"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[Venturi Swirl]

Am guessing this is a page from ‘innocent betrayed’

https://twitter.com/robynkerr1991/status/1376652565677535234

“This was a 14-year-old girl, brutally murdered and there were semen deposits and/or sperm heads on her hoodie, t-shirt, bra, trousers, shoes, underwear, face and hands, yet not only the police, but also the lab personnel, seem to have accepted the presence of all of these deposits as quite normal and ordinary and then gone to extraordinary lengths (including the questionable rainwater theory) to make them so.

Good grief, she was covered in sperm from head to toe?  But not raped?  Is there actual cites for this?

[Nicholas]

Am guessing this is a page from ‘innocent betrayed’

https://twitter.com/robynkerr1991/status/1376652565677535234

“This was a 14-year-old girl, brutally murdered and there were semen deposits and/or sperm heads on her hoodie, t-shirt, bra, trousers, shoes, underwear, face and hands, yet not only the police, but also the lab personnel, seem to have accepted the presence of all of these deposits as quite normal and ordinary and then gone to extraordinary lengths (including the questionable rainwater theory) to make them so.

No mention of ‘abdomen’ in the above

Sandra Lean
“The problem with the Forensic results is the number of labs involved and the different labeling protocols used by each. Samples believed to be semen were found on the T-shirt, bra, underpants, trousers, shoe, face, right hand and abdomen. While many of those samples returned "no reportable results,” three, labelled "semen," returned mixtures with Jodi and "unknown male(s)" - these were on the t-shirt and the bra.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=336768&page=3

(‘Rolfe’ on the IS forum is apparently Morag Kerr)

[faithlilly]

Am guessing this is a page from ‘innocent betrayed’

https://twitter.com/robynkerr1991/status/1376652565677535234

“This was a 14-year-old girl, brutally murdered and there were semen deposits and/or sperm heads on her hoodie, t-shirt, bra, trousers, shoes, underwear, face and hands, yet not only the police, but also the lab personnel, seem to have accepted the presence of all of these deposits as quite normal and ordinary and then gone to extraordinary lengths (including the questionable rainwater theory) to make them so.

Love this....#innocemcefraud.

[Parky41]

Faithlilly:

Yes fair to assume but if you’re going to quote SL please try and be less selective. SL’s point was that suspicion  fell on Luke early because the police had been provided three pieces of false information that formed their view a) that Luke was the only one searching b) that he was on his bike c) and most importantly, that Luke had left home earlier in the evening with Jodi but was now saying that he hadn’t seen her.

No, SL's point is that she assumes these are the reasons "suspicion fell on Luke early" "Less selective?"

Without assumptions let us look at the actual facts: 10.40pm - 11.30/34pm actual/factual time frame of events.
These are from the phone records, they can not be changed.
 
10.40pm text to LM's phone from JuJ.
10.42pm - communication again between LM and JuJ.
10.42 -10.48pm communication between JuJ and AW.
10.49pm - communication again between LM and JuJ - He offers to search for Jodi.
10.52pm - LM is out the door. (His account)
10.50pm Jodi is reported missing - We are given three words verbatim from the missing persons report "with her boyfriend."
10.50pm - 10.58pm communication between JuJ and AW.
10.59pm - LM is on/at the path when there is further communication with JuJ.
11.05 approx: the search trio leave AW's.
The police are in attendance at JuJ's. Three words verbatim from missing persons report "with her boyfriend."
11.18pm - communication between JuJ and AW.
11.20pm approx - the search trio and LM catch sight of each other.
11.30pm - 11.34pm Jodi is found and call to emergency services put through.
11.38pm - call again to the emergency services. 
 
No assumptions, basic simple fact of multiple conversation. Reported missing on phone, officers in attendance at JuJ's - where do you think this confusion came about? This assumption that the police believed that Jodi had left at teatime with her boyfriend? Do we just miss out "all" of the details taken and simply go on this rather futile claim that they were under the impression "early" that Jodi had left with Luke? What exactly is early? This is in that very short time frame of approx: 30mins, three officers, three words "with her boyfriend."

Officers in attendance at JuJ's - Where is LM? - On the path.
Had JuJ spoken to him, had he told her he was going to search the path - Yes.
Were all of the search party together at this point - No.
Were the search trio out searching - No
Was LM at this point the only person out searching - Yes.
Therefore,in that first 30mins is this not correct? that it was indeed only LM out searching? The path.

What is extraordinary from the above is the time frame - This girl was found in a woodland. By all accounts 'hidden' She had not been discovered over the course of that evening (In daylight) In approx: 10mins of the search party being together she is found (In the dark) The person who goes over the wall into the woods and finds her is LM. Not only does he go over the wall at the V break he had also looked into the woods, over the wall at the 'Gino' spot prior to coming to the V

[John]

Faithlilly:



No, SL's point is that she assumes these are the reasons "suspicion fell on Luke early" "Less selective?"

Without assumptions let us look at the actual facts: 10.40pm - 11.30/34pm actual/factual time frame of events.
These are from the phone records, they can not be changed.
 
10.40pm text to LM's phone from JuJ.
10.42pm - communication again between LM and JuJ.
10.42 -10.48pm communication between JuJ and AW.
10.49pm - communication again between LM and JuJ - He offers to search for Jodi.
10.52pm - LM is out the door. (His account)
10.50pm Jodi is reported missing - We are given three words verbatim from the missing persons report "with her boyfriend."
10.50pm - 10.58pm communication between JuJ and AW.
10.59pm - LM is on/at the path when there is further communication with JuJ.
11.05 approx: the search trio leave AW's.
The police are in attendance at JuJ's. Three words verbatim from missing persons report "with her boyfriend."
11.18pm - communication between JuJ and AW.
11.20pm approx - the search trio and LM catch sight of each other.
11.30pm - 11.34pm Jodi is found and call to emergency services put through.
11.38pm - call again to the emergency services. 
 
No assumptions, basic simple fact of multiple conversation. Reported missing on phone, officers in attendance at JuJ's - where do you think this confusion came about? This assumption that the police believed that Jodi had left at teatime with her boyfriend? Do we just miss out "all" of the details taken and simply go on this rather futile claim that they were under the impression "early" that Jodi had left with Luke? What exactly is early? This is in that very short time frame of approx: 30mins, three officers, three words "with her boyfriend."

Officers in attendance at JuJ's - Where is LM? - On the path.
Had JuJ spoken to him, had he told her he was going to search the path - Yes.
Were all of the search party together at this point - No.
Were the search trio out searching - No
Was LM at this point the only person out searching - Yes.
Therefore,in that first 30mins is this not correct? that it was indeed only LM out searching? The path.

What is extraordinary from the above is the time frame - This girl was found in a woodland. By all accounts 'hidden' She had not been discovered over the course of that evening (In daylight) In approx: 10mins of the search party being together she is found (In the dark) The person who goes over the wall into the woods and finds her is LM. Not only does he go over the wall at the V break he had also looked into the woods, over the wall at the 'Gino' spot prior to coming to the V

It is amazing that Jodi's body lay there for over six hours before being discovered by the search party considering the numerous individuals who transited the area. Had there not been signs of a struggle and blood everywhere one would not be wrong in considering she had been murdered elsewhere and carried to the scene.

The story about the dog scenting has throughout been a red flag for me. I have always had dogs and dogs that can follow a scent. If Mia the Mitchell Alsatian (a dog which apparently received tracker training) did detect Jodi's scent then she would also have done so on the initial walk along the path to find the Jones group. If Luke Mitchell is in fact innocent of Jodi's murder then he set off with the dog looking for Jodi. He would have instructed the dog to seek Jodi. Any sign that the dog had detected her would have been immediately flagged up to him. When he met up with the Jones family at the Easthouses end of the path he did not reveal anything out of the ordinary or that the dog had found a potential scent.

The Jones family group, Luke Mitchell and Mia then walk back down the path and after only a few minutes Mia finds Jodi's scent. All very convenient don't you think?

[Brietta]

It is amazing that Jodi's body lay there for over six hours before being discovered by the search party considering the numerous individuals who transited the area. Had there not been signs of a struggle and blood everywhere one would not be wrong in considering she had been murdered elsewhere and carried to the scene.

The story about the dog scenting has throughout been a red flag for me. I have always had dogs and dogs that can follow a scent. If Mia the Mitchell Alsatian (a dog which apparently received tracker training) did detect Jodi's scent then she would also have done so on the initial walk along the path to find the Jones group. If Luke Mitchell is in fact innocent of Jodi's murder then he set off with the dog looking for Jodi. He would have instructed the dog to seek Jodi. Any sign that the dog had detected her would have been immediately flagged up to him. When he met up with the Jones family at the Easthouses end of the path he did not reveal anything out of the ordinary or that the dog had found a potential scent.

The Jones family group, Luke Mitchell and Mia then walk back down the path and after only a few minutes Mia finds Jodi's scent. All very convenient don't you think?

I think that is the only logical conclusion to be reached.

If you set out to search rough terrain for a missing person and you are accompanied by a trained search dog you would have it in search mode from the word go.  If Luke came that way I think Mia would have alerted at the first pass or at least indicated something was amiss as I think most dogs would have anyway.

[John]

I think that is the only logical conclusion to be reached.

If you set out to search rough terrain for a missing person and you are accompanied by a trained search dog you would have it in search mode from the word go.  If Luke came that way I think Mia would have alerted at the first pass or at least indicated something was amiss as I think most dogs would have anyway.

I agree, it is the logical conclusion and one which the jury undoubtedly also arrived at. Unsurprisingly though, Sandra Lean and Mitchell supporters don't see it that way. Their argument has always been that Mia was not in 'tracker mode' for anything or anyone. More excuses I suspect in an attempt to render the logical devoid of commonsense.

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean’s 2nd book seen here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9IrIk7wx4cs outside Dalkeith police station

The guy in the above also appears to have recorded the alternative route by the river https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SDb8YL1HEjw

[faithlilly]

It is amazing that Jodi's body lay there for over six hours before being discovered by the search party considering the numerous individuals who transited the area. Had there not been signs of a struggle and blood everywhere one would not be wrong in considering she had been murdered elsewhere and carried to the scene.

The story about the dog scenting has throughout been a red flag for me. I have always had dogs and dogs that can follow a scent. If Mia the Mitchell Alsatian (a dog which apparently received tracker training) did detect Jodi's scent then she would also have done so on the initial walk along the path to find the Jones group. If Luke Mitchell is in fact innocent of Jodi's murder then he set off with the dog looking for Jodi. He would have instructed the dog to seek Jodi. Any sign that the dog had detected her would have been immediately flagged up to him. When he met up with the Jones family at the Easthouses end of the path he did not reveal anything out of the ordinary or that the dog had found a potential scent.

The Jones family group, Luke Mitchell and Mia then walk back down the path and after only a few minutes Mia finds Jodi's scent. All very convenient don't you think?

You also said that the fact the SM didn’t appear to support Luke’s campaign or hadn’t made a public statement that his brother was innocent suggested to you that Luke was guilty.

Has your brother publicly supported your campaign for justice or made a statement that he knew you were innocent? If yes perhaps you’d post the statement here?

[faithlilly]

Faithlilly:



No, SL's point is that she assumes these are the reasons "suspicion fell on Luke early" "Less selective?"

Without assumptions let us look at the actual facts: 10.40pm - 11.30/34pm actual/factual time frame of events.
These are from the phone records, they can not be changed.
 
10.40pm text to LM's phone from JuJ.
10.42pm - communication again between LM and JuJ.
10.42 -10.48pm communication between JuJ and AW.
10.49pm - communication again between LM and JuJ - He offers to search for Jodi.
10.52pm - LM is out the door. (His account)
10.50pm Jodi is reported missing - We are given three words verbatim from the missing persons report "with her boyfriend."
10.50pm - 10.58pm communication between JuJ and AW.
10.59pm - LM is on/at the path when there is further communication with JuJ.
11.05 approx: the search trio leave AW's.
The police are in attendance at JuJ's. Three words verbatim from missing persons report "with her boyfriend."
11.18pm - communication between JuJ and AW.
11.20pm approx - the search trio and LM catch sight of each other.
11.30pm - 11.34pm Jodi is found and call to emergency services put through.
11.38pm - call again to the emergency services. 
 
No assumptions, basic simple fact of multiple conversation. Reported missing on phone, officers in attendance at JuJ's - where do you think this confusion came about? This assumption that the police believed that Jodi had left at teatime with her boyfriend? Do we just miss out "all" of the details taken and simply go on this rather futile claim that they were under the impression "early" that Jodi had left with Luke? What exactly is early? This is in that very short time frame of approx: 30mins, three officers, three words "with her boyfriend."

Officers in attendance at JuJ's - Where is LM? - On the path.
Had JuJ spoken to him, had he told her he was going to search the path - Yes.
Were all of the search party together at this point - No.
Were the search trio out searching - No
Was LM at this point the only person out searching - Yes.
Therefore,in that first 30mins is this not correct? that it was indeed only LM out searching? The path.

What is extraordinary from the above is the time frame - This girl was found in a woodland. By all accounts 'hidden' She had not been discovered over the course of that evening (In daylight) In approx: 10mins of the search party being together she is found (In the dark) The person who goes over the wall into the woods and finds her is LM. Not only does he go over the wall at the V break he had also looked into the woods, over the wall at the 'Gino' spot prior to coming to the V

‘By all accounts’ ? Who’s account? Nowhere did the first people to see the body, LK, SK and AW, say that the body was ‘hidden’. They all saw it from some distance away.

The police were given details that were wrong. I’m not disputing that the person giving the information believed it to be true at that time. What  I am saying, however, is that the information given skewed the investigation from the beginning and put an undeserved focus on Luke.

[faithlilly]

I agree, it is the logical conclusion and one which the jury undoubtedly also arrived at. Unsurprisingly though, Sandra Lean and Mitchell supporters don't see it that way. Their argument has always been that Mia was not in 'tracker mode' for anything or anyone. More excuses I suspect in an attempt to render the logical devoid of commonsense.

And the changing of SK, JaJ and AW’s statements that Mai alerted to the wall before LM jumped over to LM just came to the wall and jumped over doesn’t give you pause for thought at all?

You see that’s the thing with ‘Mitchell’ supporters. We’re rather less selective in the interpretation of the evidence available.

[faithlilly]

The forum is actually a mine of relevant information which quite often gets overlooked.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11718.msg614766#msg614766

Quite a lot of reading in the links provided in Nicholas's post.  I found them highly informative and well worth taking the time to inform a broader perspective of issues under discussion here.
I think we can probably learn a lot from the expertise of justice campaigner Neil Wilby who if his informative blog is anything to judge by is the real deal as far as being a dedicated researcher is concerned.  It is going to take me some time to catch up on everything in Neil's blog but I intend to.

Tag: Dr Sandra Lean
Post Office robberies claim was a sham, say police.
https://neilwilby.com/tag/dr-sandra-lean/

More reading material for you Brietta.

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/malicious-blogger-neil-wilby-banned-7972575

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/crime/policeman-wins-ps60000-libel-damages-over-savile-pervert-twitter-slur-1839699

https://www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/news/people/derbyshire-rallies-round-hero-whaley-bridge-officer-who-faced-criticism-social-media-her-hair-947788

[mrswah]

More reading material for you Brietta.

https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/malicious-blogger-neil-wilby-banned-7972575

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/crime/policeman-wins-ps60000-libel-damages-over-savile-pervert-twitter-slur-1839699

https://www.derbyshiretimes.co.uk/news/people/derbyshire-rallies-round-hero-whaley-bridge-officer-who-faced-criticism-social-media-her-hair-947788

Oh dear !

[Parky41]

‘By all accounts’ ? Who’s account? Nowhere did the first people to see the body, LK, SK and AW, say that the body was ‘hidden’. They all saw it from some distance away.

The police were given details that were wrong. I’m not disputing that the person giving the information believed it to be true at that time. What  I am saying, however, is that the information given skewed the investigation from the beginning and put an undeserved focus on Luke.

‘By all accounts’ ? Who’s account? Nowhere did the first people to see the body, LK, SK and AW, say that the body was ‘hidden’. They all saw it from some distance away.

Hidden- out of sight, had not been discovered over the course of this evening. Off the beaten track. Behind this 'large Oak' tree that LM had described. " The "first people" saw with more ease than LM as he guided them to where she lay.

The police were given details that were wrong. I’m not disputing that the person giving the information believed it to be true at that time. What  I am saying, however, is that the information given skewed the investigation from the beginning and put an undeserved focus on Luke.

That's better, let's start again. It made absolutely no sense, for the police to have coupled this "with the boyfriend" to anything, there were after all, three policemen involved. That the initial report of LM being out searching on his own, was in fact correct. In that first 30mins of these officers obtaining information, it was only LM, which in turn answers why it was only LM's number the police were given? They were gathering information, not investigating. Taken missing person notes which in turn would start the investigation around a 'missing person' - not a murder.

Let's move to that next short period of approx: 20mins. 

Jodi is discovered, by LM. There are two calls put through to the emergency services. Two receiving operators. The information is passed over that "the boyfriend has found something" "a body". It is easy to see here why the officers "on the ground" thought it was only LM, alone, on Roansdyke path when coupling it with the above information. At this point, rapidly, the beginning of the missing person investigation may have turned a corner. Someone had been found. Just found. The police don't know at this point if it was Jodi, how she died, only that someone had been found. - not a murder investigation.

That next short time period, when the police/emergency services arrive at the path. Stop for one moment here and think. Where are we at this point? - Only at the very "beginning". What is still clear here, is that LM had found something.That he had been over the wall. The correct course of action here, is to take his clothing, samples and statement. At this point for elimination purpose of contamination, not just solely this 'prime suspect' reasoning and blatantly treating him different from the 'others'. - After the police had arrived at the scene, once a police officer had been over the wall, to verify for himself, what had been found, by LM.  The investigation into a murder, has only now begun.

Now let's move into those next couple of hours.
 
Statements at the very beginning, the actual start of this murder investigation, from everyone involved from that first point of Jodi being reported missing. It was those statements, the details, the contrasts that raised red flags to the investigating officers. They knew with certainty and clarity the sequence of events that had occurred. That there had been four people on the path. That both AW and SK had been over the wall. That Jodi had most definitely not left "with her boyfriend". From this point it became increasingly difficult to eliminate LM from the investigation.

Therefore, no - The initial information in the missing persons report did not skew the investigation. The information obtained at the actual beginning of this murder investigation, mainly from the words of LM are what brought suspicion upon him.

[Parky41]

Good grief, she was covered in sperm from head to toe?  But not raped?  Is there actual cites for this?

Exactly - Unfortunately, there are however people who simply take this on board without question. That careful manipulation of those forensics reports, that, 'power of suggestion'. Used to 'hoodwink' those most susceptible, who in turn jump to every assumption possible, rather than simply think/realise if this were the case, then these "lab personnel" would not have "seemed" to accept anything. That in reality, their expert opinion was based on what they actually/factually did obtain. Weak traces of minute staining from semen.Two sperm heads that yielded a DNA profile of SK. Minimal, as in singular number, other sperm heads that were defunct. Again takes us back to "No DNA being unaccounted for" Expert forensic reports, yet again, that clearly showed no results that could link this murder to 'An another.' 

"The average amount of semen released during ejaculation averages between two and five ml, the equivalent of about one teaspoon. But this stuff pack a punch—there are nearly 15 million to 200 million sperm in an average milliliter of semen."  - do the math.

The simple, plain reality being the most obvious, "in that the simplest explanation is usually the right one" . backed by factual, scientific evidence, not that of multiple assumptions (Occam's Razor theory) The T-shirt was borrowed from her sister, minute traces survived a washing cycle.

Trace DNA from sperm:

https://www.forensiccontext.com/dna-attribution/

"Laundered semen stains" (rainwater and trace DNA) Highlights exactly why there were minimum traces in multiple places. From an 'original' ejaculation of millions.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497315300508