Author Topic: Is DR Sandra Lean a credible source?  (Read 62116 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rulesapply

Re: Is DR Sandra Lean a credible source?
« Reply #945 on: July 22, 2021, 11:41:34 PM »
I know. That double barrel of pulling the wool over people with this misconception, that she had access, physically to more than she has ever had.As in trial transcripts and so forth. The blatant pretence of not actually knowing if he gave evidence or not, is just that. Using one over the other. Whilst attempting to cover her back one way, has opened up that admittance yet again, of all that she does not, and has never had. As with R. Kelly's statement. And so much more. Which one has used as above, to tout out those half truths, misinformation and blatant lies.

As I had already pulled some followers up on. By pleading ignorance, letting people, as one does with most of the misinformation. tout out any nonsense around this. Dispersing all sorts of doubt upon innocent people. Exactly what is aimed for.
Yeah I believe she's always known but while others didn't know,  he was an extra in her game. IMO
.

Offline Dexter

Re: Is DR Sandra Lean a credible source?
« Reply #946 on: July 23, 2021, 07:54:28 AM »
Yeah I believe she's always known but while others didn't know,  he was an extra in her game. IMO
.

And where do you get this insight from?

Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2169
  • Total likes: 796
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: Is DR Sandra Lean a credible source?
« Reply #947 on: July 23, 2021, 10:17:39 AM »
Yeah I believe she's always known but while others didn't know,  he was an extra in her game. IMO
.

Who was?

Offline Parky41

Re: Is DR Sandra Lean a credible source?
« Reply #948 on: July 23, 2021, 11:21:57 AM »
Who was?

Allen Ovens? In relation to Ms Leans reason as to why she could not answer questions around whether he had testified at court. Of claiming never to have read the article and held no courts transcripts around it. Playing dumb? Irrespective of what one may or not have read/have. Is it really plausible to believe that Ms Lean did not know Ovens had testified at trial? The whole debacle came to a head, finally. When I picked  M. Messenger and L. Mackie up on this. Where he had asked the question and got no answer, other than L.Mc to categorically say that he had not testified. To which I had stated that it was nonsense, that Ms Lean was playing silly beggars. Intentionally allowing these arms and legs, of buried statements and conspiracy theories to do the rounds. That is served purpose to do so. Anything to cast dispersion upon others away from the Mitchells?


Offline mrswah

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2169
  • Total likes: 796
  • Thinking outside the box, as usual-------
Re: Is DR Sandra Lean a credible source?
« Reply #949 on: July 23, 2021, 11:56:08 AM »
Allen Ovens? In relation to Ms Leans reason as to why she could not answer questions around whether he had testified at court. Of claiming never to have read the article and held no courts transcripts around it. Playing dumb? Irrespective of what one may or not have read/have. Is it really plausible to believe that Ms Lean did not know Ovens had testified at trial? The whole debacle came to a head, finally. When I picked  M. Messenger and L. Mackie up on this. Where he had asked the question and got no answer, other than L.Mc to categorically say that he had not testified. To which I had stated that it was nonsense, that Ms Lean was playing silly beggars. Intentionally allowing these arms and legs, of buried statements and conspiracy theories to do the rounds. That is served purpose to do so. Anything to cast dispersion upon others away from the Mitchells?

Thanks! 

I was under the impression that SL had attended the trial. Do you know whether or not she did?

Offline faithlilly

Re: Is DR Sandra Lean a credible source?
« Reply #950 on: July 23, 2021, 01:10:40 PM »
Thanks! 

I was under the impression that SL had attended the trial. Do you know whether or not she did?

I thought that she had too as there was photographs of her outside the court with Corrine but apparently not, she only attended the appeals.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Parky41

Re: Is DR Sandra Lean a credible source?
« Reply #951 on: July 24, 2021, 01:37:04 PM »
Thanks! 

I was under the impression that SL had attended the trial. Do you know whether or not she did?

What some people appeared to have taken on board from this are those politician tactics - Of answering questions by way of diversion and turning it into a question. As I myself got back two hand, from the person I had pointed this out to. That there was no relevance in whether Ovens had testified, but why had he not become alerted to the fact that Jodi had been gone a substantial amount of time. That shifting sand on onus. But firstly that even tone of Mitchells, of DF asking Ovens if his voice showed any agitation. Hard to pick up much, one would imagine with only a handful of words spoken. And of Ms Lean attempting to put a ? around this, of LM being fine after the murder but upset after the find?? And of course the repetitive nonsense, of scraping to find emotion in that lad with that operator call. Of that wrong recording and the voice being that of SK, showing the Jury exactly who was upset. That clear difference in LM's flat affect tones. Those same tones with Ovens in the earlier call.

First a brief mention for Faith of myself being renowned for being the purveyor of nonsense. Those rabbits out of the hat, pulled out 'over there' to disperse doubt upon my claims, only work with the select, those already deep into that web of deceit. - That sadly, is very much fact.

That 45-50min period of time between Jodi leaving home and the call from Mitchell to the Jones landline: Let us split this into reality, and show clearly why there was no comparison, this is looking at it as LM not being Jodi's killer:

LM claimed to be on the wall at the entrance of his estate from 5.32pm (after phone logs). He met with the boys in the Abbey at approx 7.30pm. Let us just take the time from around 5.38pm that connected call until 7pm. No let us not, let us be real here. There were 6mins between those calls. The first call he all but dialed and cut off, just enough for it to show up in the phone data. Why? Why did LM ring and almost instantly cut it off? Then why did LM wait 6 mins before dialing again? What was he doing on the wall for 6mins? Then let us add in more reality here. He claimed that Jodi was coming to Newbattle for 6pm, why had he even left his house to walk to meet her?, and only go as far as the entrance of his estate, to plonk his butt on the wall. Why according to Faith did those two hungry boys, gobble that dinner down in seconds? There was no rush, was there? For he first claimed to have left home around 5.45pm, that is why. Add the time it would have taken Jodi to walk to his house, and he would/should have been under the clear impression that Jodi was already on her way. Then make one call, hang up, wait 6 mins to make the other, and the time is still not even 6pm. Jodi, by his reckoning, before even dialling a number, is  on RDP heading to meet him. None of those calls in reality, should have been made, until 6pm and after, when Jodi was late.

Now for the reality of time as it were. 5.32pm until he decides to give up, call the boys around 7pm to meet in the Abbey. All but 90mins. Doing nothing, and reality again. Time is dragging. Waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting, waiting. Brief wander up to the cottage and back at one point, no further than one point. His girlfriend is walking the RDP, isolated. And she does not appear. And he does not phone back. Phones his mothers number instead. Claims to have asked her, If Jodi had been to the house. She tells him no. But how would you know mum, you are in the garden? Don't be silly Luke Mia would have alerted me. So he knows mum is in the garden, we know why as he told police she was having a fire with Shane. So he tells mum, if she arrives, tell her we will be in the Abbey, she will know where. And he phones the boys? So those logs, phoned his mother first? Regardless. LM phoned the boys, and they are late, so he phones them back. And this was being mere minutes late. The boys had been surprised, the request to meet was not normal. So much so they asked why Jodi was not with him, he told them that she was not coming out. What also stood out, is that he was not his usual scruffy self, clean, hair neat, not his unkempt self. He didn't like the boys company all that much, barely stayed with them for just over an hr and toddled off to go home. To which both him and his mother claimed he had arrived home just after 9pm. Feigned surprise at being home long before his curfew. But LM was not home then, he did not arrive home until 10pm, Jodi's curfew time.

And again he claimed to have asked his mother, if Jodi had not been to the house. She tells him not to worry?? She would just be gabbing with friends??

The Jones family. I will cover the grounding on another post, for now it is those 45-50mins. Jodi leaves to meet with LM. Let us again stick with reality of time. After 4.52pm. Tells her mum, that they (Luke and Jodi) would be "mucking around up here". The opposite is happening here to LM. They are not clock watching, time is not dragging. Not waiting on anything but getting on with their evening. Busy with dinner getting prepped/made and Judith told the court that she had not realised how long it had been til that call. And the call, very short and sweet. Told Jodi has left and Luke says "Ok cool". Ovens did not know where the meet was to be, of anywhere "up here". LM could simply have been late, at the wrong place, anything. We do not know. Only that it was a summers evening. At teatime. Their daughter had left home to meet her boyfriend, waiting somewhere for him. No knowledge of isolated paths, of dangers of anything. And there is no call back, nothing to then alert them to anything being wrong. That ball was firmly in LM's court. That they firmly believed the meet had taken place. Of that we know for certain. They go about their evening after dinner. Jodi's curfew comes around. Ms Lean tell us there is a lengthy phone call between Judith and someone else. So we know that her mother is preoccupied with time. But as parents do, they give that leniency of time to their offspring.  And we can see that Jodi's mother is upset, that her daughter appears to be pushing those boundaries to the extreme. And she texted LM and told her daughter to get home, that she was grounded again.

So very different, on is simply waiting, twiddling those idle thumbs, (90mins) the others busy and preoccupied. (45-50mins) One knows the dangers, knows the failure to appear, the other believes the meeting had taken place. - But we know it is nonsense. LM had no reason for concern, Jodi was dead by his own hands.

And tsk tsk Ms Lean and that obtuse way of reasoning? Common sense passed over to the limited amount of sense in those soaking that nonsense up. Ms Lean makes comment that Judith's evidence of saying "there is no way he (Luke) could have thought I had grounded her" . Where Ms Lean states, how could she (Judith) possibly know what Luke was thinking??

Quote
Sandra Lean

Tracy Reilly in terms of "evidence"
this should never have been
allowed, How can anyone claim to
know what another person
thinks???

Really? the evidence led was that Judith had visited Mitchell, she had asked him directly, "Why did you not call me back?" To which Mitchell replied "I thought you had grounded her" It was Luke Mitchell who told Judith his thoughts, that he "thought" Judith had grounded her.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2021, 01:40:35 PM by Parky41 »

Offline Nicholas

Re: Is DR Sandra Lean a credible source?
« Reply #952 on: July 24, 2021, 05:10:08 PM »
And tsk tsk Ms Lean and that obtuse way of reasoning? Common sense passed over to the limited amount of sense in those soaking that nonsense up. Ms Lean makes comment that Judith's evidence of saying "there is no way he (Luke) could have thought I had grounded her" . Where Ms Lean states, how could she (Judith) possibly know what Luke was thinking??

Quote
Sandra Lean

Tracy Reilly in terms of "evidence"
this should never have been
allowed, How can anyone claim to
know what another person
thinks???

Really? the evidence led was that Judith had visited Mitchell, she had asked him directly, "Why did you not call me back?" To which Mitchell replied "I thought you had grounded her" It was Luke Mitchell who told Judith his thoughts, that he "thought" Judith had grounded her.

Sandra Lean is so blatantly snide - a snide merchant

If her followers really think there will ever be any kind of ‘review’ they are completely deluded

She’s nothing more than a con artist
« Last Edit: July 24, 2021, 05:15:04 PM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: Is DR Sandra Lean a credible source?
« Reply #953 on: July 24, 2021, 05:34:30 PM »
And tsk tsk Ms Lean and that obtuse way of reasoning? Common sense passed over to the limited amount of sense in those soaking that nonsense up. Ms Lean makes comment that Judith's evidence of saying "there is no way he (Luke) could have thought I had grounded her" . Where Ms Lean states, how could she (Judith) possibly know what Luke was thinking??

Really? the evidence led was that Judith had visited Mitchell, she had asked him directly, "Why did you not call me back?" To which Mitchell replied "I thought you had grounded her" It was Luke Mitchell who told Judith his thoughts, that he "thought" Judith had grounded her.

Killer Luke Mitchell also said he thought Jodi had dumped him
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: Is DR Sandra Lean a credible source?
« Reply #954 on: July 24, 2021, 08:53:47 PM »

And tsk tsk Ms Lean and that obtuse way of reasoning? Common sense passed over to the limited amount of sense in those soaking that nonsense up. Ms Lean makes comment that Judith's evidence of saying "there is no way he (Luke) could have thought I had grounded her" . Where Ms Lean states, how could she (Judith) possibly know what Luke was thinking??

Really? the evidence led was that Judith had visited Mitchell, she had asked him directly, "Why did you not call me back?" To which Mitchell replied "I thought you had grounded her" It was Luke Mitchell who told Judith his thoughts, that he "thought" Judith had grounded her.
Killer Luke Mitchell also said he thought Jodi had dumped him

If Luke Mitchell published his police witness statements and transcripts of his police interviews his contradictions and lies would be there for all to see
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline rulesapply

Re: Is DR Sandra Lean a credible source?
« Reply #955 on: July 24, 2021, 09:28:28 PM »
Killer Luke Mitchell also said he thought Jodi had dumped him

If he didn't know he was dumped during family tea time then how did he know later on in the evening?

Offline rulesapply

Re: Is DR Sandra Lean a credible source?
« Reply #956 on: July 24, 2021, 10:22:40 PM »
I know. That double barrel of pulling the wool over people with this misconception, that she had access, physically to more than she has ever had.As in trial transcripts and so forth. The blatant pretence of not actually knowing if he gave evidence or not, is just that. Using one over the other. Whilst attempting to cover her back one way, has opened up that admittance yet again, of all that she does not, and has never had. As with R. Kelly's statement. And so much more. Which one has used as above, to tout out those half truths, misinformation and blatant lies.

As I had already pulled some followers up on. By pleading ignorance, letting people, as one does with most of the misinformation. tout out any nonsense around this. Dispersing all sorts of doubt upon innocent people. Exactly what is aimed for.

That's what I believe. Even if Sandra Lean hadn't done her research properly, she would certainly have known via Corinne Mitchell who gave evidence in court.

Offline faithlilly

Re: Is DR Sandra Lean a credible source?
« Reply #957 on: July 24, 2021, 10:42:08 PM »
That's what I believe. Even if Sandra Lean hadn't done her research properly, she would certainly have known via Corinne Mitchell who gave evidence in court.

Corrine wasn’t allowed in court until she gave evidence and she was one of the last, if not the last, witnesses to give evidence.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline faithlilly

Re: Is DR Sandra Lean a credible source?
« Reply #958 on: July 24, 2021, 10:43:28 PM »
If he didn't know he was dumped during family tea time then how did he know later on in the evening?

The fact that he thought he’d been stood up maybe?
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline rulesapply

Re: Is DR Sandra Lean a credible source?
« Reply #959 on: July 24, 2021, 10:47:15 PM »
Corrine wasn’t allowed in court until she gave evidence and she was one of the last, if not the last, witnesses to give evidence.
Point taken about Corinne Mitchell.