Author Topic: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean  (Read 50964 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Parky41

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #300 on: April 19, 2021, 04:27:38 PM »
Quote
Do you know what I really like about the forum linked? That SL doesn’t drive the narrative but neither is she treated with the distain shown to her here. She is merely another source of information. It is, however, an excellent dissection of the flaws in the case and why Luke’s conviction should be considered unsafe

Absolutely and most definitely did become another source of information of which much is dissected also. On the basis that it is nothing other than factual?  Rolfe Instantly picked up on the comment of LM not sticking his middle finger up to the police but that of putting his seat belt on? Where Rolfe rightly points out that it most certainly looks like the middle finger to her, that one would use their other hand for the seatbelt. Granted this is nothing, and as she rightly points out. What if he did?, a typical gesture perhaps considering the claimed unwarranted attention.

But what does stand out here is that of Ms Lean, yet again, of excusing all and everything as not happening? "half a mars bar" situ. This boy could do no wrong? Distain or not on this forum, the majority of which is critique of Ms Leans stance and work. The dissection of her flaws? And rightly so. Some see beyond this claim of having no reason to lie or manipulate to gain a killer freedom? That Ms Lean would only do as she does on the basis of complete belief in innocence. And that is correct, no one is disputing Ms Leans beliefs. But they are first and foremost, hers. But is that absolute non acceptance of the real possibility that he did indeed kill his girlfriend? Of the strength of the evidence starting first and foremost with this young couple meeting and of no alibi. Does it Stem from an earlier connection? 

And it is still a bit of a puzzler is it not, as to why these two woman became entwined in September 2003, is it important? It is, as it could give reason as to why so much of what Ms Lean says as being flawed? DNA being one of the strongest, the multiple suggestion of everything and all of the rest. Very much personal rather than professional? Not independent. 

A girl is murdered, the neighbourhood are on guard and worried, there is a killer on the lose. Parents are worried for the safety of their children. Ms Lean has two daughters, she has this drive to make sure the police have gotten the right man, this statement however does not apply to Luke Mitchell until much later, until after Luke's arrest. She is at this moment in time the same as any other parent. There is indeed a killer walking the streets. Protection over all else.

By July the 4th a warrant is issued for a search of the Mitchells house, we need not go into reason as to why other than that of suspicion. It is clear at this point that the police were suspicious of Luke Mitchell. There is further attention in the media and by August Luke Mitchell has his face in the papers. No one at this point in the public domain knows if Luke Mitchell killed Jodi Jones only that he was suspect to having done so. They know absolutely nothing of the investigation, of what may have warranted this suspicion and for it to remain upon him. Ms Lean, as with many others no doubt, may very well have wondered, why has he not been arrested yet? A stranger however is more inclined to think of IF's rather than that of certainty. 

Onto being a parent of anyone not just Ms Lean. A claimed stranger, who knew not Luke Mitchell or his mother. Whom therefore would not have an inkling of the investigation of it's merit or otherwise and more importantly as a parent, that Luke Mitchell may well have been his girlfriends killer, he may not have been. That unknown factor of protection amongst strangers. We had a friend of Luke's at the graveyard, someone pointing out this could have been a friend of Luke's. Someone who had reason at this point of the investigation to only have a ? of doubt over their friend, however trust first and foremost. But Ms Lean is a stranger, a mother of two girls. What could possibly have given rise to the following?

That she would claim to have absolute faith and trust in knowing that this stranger was not Jodi Jones killer. That irrespective of personal feeling towards what may have been in the media. They are still claimed strangers. Not to have known each other. There is at this point a shadow of doubt strong enough to not know if he was responsible. Is it feasible at all to suggest that CM got wind of ? what exactly about Ms Leans concerns or feelings of what?, that on the basis of ?, she is claimed to have sought Ms Lean out at her place of work? It could not have been, there is someone who believes/knows my boy is innocent, this is in the weeks shortly after the murder? It could not have been that of someone understanding what CM was going through. Ms Lean had never been in this situation. It most certainly was not on any professional level. Ms Lean had no standing. She was just a mother of two girls working to earn a living. Not a lawyer, not actively known in any field, MOJ's or otherwise. And of course, this is the early days, there is no MOJ. It is within those first 2-3 months.   

Someone pointed out a 'sympathetic ear'  What would have been the need for Ms Mitchell to call upon a stranger? Where were Ms Mitchells family?, friends for this sympathetic ear? The mother of the girl at the graveyard? There would be no need to call upon any stranger or was it a friend? An acquaintance? One does not call upon strangers when one is no doubt guarded against outsiders becoming part of this personal plight? They would ultimately stay with those they have complete trust in? Not a stranger IMO.

Mention recently of that common link, of camping/caravanning? How many holidays had Ms Lean been on with the girls doing what she appears to love. Of being out in the open, away from it all. Camping/caravanning? Ms Lean stayed/stays in a small village and in this same village is Scotts Caravans. Where better to pick up supplies to hire or buy equipment? Whatever this connection was, it was not that of a total stranger IMO. A total stranger does not give cause to have absolute belief, that suspicion upon an another complete stranger of murder is unwarranted, without knowing absolutely anything of the people nor the investigation?

And it does matter?  It does for much of what Ms Lean touts out is so far removed from the actual evidence, the main focus is away from the Mitchells and onto others. Of this constant cry of "Why were these others treated differently?" Rather than that of "Why did suspicion fall upon Luke" Why could he not be eliminated?

There are no appeals dragging these others up before the magistrates from highly professional bodies, from Luke's own defence at the time. From the inability of gaining further defence, the fall outs? Who had access and more to what Ms Lean had/has. From "No Smoke" to "Innocents Betrayed" Very personal writings and feelings of being aggrieved? Personally being aggrieved for this stranger from those very early days of this murder actually happening. Of having the exact same stance of Ms Mitchell - That this boy could do no wrong, everything is down to others, they are to blame?

Offline Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #301 on: April 19, 2021, 04:33:32 PM »
Sandra Lean has recently - via her podcast - attempted to promote the innocence fraud of serial killer Ben Geen

She claims not only did Geen ’not commit the crimes they didn’t happen’

Maybe during her next podcast she’ll name the prescription drugs Ben Geen was stealing from Horton General hospital, the quantities he stole, the dates on which he stole them and in what properties linked to Geen they were found in

Also maybe she can tell us why Mark McDonald (Ben Geen’s lawyer) contradicted Megan Crabbe’s evidence in chief during the ‘Nurses who kill’ documentary

And how many loaded syringes Ben Geen and his fiancé Megan Crabbe were aware of - not including the one found on him upon arrival to work when he was arrested by police
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #302 on: April 19, 2021, 04:36:53 PM »
Sandra Lean has recently - via her podcast - attempted to promote the innocence fraud of serial killer Ben Geen

She claims not only did Geen ’not commit the crimes they didn’t happen’

Maybe during her next podcast she’ll name the prescription drugs Ben Geen was stealing from Horton General hospital, the quantities he stole, the dates on which he stole them and in what properties linked to Geen they were found in

Also maybe she can tell us why Mark McDonald (Ben Geen’s lawyer) contradicted Megan Crabbe’s evidence in chief during the ‘Nurses who kill’ documentary

And how many loaded syringes Ben Geen and his fiancé Megan Crabbe were aware of - not including the one found on him upon arrival to work when he was arrested by police

Maybe Sandra Lean can also explain in detail what was going on with regards the claims of money by his legal team during Geen’s appeal

See foot of judgement here https://bengeen.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/geen-judgment.pdf and comments by Lady Justice Hallett
« Last Edit: April 19, 2021, 06:05:38 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: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #303 on: April 19, 2021, 04:55:44 PM »
Sandra Lean has recently - via her podcast

also made claim she wasn’t involved in the Wrongly Accused Person orgs financial returns

But how was the money her and Billy Middleton received spent during the time leading up to when’s her resigned?

Jixy provided the forum with an alleged copy of an email Sandra Lean sent to Billy Middleton tending her resignation

Sandra Lean resigned from WAP more than 6 years ago!

Just so there is NO further confusion...

OSCR (Scottish Charities Commision) has confirmed that Sandra  IS NOT registered in any capacity as being linked to WAP (and hasn't been since April 2013)

The email says Sandra Lean was a director of the charity Wrongly Accused Person Org but no where does it suggest Sandra Lean wasn’t responsible for how the money the organisation received was spent?

« Last Edit: April 19, 2021, 05:48:50 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 faithlilly

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #304 on: April 19, 2021, 05:25:57 PM »
Absolutely and most definitely did become another source of information of which much is dissected also. On the basis that it is nothing other than factual?  Rolfe Instantly picked up on the comment of LM not sticking his middle finger up to the police but that of putting his seat belt on? Where Rolfe rightly points out that it most certainly looks like the middle finger to her, that one would use their other hand for the seatbelt. Granted this is nothing, and as she rightly points out. What if he did?, a typical gesture perhaps considering the claimed unwarranted attention.

But what does stand out here is that of Ms Lean, yet again, of excusing all and everything as not happening? "half a mars bar" situ. This boy could do no wrong? Distain or not on this forum, the majority of which is critique of Ms Leans stance and work. The dissection of her flaws? And rightly so. Some see beyond this claim of having no reason to lie or manipulate to gain a killer freedom? That Ms Lean would only do as she does on the basis of complete belief in innocence. And that is correct, no one is disputing Ms Leans beliefs. But they are first and foremost, hers. But is that absolute non acceptance of the real possibility that he did indeed kill his girlfriend? Of the strength of the evidence starting first and foremost with this young couple meeting and of no alibi. Does it Stem from an earlier connection? 

And it is still a bit of a puzzler is it not, as to why these two woman became entwined in September 2003, is it important? It is, as it could give reason as to why so much of what Ms Lean says as being flawed? DNA being one of the strongest, the multiple suggestion of everything and all of the rest. Very much personal rather than professional? Not independent. 

A girl is murdered, the neighbourhood are on guard and worried, there is a killer on the lose. Parents are worried for the safety of their children. Ms Lean has two daughters, she has this drive to make sure the police have gotten the right man, this statement however does not apply to Luke Mitchell until much later, until after Luke's arrest. She is at this moment in time the same as any other parent. There is indeed a killer walking the streets. Protection over all else.

By July the 4th a warrant is issued for a search of the Mitchells house, we need not go into reason as to why other than that of suspicion. It is clear at this point that the police were suspicious of Luke Mitchell. There is further attention in the media and by August Luke Mitchell has his face in the papers. No one at this point in the public domain knows if Luke Mitchell killed Jodi Jones only that he was suspect to having done so. They know absolutely nothing of the investigation, of what may have warranted this suspicion and for it to remain upon him. Ms Lean, as with many others no doubt, may very well have wondered, why has he not been arrested yet? A stranger however is more inclined to think of IF's rather than that of certainty. 

Onto being a parent of anyone not just Ms Lean. A claimed stranger, who knew not Luke Mitchell or his mother. Whom therefore would not have an inkling of the investigation of it's merit or otherwise and more importantly as a parent, that Luke Mitchell may well have been his girlfriends killer, he may not have been. That unknown factor of protection amongst strangers. We had a friend of Luke's at the graveyard, someone pointing out this could have been a friend of Luke's. Someone who had reason at this point of the investigation to only have a ? of doubt over their friend, however trust first and foremost. But Ms Lean is a stranger, a mother of two girls. What could possibly have given rise to the following?

That she would claim to have absolute faith and trust in knowing that this stranger was not Jodi Jones killer. That irrespective of personal feeling towards what may have been in the media. They are still claimed strangers. Not to have known each other. There is at this point a shadow of doubt strong enough to not know if he was responsible. Is it feasible at all to suggest that CM got wind of ? what exactly about Ms Leans concerns or feelings of what?, that on the basis of ?, she is claimed to have sought Ms Lean out at her place of work? It could not have been, there is someone who believes/knows my boy is innocent, this is in the weeks shortly after the murder? It could not have been that of someone understanding what CM was going through. Ms Lean had never been in this situation. It most certainly was not on any professional level. Ms Lean had no standing. She was just a mother of two girls working to earn a living. Not a lawyer, not actively known in any field, MOJ's or otherwise. And of course, this is the early days, there is no MOJ. It is within those first 2-3 months.   

Someone pointed out a 'sympathetic ear'  What would have been the need for Ms Mitchell to call upon a stranger? Where were Ms Mitchells family?, friends for this sympathetic ear? The mother of the girl at the graveyard? There would be no need to call upon any stranger or was it a friend? An acquaintance? One does not call upon strangers when one is no doubt guarded against outsiders becoming part of this personal plight? They would ultimately stay with those they have complete trust in? Not a stranger IMO.

Mention recently of that common link, of camping/caravanning? How many holidays had Ms Lean been on with the girls doing what she appears to love. Of being out in the open, away from it all. Camping/caravanning? Ms Lean stayed/stays in a small village and in this same village is Scotts Caravans. Where better to pick up supplies to hire or buy equipment? Whatever this connection was, it was not that of a total stranger IMO. A total stranger does not give cause to have absolute belief, that suspicion upon an another complete stranger of murder is unwarranted, without knowing absolutely anything of the people nor the investigation?

And it does matter?  It does for much of what Ms Lean touts out is so far removed from the actual evidence, the main focus is away from the Mitchells and onto others. Of this constant cry of "Why were these others treated differently?" Rather than that of "Why did suspicion fall upon Luke" Why could he not be eliminated?

There are no appeals dragging these others up before the magistrates from highly professional bodies, from Luke's own defence at the time. From the inability of gaining further defence, the fall outs? Who had access and more to what Ms Lean had/has. From "No Smoke" to "Innocents Betrayed" Very personal writings and feelings of being aggrieved? Personally being aggrieved for this stranger from those very early days of this murder actually happening. Of having the exact same stance of Ms Mitchell - That this boy could do no wrong, everything is down to others, they are to blame?

You know what, I’m not much interested in SL or what you assume her motives to be. That’s way past stale. What I am interested in is the 100% copper-bottomed facts of the case and I’m afraid you have been found wanting on that score.

« Last Edit: April 19, 2021, 11:21:49 PM by faithlilly »
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 Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #305 on: April 19, 2021, 05:51:31 PM »
Absolutely and most definitely did become another source of information of which much is dissected also. On the basis that it is nothing other than factual?  Rolfe Instantly picked up on the comment of LM not sticking his middle finger up to the police but that of putting his seat belt on? Where Rolfe rightly points out that it most certainly looks like the middle finger to her, that one would use their other hand for the seatbelt. Granted this is nothing, and as she rightly points out. What if he did?, a typical gesture perhaps considering the claimed unwarranted attention.

But what does stand out here is that of Ms Lean, yet again, of excusing all and everything as not happening? "half a mars bar" situ. This boy could do no wrong? Distain or not on this forum, the majority of which is critique of Ms Leans stance and work. The dissection of her flaws? And rightly so. Some see beyond this claim of having no reason to lie or manipulate to gain a killer freedom? That Ms Lean would only do as she does on the basis of complete belief in innocence. And that is correct, no one is disputing Ms Leans beliefs. But they are first and foremost, hers. But is that absolute non acceptance of the real possibility that he did indeed kill his girlfriend? Of the strength of the evidence starting first and foremost with this young couple meeting and of no alibi. Does it Stem from an earlier connection? 

Sandra Lean lies by omission

What’s the real reason Shane Mitchel doesn’t openly support his brother, mother Corrine and indeed Sandra Lean’s claims?

What are the details surrounding Luke Mitchell’s threats/idealisations of suicide?

This is relevant to the murder as according to up to date research on intimate partner femicide - threats of suicide can be part and parcel of the 8 stage timeline

Sandra Lean also lies by restructuring - she clearly distorts the context

She also lies by exaggeration - her condom man story is one example of this

 
« Last Edit: April 19, 2021, 06:00:33 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: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #306 on: April 19, 2021, 06:08:57 PM »
Absolutely and most definitely did become another source of information of which much is dissected also. On the basis that it is nothing other than factual?  Rolfe Instantly picked up on the comment of LM not sticking his middle finger up to the police but that of putting his seat belt on? Where Rolfe rightly points out that it most certainly looks like the middle finger to her, that one would use their other hand for the seatbelt. Granted this is nothing, and as she rightly points out. What if he did?, a typical gesture perhaps considering the claimed unwarranted attention.

But what does stand out here is that of Ms Lean, yet again, of excusing all and everything as not happening? "half a mars bar" situ. This boy could do no wrong? Distain or not on this forum, the majority of which is critique of Ms Leans stance and work. The dissection of her flaws? And rightly so. Some see beyond this claim of having no reason to lie or manipulate to gain a killer freedom? That Ms Lean would only do as she does on the basis of complete belief in innocence. And that is correct, no one is disputing Ms Leans beliefs. But they are first and foremost, hers. But is that absolute non acceptance of the real possibility that he did indeed kill his girlfriend? Of the strength of the evidence starting first and foremost with this young couple meeting and of no alibi. Does it Stem from an earlier connection? 

I am

Sandra Lean told me in 2014 she was questioning Luke & Corrine Mitchell’s relationship as well as his guilt

She also made claim she has wasted 10 years of her life

Did she have a wobble back in early 2014? She most certainly appeared to me to have changed her mind. Or was it cognitive dissonance?

Why did she feel she’d wasted 10 years of her life?
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #307 on: April 19, 2021, 06:13:14 PM »

But what does stand out here is that of Ms Lean, yet again, of excusing all and everything as not happening? "half a mars bar" situ. This boy could do no wrong? Distain or not on this forum, the majority of which is critique of Ms Leans stance and work. The dissection of her flaws? And rightly so. Some see beyond this claim of having no reason to lie or manipulate to gain a killer freedom? That Ms Lean would only do as she does on the basis of complete belief in innocence. And that is correct, no one is disputing Ms Leans beliefs. But they are first and foremost, hers. But is that absolute non acceptance of the real possibility that he did indeed kill his girlfriend? Of the strength of the evidence starting first and foremost with this young couple meeting and of no alibi. Does it Stem from an earlier connection? 

And it is still a bit of a puzzler is it not, as to why these two woman became entwined in September 2003, is it important? It is, as it could give reason as to why so much of what Ms Lean says as being flawed? DNA being one of the strongest, the multiple suggestion of everything and all of the rest. Very much personal rather than professional? Not independent. 

A girl is murdered, the neighbourhood are on guard and worried, there is a killer on the lose. Parents are worried for the safety of their children. Ms Lean has two daughters

Were both Sandra Lean’s daughters living with her in 2003 or just the one daughter?
« Last Edit: April 19, 2021, 06:15:37 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: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #308 on: April 19, 2021, 06:22:23 PM »
And it is still a bit of a puzzler is it not, as to why these two woman became entwined in September 2003, is it important? It is, as it could give reason as to why so much of what Ms Lean says as being flawed? DNA being one of the strongest, the multiple suggestion of everything and all of the rest. Very much personal rather than professional? Not independent. 

A girl is murdered, the neighbourhood are on guard and worried, there is a killer on the lose. Parents are worried for the safety of their children. Ms Lean has two daughters, she has this drive to make sure the police have gotten the right man, this statement however does not apply to Luke Mitchell until much later, until after Luke's arrest. She is at this moment in time the same as any other parent. There is indeed a killer walking the streets. Protection over all else.

Ms Lean’s two daughters had a father - a father who would have also been ‘on guard and worried’ yes?

Where were Sandra Leans daughters living in 2003?

Wouldn’t the girls father have had the same ‘drive to make sure the police have gotten the right man’ ?
« Last Edit: April 19, 2021, 06:25:19 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: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #309 on: April 19, 2021, 06:29:24 PM »
Onto being a parent of anyone not just Ms Lean. A claimed stranger, who knew not Luke Mitchell or his mother. Whom therefore would not have an inkling of the investigation of it's merit or otherwise and more importantly as a parent, that Luke Mitchell may well have been his girlfriends killer, he may not have been. That unknown factor of protection amongst strangers. We had a friend of Luke's at the graveyard, someone pointing out this could have been a friend of Luke's. Someone who had reason at this point of the investigation to only have a ? of doubt over their friend, however trust first and foremost. But Ms Lean is a stranger, a mother of two girls. What could possibly have given rise to the following?

That she would claim to have absolute faith and trust in knowing that this stranger was not Jodi Jones killer. That irrespective of personal feeling towards what may have been in the media. They are still claimed strangers. Not to have known each other. There is at this point a shadow of doubt strong enough to not know if he was responsible. Is it feasible at all to suggest that CM got wind of ? what exactly about Ms Leans concerns or feelings of what?, that on the basis of ?, she is claimed to have sought Ms Lean out at her place of work? It could not have been, there is someone who believes/knows my boy is innocent, this is in the weeks shortly after the murder? It could not have been that of someone understanding what CM was going through. Ms Lean had never been in this situation. It most certainly was not on any professional level. Ms Lean had no standing. She was just a mother of two girls working to earn a living. Not a lawyer, not actively known in any field, MOJ's or otherwise. And of course, this is the early days, there is no MOJ. It is within those first 2-3 months.   

What other events went on in 2003 re Sandra Lean?

Was she a single parent at this point?

Did both girls live with her or just the one?

Some actual factual context would be helpful here
« Last Edit: April 19, 2021, 06:45:10 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 faithlilly

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #310 on: April 19, 2021, 07:01:08 PM »
I am

Sandra Lean told me in 2014 she was questioning Luke & Corrine Mitchell’s relationship as well as his guilt

She also made claim she has wasted 10 years of her life

Did she have a wobble back in early 2014? She most certainly appeared to me to have changed her mind. Or was it cognitive dissonance?

Why did she feel she’d wasted 10 years of her life?

Her judgement should certainly be questioned if she chose you to confide in.
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 Rusty

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #311 on: April 19, 2021, 07:50:06 PM »
Absolutely and most definitely did become another source of information of which much is dissected also. On the basis that it is nothing other than factual?  Rolfe Instantly picked up on the comment of LM not sticking his middle finger up to the police but that of putting his seat belt on? Where Rolfe rightly points out that it most certainly looks like the middle finger to her, that one would use their other hand for the seatbelt. Granted this is nothing, and as she rightly points out. What if he did?, a typical gesture perhaps considering the claimed unwarranted attention.

But what does stand out here is that of Ms Lean, yet again, of excusing all and everything as not happening? "half a mars bar" situ. This boy could do no wrong? Distain or not on this forum, the majority of which is critique of Ms Leans stance and work. The dissection of her flaws? And rightly so. Some see beyond this claim of having no reason to lie or manipulate to gain a killer freedom? That Ms Lean would only do as she does on the basis of complete belief in innocence. And that is correct, no one is disputing Ms Leans beliefs. But they are first and foremost, hers. But is that absolute non acceptance of the real possibility that he did indeed kill his girlfriend? Of the strength of the evidence starting first and foremost with this young couple meeting and of no alibi. Does it Stem from an earlier connection? 

And it is still a bit of a puzzler is it not, as to why these two woman became entwined in September 2003, is it important? It is, as it could give reason as to why so much of what Ms Lean says as being flawed? DNA being one of the strongest, the multiple suggestion of everything and all of the rest. Very much personal rather than professional? Not independent. 

A girl is murdered, the neighbourhood are on guard and worried, there is a killer on the lose. Parents are worried for the safety of their children. Ms Lean has two daughters, she has this drive to make sure the police have gotten the right man, this statement however does not apply to Luke Mitchell until much later, until after Luke's arrest. She is at this moment in time the same as any other parent. There is indeed a killer walking the streets. Protection over all else.

By July the 4th a warrant is issued for a search of the Mitchells house, we need not go into reason as to why other than that of suspicion. It is clear at this point that the police were suspicious of Luke Mitchell. There is further attention in the media and by August Luke Mitchell has his face in the papers. No one at this point in the public domain knows if Luke Mitchell killed Jodi Jones only that he was suspect to having done so. They know absolutely nothing of the investigation, of what may have warranted this suspicion and for it to remain upon him. Ms Lean, as with many others no doubt, may very well have wondered, why has he not been arrested yet? A stranger however is more inclined to think of IF's rather than that of certainty. 

Onto being a parent of anyone not just Ms Lean. A claimed stranger, who knew not Luke Mitchell or his mother. Whom therefore would not have an inkling of the investigation of it's merit or otherwise and more importantly as a parent, that Luke Mitchell may well have been his girlfriends killer, he may not have been. That unknown factor of protection amongst strangers. We had a friend of Luke's at the graveyard, someone pointing out this could have been a friend of Luke's. Someone who had reason at this point of the investigation to only have a ? of doubt over their friend, however trust first and foremost. But Ms Lean is a stranger, a mother of two girls. What could possibly have given rise to the following?

That she would claim to have absolute faith and trust in knowing that this stranger was not Jodi Jones killer. That irrespective of personal feeling towards what may have been in the media. They are still claimed strangers. Not to have known each other. There is at this point a shadow of doubt strong enough to not know if he was responsible. Is it feasible at all to suggest that CM got wind of ? what exactly about Ms Leans concerns or feelings of what?, that on the basis of ?, she is claimed to have sought Ms Lean out at her place of work? It could not have been, there is someone who believes/knows my boy is innocent, this is in the weeks shortly after the murder? It could not have been that of someone understanding what CM was going through. Ms Lean had never been in this situation. It most certainly was not on any professional level. Ms Lean had no standing. She was just a mother of two girls working to earn a living. Not a lawyer, not actively known in any field, MOJ's or otherwise. And of course, this is the early days, there is no MOJ. It is within those first 2-3 months.   

Someone pointed out a 'sympathetic ear'  What would have been the need for Ms Mitchell to call upon a stranger? Where were Ms Mitchells family?, friends for this sympathetic ear? The mother of the girl at the graveyard? There would be no need to call upon any stranger or was it a friend? An acquaintance? One does not call upon strangers when one is no doubt guarded against outsiders becoming part of this personal plight? They would ultimately stay with those they have complete trust in? Not a stranger IMO.

Mention recently of that common link, of camping/caravanning? How many holidays had Ms Lean been on with the girls doing what she appears to love. Of being out in the open, away from it all. Camping/caravanning? Ms Lean stayed/stays in a small village and in this same village is Scotts Caravans. Where better to pick up supplies to hire or buy equipment? Whatever this connection was, it was not that of a total stranger IMO. A total stranger does not give cause to have absolute belief, that suspicion upon an another complete stranger of murder is unwarranted, without knowing absolutely anything of the people nor the investigation?

And it does matter?  It does for much of what Ms Lean touts out is so far removed from the actual evidence, the main focus is away from the Mitchells and onto others. Of this constant cry of "Why were these others treated differently?" Rather than that of "Why did suspicion fall upon Luke" Why could he not be eliminated?

There are no appeals dragging these others up before the magistrates from highly professional bodies, from Luke's own defence at the time. From the inability of gaining further defence, the fall outs? Who had access and more to what Ms Lean had/has. From "No Smoke" to "Innocents Betrayed" Very personal writings and feelings of being aggrieved? Personally being aggrieved for this stranger from those very early days of this murder actually happening. Of having the exact same stance of Ms Mitchell - That this boy could do no wrong, everything is down to others, they are to blame?

Good read Parky.
Personally, I have absolutely no doubt they knew each other before the murder.

Offline faithlilly

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #312 on: April 19, 2021, 08:29:16 PM »
Good read Parky.
Personally, I have absolutely no doubt they knew each other before the murder.

Though you have no evidence that they did, do you?

To be fair not that it matters...the facts are the facts.

If you believe that Luke wasn’t suspected from the get go how do you explain his treatment in relation to the other searchers? Both AW and SK had been over the wall, AW had been closer to the body than the others. Were they immediately taken to the police station? Were they asked to wear a white forensic suit while their clothes were forensically examined? Was their DNA taken?
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 Holly Goodhead

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #313 on: April 19, 2021, 09:23:40 PM »
Yes, it covers just LM's case.  I haven't managed to find another book that covers the case.

I think the book is well researched and very informative, although I realise others don't agree.

Sandra Lean's "No Smoke", written some years before, covers LM's case plus others, and so is not anything like as detailed.

Thank you. I'll order a copy and let others know what I think here  8((()*/
Just my opinion of course but Jeremy Bamber is innocent and a couple from UK, unknown to T9, abducted Madeleine McCann - motive unknown.  Was J J murdered as a result of identifying as a goth?

Offline faithlilly

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #314 on: April 19, 2021, 09:32:41 PM »
Thank you. I'll order a copy and let others know what I think here  8((()*/

I’d clear my diary for a few days if I was you, there’s a lot of information to digest in there.
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?