming from self awareness of ones own actions? Is it not? From that complete false premise of stating the book is "The true story of the murder of Jodi Jones". It could not be further from the truth. Of using information that is impossible to be fact such as the bike at the V. Of those continuous shots in the dark against an abundance of evidence that proves the exact opposite. Of those continuous slithers of truth and the mountains made from the molehills they are? The very reason why there are not multiple legal persons taking this case on board on the basis of this nonsense is it not?

John Scott basically repeating the photo identification saga from the BBC frontline TV show back in 2008 or whenever it was

[Nicholas]

Exactly what one believes and practices that accusation stemming from self awareness of ones own actions? Is it not? From that complete false premise of stating the book is "The true story of the murder of Jodi Jones". It could not be further from the truth. Of using information that is impossible to be fact such as the bike at the V. Of those continuous shots in the dark against an abundance of evidence that proves the exact opposite. Of those continuous slithers of truth and the mountains made from the molehills they are? The very reason why there are not multiple legal persons taking this case on board on the basis of this nonsense is it not? Exactly the reason they are podcasts and far out documentaries for entertainment - from the makers of Big Fat Gypsy Weddings.

Appalling isn’t it

[Nicholas]

Exactly the reason they are podcasts and far out documentaries for entertainment - from the makers of Big Fat Gypsy Weddings. Exactly the reason these wannabe gangsters and odd ball sleuths are solving the case on crazed up theories.

And what a bunch of morons they are

[Nicholas]

Exactly the reason they are podcasts and far out documentaries for entertainment - from the makers of Big Fat Gypsy Weddings. Exactly the reason these wannabe gangsters and odd ball sleuths are solving the case on crazed up theories.

I’ve got one of these ‘following’ an old blog I posted a few years back

She’s the one who falsely claimed Jane Hamilton set up a ‘honey trap’ for LM https://orkneyfibromyalgiasufferer.com/

[Nicholas]

And of course the bias. and yes we know it is claimed to be on the basis of putting LM's side forward, for the first time? - that blindness in not realising that his side has been getting touted out since day dot. - His truthful side????

His killer nature

[Nicholas]

Dr Lean was also recently talking about someone in the family allegedly expecting a 'nine-bar' on the night of the murder.

She also does plenty of smirking herself.

She does

And have you noticed how her ‘smirks’ seem out of sink?

[Parky41]

Thank you - although I'm not quite buying this making Ms Lean out to be wrong whilst reciting her, yet again to the letter T. None of you of course have to be right - but some harmony in whichever ego should be somewhat steadfast.

And of course one is much obliged for the repetition and confirmation of showing exactly what I was highlighting to be correct. This scraping at the weakest link - so no TV programme then and one is asking me who witnessed the boys arrival home at GD's? - showing yet again coyness or stuck in the limitations of what you actually do know? - This paying to be ignorant? Or that complete tunnel vision in having to ignore the abundance of evidence that contradicts those somewhat feeble points. - And that futile question of were these witnesses to their arrival home called to testify - they were not on trial.

You can pull up this newspaper article until the cows come home. You can completely ignore every part of those statements. Ignore what i have already pulled up from Ms Lean - Of what could not be clearer - that whilst these boys never admitted to their bike being at this V, in any of their statements a witness said they saw this bike etc etc  -  And this complete nonsense yet again of 'why would the witness say that if it were not true?' When as Ms Lean fails to do - is not actually produce what the witness did actually say. And of readily and eagerly accepting this piece of Fools Gold - for it is physically impossible to see this V - and we can jump to what you then say about the article of this being a break in the wall. Of the admittance by this boys, namely JF, of stopping to take a rest from pushing this bike as did GD. - and from here we can think of that other, bigger break in this wall, along the top - Namely the Gino spot (Where LM first introduced the notion of the woodland) - where the the wall is broken, substantially along its length. And in the top half of this path. Where there are no trees obstructing the view. And that clear trouble of trying to use a fragment of truth - to build around. And this complete ignorance of the boy he was with. And again of the time they were in view which was not 5.15pm. It was after this.

The witness agreed that the moped had been stopped at a break in a wall, behind which Jodi’s body was discovered,

 

This ridiculous aim at the CCTV footage of not showing their time on the actual path - it does not matter. There is no beam me up Scotty here? He could not have transported himself from BTH to Easthouse's, and again by way of ignorance. This,  if Luke could do it in this time without leaving a trace of himself then two boys could do it in 20mins? - Again that complete falsehood that LM left not trace of himself. Those multiple areas of DNA, with a significant amount of markers. That law of averages that could not eliminate LM from being the donor. None at all of these boys. Nothing. And there is that foolish talk, of similar markers to the Jones/Walker DNA that it could have been JF - he is not a blood relation. And LM had double the time they had. Not forgetting those transportation requirements yet again - of magically getting both themselves to that point in the woods where LM attacked her.

And of Ms Lean - already telling people why JF and GD were in disfavour - of telling people they had been eliminated. And whilst Ms Lean may play coy as you do around the rest of this - it will, yet again be in those statements, reasons as to why this girls family were not happy with those boys.

And of this infantile bleat of using Ms Lean in a way for those who have crosses to bare with her - I am going to recite Gordo here. "In all of the time I have known Sandra, I have never known her to speculate on anything" And revert back to what SM did not have, which was any memory loss. And of her clearly speculating for him, by stating 'perhaps he had PTSD, it could not have been easy for him when he found out his brothers girlfriend had been murdered'. And of LM 'you will be referring to Corrine's podcast, perhaps it was when Luke stepped into the abbey for a joint, and came back out again. Which could explain why time became distorted for him' 'Explain why he could have missed her going to his house' - those bells?

And imagine if what had been before this Jury? - What is that exactly? That will be yet again, everything in those statements and defence papers - right down to medical notes - And I will take DF over Ms Lean any day of the week. Reason as to why, he sought not to introduce Jodi's brother to this Jury - for he was not suspicious of him. JF and GD had to be brought to attention as did SK - this ridiculous notion yet again of not being investigated properly - your head is clearly in some faraway fantasy planet - The gloves, the condom, the bike stopped, the transportation to being the boy AB saw, the failing to meet with the brother, the 9 bar and all else. - which part exactly was not investigated? - that will be the bike that CM has away to a scrapyard. That clear notion stemming from truth? and of speculation again "Sandra and I have a theory--------------" SL "she is simply mistaken I have never discussed this with her, we did at one point speak to someone, about the possibilities of disposing evidence that way though?" --  Fed no doubt from CM herself. And of SM being a mechanic. And this nonsense of forgetting he had stopped off at a friends:

Speculation - when someone omits something they have been doing. Clearly omitting it, I do not buy this memory nonsense for one moment. As with the friend and the internet session - And of heavy drug use. One would not be telling the police of stopping anywhere if they were picking up drugs and watching porn, very private? These are the sensible, common sense things to think of - not this rubbish about PTSD, and of anyone not being able to remember what they had been doing. - He omitted not mentioning stopping for a reason, it had nothing to do with memory loss? - And when he did arrive home he was omitting only the porn. He did not see his brother, his brother was not at home.

And again - this utter nonsense of having as strong a case against them - Well that would not be difficult at all for you, for you have him fitted up, which only highlights those crazed up theories even more so - All of this startling evidence against these others, but they picked on that wee boy? - They picked on no one

[Parky41]

Dr Lean was also recently talking about someone in the family allegedly expecting a 'nine-bar' on the night of the murder.

She also does plenty of smirking herself.

The trouble with the 9 bars, these blemishes on others characters, in the information Ms Lean does hold and puts out. Only contradicts what she makes claim to on the other hand - that these people were not investigated properly. This is not information Ms Lean has gleamed from anywhere other than the defence papers she holds. From the investigation - And straight from the people she is talking about. No lies, nothing hidden. We can tell from this exactly how truthful these others were. - Of a failed appointment with the doctor due to wanting a smoke? Of not meeting JF for the 9 bar and so forth. They have given this information over freely. And we know this as the doctor is hardly likely to have made up, he did not want to see me due to having a smoke? We were supposed to meet, we had a drug deal going on and so forth - all given over. It did not come from another source. Ms Lean has told us over time exactly who it came from - from these very people. The truth.

And of the police, and of the Crown and onto the defence - who had access to everything. Whom investigated everything, who the Crown got to investigate more. And that going over everything with a fine tooth comb, by the defence. And onto those vital precognitions. Who knew every single thing Ms Lean touts out - Unlike Jigsawman - the above knew Jodi was at school that day, this alter ego had Jodi off school and having an altercation with her brother, at the time of this missed appointment with the doctor. - and they have stuck steadfast to this wild speculation this whole time, and fed it to others. They were doing this prior to access - and have worked around this by way of the lion and the gazelle - by looking for that criminality in every single thing they said and done - Of everything that was not found, for there was nothing to find - From the police, the Crown and onto the defence.

Jigsawman:

 A male member of Jodi's extended family has had a run in with Jodi earlier in the day. He also has a history of violence and unpredictable behaviour. (This scenario, in fact, can be applied to various male members of the extended family.)

And we can switch back over to the Mitchells. That denial on all and everything. The complete opposite in character from the honesty of Jodi's family. And that she feels the Jury should have been made aware more of Jodi's brother - on what basis? That there was nothing, that is nada found about him that could have had him in this woodland murdering his sister. - We have had before this Jury a close connection to the deceased, a member of this search party with his DNA present. We have had this duo on the bike, again around the area at the time of this girls death. - scrutinized and put before this jury. Investigated to the max for that very purpose - To limit what the defence may introduce. This is the type of work that goes into an investigation here. - Not this nonsense of being "air brushed over" - the only air brushing had is from the author, on every single piece of evidence to do with the Mitchells - that "half a mars bar" situ. And this is why she holds all she does on this girls brother, that very same purpose of every male being investigated to the max. And all that the defence went over with him also - Who knew that there was nothing to put before this Jury as a possible suspect. And he was introduced at trial in his absence. The troubled times the family were going through due to his illness - and we know this as Ms Lean has made this very clear. Of him being put before this Jury - the very reason she uses this green light to speak of him. - And not just the troubled times, that 9 bar, that battering of JF and all else - he was before this Jury.

Do we then put before the Jury that of LM, of holding that knife to that girls throat demanding sex? Are these the type of things she feels the Jury should have been made aware of? Of SM, these claims from people of killing the families pet dog? - Where does it stop?

None of it changes the evidence against LM - that is none of it. These others are smokescreens mere pawns.