Is DR Sandra Lean a credible source?

[faithlilly]

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.

Do try to stick to the subject…little clue, it’s not me or Dr Lean ( you really don’t like giving her her proper title, do you ? )

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 have evidence? Then present it. Refute my points with properly sourced information. Evidence your own with cites, as I do. You claim that JF and GD were witnessed arriving home at 5.30…prove it, who were those witnesses? That the boys were seen on CCTV, where is the cite? What I do or do not know is irrelevant. You made the claims, the onus is on you to provide the proof.

 Of what could not be clearer - that whilst these boys never admitted to their bike being at this V,

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

“ Mr Findlay asked what time Mr [Name removed] had told the police he and his cousin were heading up the path. The witness said: "Around five o’clock." Mr Findlay told him to be careful and asked again. He said: "Before five o’clock... I cannot exactly remember."
The QC read from a statement which said "about half-past four". He suggested that that time was about 45 minutes out, and asked for an explanation.
Mr [Name removed] said he had looked at a clock when he got into Mr [Name removed]’s house, and it said a quarter to five. It had been wrong. Mr Findlay continued: "You and [Name removed] may have been in the area at or about the time that Jodi may have been attacked, yet you saw nothing and heard nothing?" Mr [Name removed] answered: "No."

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


Those multiple areas of DNA, with a significant amount of markers.

A full DNA profile linked to SK was found. Not one full DNA profile found anywhere on Jodi’s body came from Luke.

 And LM had double the time they had.

Ah, home at 5.30? Care to supply the proof?

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.

So why were the family unhappy?


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.

The friend who reminded SM that he had been fixing his car, who provided receipts etc for car parts. Why would he do that if he himself may be implicated in a criminal enterprise? Occam’s razor again….makes no difference if you buy it.

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

I have no theories, I merely follow the evidence.

[TruthSeeker2003]

Sandra Lean is a grifter and a fraud

She’s calculated, dishonest and ‘clever’ - or at least she thinks she is (As do her followers)

‘Calculated, dishonest and clever’ were words used to describe convicted murderer Luke Mitchell

[25] The Crown also referred to the appellant's police statements at interview. In particular, in his closing submissions, the Advocate depute referred, at length, to excerpts from an interview on 14 August 2003. It was suggested that the appellant came across as calculating, clever and dishonest. Reference was made to contradictory statements concerning the failure to raise the alarm when the deceased failed to meet the appellant; to lies regarding his use of cannabis and the amount of contact he had had with Kimberley Thomson; and to outbursts which demonstrated the appellant's temper and arrogance. It was also suggested that the appellant's claim that no time had been fixed for meeting with the deceased and his description of his movements on the evening of the murder were incredible and that his assertion that he thought that the deceased had not turned up perhaps because she had been grounded did not make sense, given his prior conversation with Alan Ovens.

We all make errors of judgement and some convicted murderers innocence fraud can be convincing - especially if they’ve been ‘wrongly convicted’ - as Simon Hall was

Sandra Lean’s omissions in particular  - especially of her choice to not publish the SCCRC statement of reasons or Corinne and Luke Mitchell’s police witness statements is another example of her dishonesty

She is also a promoter of innocence fraud - Stephanie Hall is not!

Who writes this stuff? ⬇️ and when will Sandra Lean explain what she means by ‘factual innocence’ also referred to in her ‘thesis’ ‘HIDDEN IN PLAIN VIEW:
The impact of popular beliefs and perceptions, held as factual knowledge about the Criminal Justice System, on incidences of wrongful accusation and conviction.’

About the author (2018)
‘Dr Sandra Lean is an author and criminologist who has worked for 15 years with individuals and families claiming wrongful conviction and factual innocence. As well as writing books about miscarriage of justice, Dr Lean also assists with case reviews aiming to secure applications to the Court of Appeal or the Criminal Cases Review Commissions in the UK and helps produce podcasts, articles and website content highlighting individual cases.
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Innocents_Betrayed.html?id=b5AJvQEACAAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y

Why was Sandra Lean’s 6 part podcast on killer Matthew Hamlen removed from the WWW?

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

⬆️ another example of her calculated and dishonest character ⬆️

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=66.msg639580#msg639580

The way the good Dr behaved after she was shown to be a fraudster after the Simon Hall case speaks volumes. She absoute rinsed them for every penny they had. Her and her boyfriend Billy Middleton also a fraudster who allegedly set his house on fire in Shetland with his family still inside it.

[TruthSeeker2003]

And all been done before - Simon Hall being one example

Luke won't be the last one either. She has gone quiet over the past few weeks.

Is she distancing herself again?

Have the questions about the “fighting” fund for Luke and what it is being spent on and where? Got too much? Like the funds for her charity that also disappeared?

She exhausted from managing all her fake social media accounts?

She getting ready to bail again perhaps?

Or she busy shooting YouTube videos with Sharon Sunshine and her wee hunk Kenny O Hara?

[TruthSeeker2003]

http://www.mojuk.org.uk/WMAI/jointenterprisemark2.htm

https://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2009/03/20/middleton-cleared-of-murdering-baby-in-house-fire

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/fury-as-dad-of-annalise-middleton-sets-1019199


 
Posts: 1820
Total likes: 227

Introduction to the Billy Middleton case
« on: March 04, 2012, 05:54:09 PM »
This is William (Billy) Alexander Middleton who was cleared of murdering his baby daughter by setting fire to his home at Brae, Shetland Isles in September 2008. Middleton was also cleared of attempted murder in respect of two other children, namely, his son and step daughter and of sexual assault on his wife.   The trial was held at the High Court in Aberdeen in March 2009.

This house fire was somewhat unique in that two separate fires were started in the family home almost simultaneously.  Three independent fire investigators came to the same conclusion that the fires were started deliberately.  Middleton was alone in the house with the three children asleep upstairs when the fires started.  The two elder children raised the alarm but were unable to extract the baby from her cot.  They alerted Middleton who put them outside before locking both external doors.  He was later discovered by firemen lying in the foetal position in his bed in a downstairs bedroom whilst baby Annalise died from smoke inhalation in her upstairs bedroom.

Middleton refers to himself as a 'wrongly accused person' and later went on to form the Wrongly Accused Person Organisation which he runs from his parents home in Lerwick.  His co Director in the organisation is author and recent PHD student, Dr Sandra Lean from Edinburgh.



 

Billy Middleton with Annalise before her death.



Billy Middleton writes:

"On the 20th September 2008 a fire broke out in my home while I lay in bed sleeping. After I woke with the fire alarm, I left my bedroom to find the hallway full of dark smoke and could hear my eldest 2 children screaming upstairs. I could see no flames but instantly knew from the considerable amount of smoke that urgent evacuation was the only appropriate action. When I reached the bottom of the stairs I could barely make out my son and daughter standing at the top, huddled together in terror. I shouted to them “You have to get out now!” but only my elder daughter started to come down, my son was stiff with fear and wouldn’t move so I hurried up the stairs until I could reach him. By the time I’d grabbed him and made my way back down my daughter was standing at the outside door, I opened it and she went out beckoning her brother but he wouldn’t slip me, his arms clinging around my neck for all he was worth.

After prising him free and putting him on the path outside I told them both I had to go back for my 9 month old daughter Annalise and went back in closing the door to keep air out. Unfortunately my son was desperate to stay with me and followed me in so I had to put him out again and shouted ‘You have to go, I’ll be back in a minute’, but again he came in. So I put him outside a final time and locked the door so he couldn’t come in again.

Although only a short time had passed, the level of smoke was now significantly worse. I could barely see at all and my eyes were beginning to sting badly. Each breath caught my throat as I tried to climb the stairs to reach Annalise. But the smoke seemed to be funnelling up the stairway and by the time I reached what must have been a point near the top, breathing was impossible and due to the thick smoke and the effect it had on my eyes I could see absolutely nothing. Despite acting on instinct I knew I had to go back for clean air and try again, I knew if I went on I wouldn’t make it. By this time the smoke I had inhaled had obviously begun to affect me mentally as I have no clear recollection of descending the stairs.I do have a vague memory after of picking myself up trying to move forward but bumped into a wall. I couldn’t understand why there was a wall there; I couldn’t keep my eyes open at all as they felt like the extreme welders flash I’d suffered a few months prior. It was as if I was lost, completely disorientated and I began to panic, terror had set in I had no idea where I was, how to get to air or how to get my baby. I was later found back in my bedroom on the bed by firemen but have no memory vague or otherwise how I got there, all I do know is I wasn’t leaving that house without my baby!

Sadly by the time the firemen arrived and recovered Annalise, and despite the very best efforts of the paramedics she could not be revived and was pronounced dead at the scene. Now I live with a feeling of failure for not being able to reach her, the time she needed me most I let her down by not managing and I have lived with that pain every day since and doubt that will ever stop. She was my precious angel, I failed and now no matter how hard each day I wish it, I can’t ever have my baby back."



http://www.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/about-billy-middleton
« Last Edit: June 24, 2012, 05:15:31 AM by Admin »
 Logged

[TruthSeeker2003]

Sandra Lean is a grifter and a fraud

She’s calculated, dishonest and ‘clever’ - or at least she thinks she is (As do her followers)

‘Calculated, dishonest and clever’ were words used to describe convicted murderer Luke Mitchell

[25] The Crown also referred to the appellant's police statements at interview. In particular, in his closing submissions, the Advocate depute referred, at length, to excerpts from an interview on 14 August 2003. It was suggested that the appellant came across as calculating, clever and dishonest. Reference was made to contradictory statements concerning the failure to raise the alarm when the deceased failed to meet the appellant; to lies regarding his use of cannabis and the amount of contact he had had with Kimberley Thomson; and to outbursts which demonstrated the appellant's temper and arrogance. It was also suggested that the appellant's claim that no time had been fixed for meeting with the deceased and his description of his movements on the evening of the murder were incredible and that his assertion that he thought that the deceased had not turned up perhaps because she had been grounded did not make sense, given his prior conversation with Alan Ovens.

We all make errors of judgement and some convicted murderers innocence fraud can be convincing - especially if they’ve been ‘wrongly convicted’ - as Simon Hall was

Sandra Lean’s omissions in particular  - especially of her choice to not publish the SCCRC statement of reasons or Corinne and Luke Mitchell’s police witness statements is another example of her dishonesty

She is also a promoter of innocence fraud - Stephanie Hall is not!

Who writes this stuff? ⬇️ and when will Sandra Lean explain what she means by ‘factual innocence’ also referred to in her ‘thesis’ ‘HIDDEN IN PLAIN VIEW:
The impact of popular beliefs and perceptions, held as factual knowledge about the Criminal Justice System, on incidences of wrongful accusation and conviction.’

About the author (2018)
‘Dr Sandra Lean is an author and criminologist who has worked for 15 years with individuals and families claiming wrongful conviction and factual innocence. As well as writing books about miscarriage of justice, Dr Lean also assists with case reviews aiming to secure applications to the Court of Appeal or the Criminal Cases Review Commissions in the UK and helps produce podcasts, articles and website content highlighting individual cases.
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Innocents_Betrayed.html?id=b5AJvQEACAAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y

Why was Sandra Lean’s 6 part podcast on killer Matthew Hamlen removed from the WWW?

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

⬆️ another example of her calculated and dishonest character ⬆️

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=66.msg639580#msg639580

Proof that her loyal cut members are questionable ↘️

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219690/Familys-terror-UFO-hovers-rural-home-hours.html

Not only does she offer out her address on social media to the Jones family to come and have a go, she sees UFOs 👽

[TruthSeeker2003]

Proof that her loyal cut members are questionable ↘️

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219690/Familys-terror-UFO-hovers-rural-home-hours.html

Not only does she offer out her address on social media to the Jones family to come and have a go, she sees UFOs 👽

Oh, and then there is this. Turns out that Morag isn't one of Sandra's fake profiles after all. She does do her dirty work though. Trying to defend Sandra from the trolls by attacking the Jones family. What she says is both outrageous and disgusting quite frankly ↘️↘️↘️

“ Morag Ritchie”

@King bear

Can none of you Jones lot tell the truth? Oh no yous have all had to lie for the past 18 years!! And if I am a beast lover, I would have married into the Jones family. ONCE A BEAST ALWAYS A BEAST. GET USED TO IT. YOU MIGHT WANT TO GO TO THE SHOP AND GET YOURSELF SOME LUBE, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED IT ALOT SOONER THAN YOU THINK!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[TruthSeeker2003]

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/

To be fair, Sandra’s no exactly recruiting the brightest folks out there. Check out this guy. Sandra is joining his podcast for an interview ↘️↘️↘️

https://youtu.be/iiV3BZrTzLY

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Workman+fraud+rap.-a0101752635

In Sandra’s words “Make of that what you will”

[Myster]

To be fair, Sandra’s no exactly recruiting the brightest folks out there. Check out this guy. Sandra is joining his podcast for an interview ↘️↘️↘️

https://youtu.be/iiV3BZrTzLY

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Workman+fraud+rap.-a0101752635

In Sandra’s words “Make of that what you will”

Is he out looking for his choppers after a night on the razzle?

[Venturi Swirl]

Oh dear, Sandra’s credibility just went into minus figures afaiac....

[Nicholas]

The way the good Dr behaved after she was shown to be a fraudster after the Simon Hall case speaks volumes. She absoute rinsed them for every penny they had. Her and her boyfriend Billy Middleton also a fraudster who allegedly set his house on fire in Shetland with his family still inside it.

And there was the sexual assault charges http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg385712.html#msg385712 which Billy Middleton referred to as ‘sexual abuse’ - as Marina said a Freudian slip perhaps

Re Billy Middleton

“Billy spent much of his home time on the computer. Kareen was sure he was in contact with other women. She looked up the history on their computer one day Billy was at work and found that he had googled "rape", "torture" and "p***y fisting". Billy had been visiting hardcore BDSM sites and Kareen was scared - is this what he had in mind for her?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg385712.html#msg385712

The man sounds like a sadist

I’m of the view it’s highly probable Billy Middleton’s ex wife Kareen suffered from coercive control at Middleton’s hands https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-record/20090321/281758445209020

And I remain of the firm view he set the fires deliberately and is responsible for the death of Annalise - which amounts to murder

‘A DAD a c c u s e d o f murdering his baby daughter walked free yesterday into the arms of his tearful family.
Billy Middleton was found not proven of deliberately torching his home and killing nine-month-old Annalise.
But there was fury from her mother Kareen Middleton, 24.
She had to be helped from the court as the jury returned their verdict.
She blasted:“I would like to say how disappointed we are that justice has not been done for Annalise.
“Investigators explained how there were two fires deliberately set in our house.
“One of those took my daughter’s life.
“I was not at the house when this happened – for that I will never forgive myself.
“I only wish the perpetrator could feel as much remorse.”
The Middletons had a wild relationship, plagued by drink-fuelled rows.
The jury took just over two hours to reach four not proven verdicts on Middleton.
Middleton, 33, stared ahead impassively as the verdicts were read. But outside the High Court in Aberdeen, as he hugged his family, he said: “I am very relieved it is all over – that’s all I have to say.”
A family member added: “Noone is celebrating.”
During the 10-day trial, it was alleged mussel farmer Middleton had started fires in two separate areas of his home at Burgadale, Brae, Shetland.
Annalise died, overcome as she slept bysmoke.
Quarrelled
Further charges against Middleton of the attempted murder of two other children who were also in the house were also found not proven.
Acharge of sexually assaulting a woman at another address was again not proven.
Kareen had been living apart from Billy during her pregnancy with Annalise but they got back together just months before she was born in December 2007.
Family and friends had hoped the couple could resolvetheir differences.
The court heard how the couple quarrelled on the night before Annalise’s death. Kareen accused her husband of flirting with young girls who werestaying over.
Kareen walked out, Middleton kept on drinking and was furious when his wife ignored a text he’d sent to her mobile pleading with her to return.
The prosecution maintained that Middleton, who had swallowed at least half a bottle of whisky, feared his wife was going to leavehim for good, and take Annalise.
He told police he was woken by fire alarms and twice went upstairs towards Annalise’s bedroom but didn’t pull her to safety.
He said he instead went back to his bedroom off the downstairs hall, where he was found by firefighters.
Advocate depute Jock Thomson said although there was no forensic evidence linking Middleton directly to the fire and no admission of guilt, there was a strong circumstantial case.
But Jack Davidson QC, defending, said there was evidence of several people smoking in the house.
Middleton’s personality would have had to have changed“from a working family man to a murderous fiend” for him to carry out the crime.

[Nicholas]

And there was the sexual assault charges http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg385712.html#msg385712 which Billy Middleton referred to as ‘sexual abuse’ - as Marina said a Freudian slip perhaps

The man sounds like a sadist

I’m of the view it’s highly probable Billy Middleton’s ex wife Kareen suffered from coercive control at Middleton’s hands https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-record/20090321/281758445209020

And I remain of the firm view he set the fires deliberately and is responsible for the death of Annalise - which amounts to murder

I’m also of the firm view if coercive control had been recognised at the time - Billy Middleton would have been found guilty of murder

His behaviours also tick many of the boxes on the 8 stage intimate partner femicide timeline https://www.womensaid.ie/assets/files/pdf/jane_monckton_smith_powerpoint_2018_compatibility_mode.pdf

[Nicholas]

‘Lolly’ who claims,

‘Let me just make it absolutely clear at the outset, that we are in no way injustice campaigners, neither are we following a particular line of belief here. We merely delight in seeing the truth told and justice served.’ 

&

“The original statements say that her body was found by her boyfriend...”

I guarantee ‘Lolly’ won’t have seen the ‘original statements’

https://lolly-truecrime.medium.com/is-the-jodi-jones-murder-unsolved-1ad3fa76e40

[Nicholas]

https://lolly-truecrime.medium.com/is-the-jodi-jones-murder-unsolved-1ad3fa76e40

Lolly also states - referring to John Sallens and Michael Neill,

“so as I see it, if these two highly experienced investigators truly believe that, having spent more than a year re-investigating this tragic murder, there is quite a big possibility that something is wrong. It suggests that a very real possibility exists that a miscarriage of justice could have taken place and this must be looked into with an open mind.”

 

[Parky41]

Lolly also states - referring to John Sallens and Michael Neill,

“so as I see it, if these two highly experienced investigators truly believe that, having spent more than a year re-investigating this tragic murder, there is quite a big possibility that something is wrong. It suggests that a very real possibility exists that a miscarriage of justice could have taken place and this must be looked into with an open mind.”

 

Jack and Victor also state:

According to the findings of the private investigators they believe that Jodi was not actually murdered at the location where her body was found, but may actually have been killed then dragged to the site.

Completely in line with Ms Lean - poppycock. When anyone makes this type of ridiculous claim then it instantly discredits everything else that is said.



 

[Nicholas]

Jack and Victor also state:

According to the findings of the private investigators they believe that Jodi was not actually murdered at the location where her body was found, but may actually have been killed then dragged to the site.

Completely in line with Ms Lean - poppycock. When anyone makes this type of ridiculous claim then it instantly discredits everything else that is said.



 

Yet Lolly claims,

 “We merely delight in seeing the truth told and justice served”

more ‘poppycock’