UK Justice Forum

Alleged Miscarriages of Justice => Luke Mitchell and the murder of his teenage girfriend Jodi Jones on 30 June 2003. => Topic started by: John on July 14, 2014, 10:18:26 AM

Title: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: John on July 14, 2014, 10:18:26 AM
Well, knock me down with a feather!!...Sandra Lean gets it wrong again!!

After many long years promoting the 'Luke Mitchell is innocent' agenda, Dr Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton have called it a day and exited from the case.  Has this something to do with what I predicted quite some time ago and that it that the SCCRC have refused to refer the case to Edinburgh's Court of Appeal.

Sandra Leans co admin at Wrongly Accused Person Organsation, Billy Middleton, explains in his latest rendering...

 The road to where things now are for Luke and his case has been a long, difficult and often stressful one for all those who have genuinely believed in and supported him. I say genuinely because, as we know from experience, not everyone who becomes involved in cases such as this have genuine motives. Sandra became involved at a much earlier stage than most, but I don't think anyone with any credibility would suggest she has been anything other than supportive, or that she hasn't tried hard for almost 11 years, at great personal hardship, and often in difficult circumstances, to both help and to expose facts of the case which otherwise would probably still not be known.

Unfortunately, shortly before the SCCRC refusal, at a time when she knew it's decision was imminent, Sandra came to a point whereby she was no longer prepared to carry on and wrote to Luke explaining why. She remains supportive to this day. Anyone involved in the horror of fighting a wrongful conviction will understand the ever present difficulties of the situation.

Luke was merely a child himself when he was incarcerated, now, although he's not been allowed to develop as he should have been, he's a man. What he does now, and the choices he now makes are his alone to make and his responsibility. I wish him well, hope he makes wise choices and is someday successful. For me every day longer will be yet another too long for both him and Jodi to finally get the justice they deserve. However, in the absence of the connection that once existed, and the mandate which went along with it to validate what has been exposed both here on the forum and on his caseblog, WAP is in a difficult position. It is the most sensitive of cases, and the extent and nature of what has been highlighted could only be done in large part due to the fact it has been done on the basis of having access to the supporting documents. Clearly that is no longer the case, and while I had hoped to be able to archive it due to a SCCRC referral, I don't really see how it can remain available.

So while I wish Luke well and hope for a positive outcome, anything which depends on access to his paperwork will have to be taken offline in a week's time roughly. It does not in any way reflect a change in opinion on his case, and if anyone wants to start a topic which isn't notably said to be backed up by case papers they are perfectly free to do so in the general forum area as with any other deserved case providing discussion remains polite, respectful to all concern and dignified.l

Considerable thought has been given to this decision, and it has not been arrived at lightly, but sadly I can't see how, given the nature of the case and all that goes along with it how it can remain now.


www.forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder-general/150/
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: insider on July 14, 2014, 10:48:33 AM
It is being alleged that Corinne Mitchell (Luke's mother) was banned from posting on WAP two years ago and that someone with access to her account had been posting fake comments in her name.  Both Middleton and Lean have refused to answer this accusation and what has followed is a massive falling out.

Middleton has now decided to make some of this public in an attempt to save face but it is too little, too late.  Wrongly Accused Person Org has been shown up once and for all as a sham organisation and will find it difficult to recover from the shame.  There's always the mussel sheds Billy!
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: ActualMat on July 14, 2014, 07:42:39 PM
I think that Sandra Lean can now officially be called - disgraced.
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Mr.Rabbit on August 01, 2014, 03:13:34 PM
Sandra Lean is a bully as well as a liar. I was one of the so called accused, not a shred of evidence against me except a statement from a man who has a severe criminal record that has since came to light. I knew all about it from the start I knew it would eventually catch up with him and Sandra Lean. Anytime I contacted her on the 'Luke Mitchell' is innocent website she got right onto her cronies and I would receive death threats over the phone, be visited n public places by he man with the long and hash criminal record who would make threats against and my family. He even went to my mothers door, she is her Sixties and disabled  just to show me she could be got at! What type of human being does such a thing? He assaulted me in full view of half a dozen people after I had left a comment on Ms.Leans web pag. All of this I reported to the police. Just to set a couple of things straight I never had big cuts on my face the day after the murder I had a tiny scratch is all, he did not drive me to the police station the day after and he never said what amount of money we would get but he did say we would get money if we spoke to the press and get a wee holiday out of it. I never wanted anything to do with it it was sick, the man bullied me. He got a holiday out of it as the daily record accidentally used his name as the suspect he got just over a grand in damages. I have never received anything for the mental anguish myself and family have been through. I think he was merely a puppet in Sandra Leans games which have now came to a head but I'm still stuck with totally untrue accusations against me and haven't even received a sorry let alone anything else. I knew about his criminal past but I never mentioned it, I never spoke to reporters, which he wanted me to. He used to make jokes about it and him and him only ever brought it up as you know it was nearly 4 years before he came forward after a falling out between us, the police didn't take him serious and he gave a high court statement Han is all lies and I have many witness that can back that up. He bullied me after he had went to the police, trying to keep me in line and watch who I spoke to but I just didn't want anything to do with it god I wasn't even sure he was telling the truth about talking to the police cause like I said he used to make jokes about it. If they haughty they were right then how come whenever I questioned Sandra lean she would get right on to him to go and do her dirty work which was harass me. I have a load of witness to prove everything he said is a lie that's why I was never worried. I just think it's shocking that a man can take half truths, 3rd hand stories and just lies then go to the police with this rubbish and before you know it my name is on the 6 o'clock news, in newspapers giving totally false information about me and iv never received any type of closure or apology or anything from the people involved. Maybe karma has just taken it's time he's been exposed for the violent criminal who done jail for armed robbery and Sandra Lean, not for the first time, is wrong. I went through hell and back because of them but I'm not going to waste my life looking for revenge I knew in time it would all come out. Here's to the innocent among us, don't let the b........s grind you down.
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Paranoid Android on August 05, 2014, 03:17:24 AM
Good for you, bud - you've kept a dignified silence throughout, and have been through the mill with everything that's happened. Fair play to you - hope you're well.
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Spanny on August 12, 2014, 09:01:32 PM
Sandra  Lean ? She's the type of person I'm talking about when I say some people do more harm than good in high profile MOJs and her association with the Mitchell case is a great example

Her motive for getting involved in this case goes back to the original case where there might be a case of Mitchell's conviction being overturned . Sandra wasn't having this , no to murderers walking the streets so got all the court papers to put a stop to this only to find there was no evidence whatsoever to convict Mitchell and was obviously innocent

Nice story but not one that never rings true since there's no legal precedent for this . If the appeal court rule the conviction is unsafe you're walking out of court regardless of what outraged mother of Daily Mail land thinks

According to Lean and her WAP website she knows Luke is innocent and she can prove it . A pity she didn't prove it to the appeal court in 2009 and the knockbacked appeal of 2011 . Despite having all this proof she claims to have in private , publically she's left pointing the finger at nearly every male in Dalkeith while clutching at straws such as the polygraph test

Ah yes the polygraph test which isn't used anywhere outside of the Jeremy Kyle Show but didn't Lean proclaiming to the world it proves Corinne and Luke are the most honest people on the planet

As a footnote to the polygraph test the topic crop cropped up in a thread on the Jambos Kickback forum , the unofficial website for fans of Hearts Football club . Hearts being an Edinburgh club it does have many fans in the Dalkeith area and with a couple of pages everyone universally condemned the lie detector test as a gimmick . Strangely at this point two people who had never posted before registered with the site to point out that the police , media , jury and everyone else is wrong to think Mitchell is guilty and if they take the time to visit Sandra's WAP website and buy her book No Smoke they'll find out there's been a worldwide conspiracy against him and he got stiched up . After 15 pages of the forum asking " Where you getting this rubbish that Mitchell is innocent from ? "  only to be told " Sandra Lean knows the truth she's not allowed to go in to details " Dr Sandra Lean herself turned up saying she can answer questions on Luke Mitchell " But I'm not allowed to go in to details " . At this point that int the admin intervened and stated " This is a forum for football fans and not for soapboxing , shrills or peddling wares " and the thread was locked with the implication Dr Sandra Lean were one orboth of these two newly registered members defending Mitchell

As it stands despite claiming for years that Mitchell was innocent Lean has now walked away from the case . So much for all this evidence you had eh Sandra ? I don't suppose you want to tell us why you've changed your mind Sandra ? She has form for backing losers . Simon Hall features in No Smoke and later confessed to the murder and the way Lean Hall's widow afterwards was disgraceful . Adrian Prout was another of her lost causes . At the time I do remember thinking Mitchell was treated disgracefully by the media and police . I still do and the appeal courts and the SCCRC have confirmed this . However no new evidence has been presented and I'm fairly convinced with hindsight that the jury made the correct decision helped in no small part by Lean's hysterical finger pointing and straw clutching

In short it's got to the point where if Lean associates herself with a case I'd be 100 per cent convinced of that person's guilt simply because they're associating themselves with Lean who so far has a failure rate of 100 per cent and can't see how it's possible for her to improve on this

Do yourself a favour Sandra and get yourself a new hobby . No one is interested in hiring Judi Dench or Helen Mirren to star as you in a bio=pic of your life story 

ETA read the forum rules so here's the link to the 15 page jambos kickback thread

http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/110882-luke-mitchell/

Make up your own mind about who Allan M and Consider This might be
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: John on August 14, 2014, 02:04:22 AM
Thanks for the interesting comments guys.  I know exactly what you are talking about Mr Rabbit, your former pal threatened me too some time ago when his name came up on our previous forum.  Apparently he felt having his name plastered all over the internet would not be conducive to his new career.

On another note, I see Billy Middleton has pulled all the Luke Mitchell posts from the Wrongly Accused Person forum on the basis that Sandra no longer holds a Power of Attorney on behalf of Luke Mitchell.  I fail to see the connection since nobody needs a POA to discuss cases in the public domain.  Just another sad excuse if the truth be known. Corinne gave Sandra the boot...end off!   
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Paranoid Android on August 14, 2014, 05:07:15 PM
On another note, I see Billy Middleton has pulled all the Luke Mitchell posts from the Wrongly Accused Person forum on the basis that Sandra no longer holds a Power of Attorney on behalf of Luke Mitchell.  I fail to see the connection since nobody needs a POA to discuss cases in the public domain.  Just another sad excuse if the truth be known. Corinne gave Sandra the boot...end off!

I agree - I don't see the connection either. I would guess that the Luke Mitchell threads have been removed for one of two reasons:

Sandra Lean no longer wishes to be associated with the case; or

The Mitchells no longer wish to be associated with Sandra Lean, and have insisted on the threads being pulled.

For what it's worth, I think Sandra Lean gave everything she had to the cause, and genuinely seemed/seems convinced of Luke Mitchell's innocence.
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Spanny on August 14, 2014, 11:01:10 PM
Any idea what convinced her he was innocent apart from what the rest of the Scottish public read and heard in the lead up and during the trial ?

And this is what gets me about Lean and her followers . For several years she has constantly bawled that Mitchell is innocent , she has all the court papers and evidence that he's innocent and yet all during this time claimed Donald Findley screwed up the entire trial  posted innuendo about the Jones family and other people in the area , clutched at straws claiming Robert Green might have been responsible and came up with the laughable gimmick of having Mitchell and his mother doing a polygraph test knowing fine well it doesn't hold up in court . For someone who is adamant that Mitchell is innocent and claims she has proof she has not revealed a single piece of evidence that he is

Now she's departed from the case she still lamely claims he's innocent but is as coy as to why she's doing it as she was in producing the evidence that Mitchell was innocent

Oh BTW if I'm ever find myself in the unfortunate position  of being on trial for anything can I respectfully ask that Lean , Billy Middleton and Nugnug stay away from my case . Having them fronting a campaign is like having Adolph Hitler in charge of race relations
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Paranoid Android on August 16, 2014, 02:02:01 PM
Any idea what convinced her he was innocent apart from what the rest of the Scottish public read and heard in the lead up and during the trial ?

I can't speak for her, obviously. but i think she claimed that the supposed timeline 'proved' that Mitchell couldn't have done it. Not buying that, myself.

There was also the lack of definite proof of Mitchell's guilt - the evidence used against him was circumstantial.
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: John on August 23, 2014, 11:53:07 PM
The discrepancies between the brothers testimonies was the killer blow imo.  Shane was warned that he would be done for perjury if he lied under oath which sort of put the kibosh on any concocted tale.

I have always said that the two of them could never have been at home at the same time and not known that the other was there.  In any event Shane was on alert for anyone coming into the house as he claimed to have been watching porn on his computer, he certainly didn't want his mother catching him out.

For his part, Luke claimed to be home cooking and burning dinner, not an operation one could undertake without the person upstairs hearing and smelling it.

Basically a load of bull from one of them!
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on October 25, 2017, 08:51:31 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-41528919
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on October 30, 2017, 11:33:50 AM
Here's another of the cases WAP were supporting -


Nicks Letter to his supporters re the Lie detector issue and bullying tactics of Jammi Dodger:

Dear Members,

I know I only wrote a couple of weeks ago but due to an issue that has come up I feel I should explain things. My Mum told me today that someone posted something on the group wall about the “Lie-detector” issue, it’s been going on for a couple of months now, it was put to me that the Sun newspaper wanted to print an article after I passed & after some consideration weighing up all the pro’s & con’s I have declined the offer & since then Jammi Dodger has been on the offensive about doing it even after I explained to him all my issues & concerns so much so he is upsetting my mum, which I’m not having, so now he’s gone public on the group about it, it’s my turn now to go public with my concerns, firstly it’s not & never will be recognised by the british justice system as it would open up all kinds of problems for them, so because it’s not recognised, to get it done it need to be approved by the likes of the home office, justice officials, prison governors & psychology department in the prison & whether they allow it or not one thing is for sure is all my progress goes out of the window & goes down on my file, all the people I’ve mentioned are the same people who decide on my progress through the system & eventually my parole (if no new evidence comes in), so either two things could happen either I could be sent back to the high security prisons or stay here for about 10 years when I’ve already been told that if I behave and keep my head down for 4-5 years I can go to a cat C prison which is where they prepare you for open conditions & release, as a lifer you have to be in an open prison to be considered for release, I lower my risk to the public with the courses I do & they are based on my previous convictions, that’s the only way lifers get released (innocent or guilty ones), that’s the official part of it & now for the personal part of it, I’ve spent over 8 years in prisons that they send the worst of the worst, in this time we have thrown everything into an appeal & I’m still not home, a few years ago my outlook on life was “if I don’t get my appeal in 10 years I would give up on life all together” I’ve been close to doing myself in twice since I’ve been in prison because of that outlook on life & still keep the last letters I wrote to my loved ones in case my head ever went again, because writing them letters was so hard, my outlook changed when I went to Long Lartin, because of a friend of my families who was there, he sat me down & gave me a talk & pulled no punches, he told me “Yes I’ve been dealt a rough card in life & don’t deserve to be in prison but look at the worst outcome of my life, if I get my appeal then it’s great but if I don’t get it & keep my head in prison & do my courses I’ll be home in my forties with a chance to live a bit of life” & then he told me some examples of other people who are worse of than me, if I’m honest he made me look small but I knew it was the truth, he don’t know it but he probably saved my life that day because I’ve changed my whole outlook on my situation & yes in a way I’ve half accepted I might have to do this sentence, the only question is how I do the sentence, one option is don’t conform & spend maybe another 20 years in prison or do it the way I’m doing it by behaving myself, doing the courses as an appellant & at least this way I’m progressing through the system to release & at the same time still appealing, I would understand people may not see it the way I do & may have concerns, but what I would say to them is to understand me you need to have been through the last 8+ years I’ve been through, also to know my innocent campaign is mainly based on evidence & the witnesses that saw Charlotte alive after I was seen with her & the fact is new evidence is the only thing that will get me back to the appeal court & not a lie-detector, it would ruin things in jail for me, all for an article in the Sun, who were one of the papers that wrote terrible things about me in the past.
I would completely understand if anyone wanted to leave the group if they don’t agree with my decision, it would hurt but like I said I would understand, I just had to write this to you all to give you my side of what Jammi Dodger put on the group.
The stuff about the way my outlook used to be may shock people but it’s how I was & the truth….
Sorry it’s all a bit of a downer again.

Take care

Nicky
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=2992.30
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on October 30, 2017, 11:37:30 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2083600/I-asked-fiance-lie-detector-test-didnt-murder-wife--proved-killer.html

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=595.0

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jul/28/justice-on-trial-nick-rose

And another

https://insidetime.org/truth-justice-certainty-and-finality/

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scots-mum-tells-relief-murdering-6414735

"If you’d like to take the mic, or have someone read one of your pieces for you, please contact Graham Robinson or Joy France (links are facebook pages). Alternatively, you can email Billy Middleton (admin@wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk) and he will forward them your information. http://www.false-allegations.org.uk/2014-miscarriage-justice-day-public-meeting/
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Guiltyascharged on June 12, 2019, 02:24:41 PM
its said there was a big falling out between luke and sandra and corine, i dont think luke and sandra have spoken for many years. can anyone shed some light on this?
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on June 23, 2019, 07:20:18 PM

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jul/28/justice-on-trial-nick-rose

https://www.northdevongazette.co.uk/news/charlotte-pinkney-murderer-nicholas-rose-dies-in-prison-1-6065392
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on June 29, 2019, 01:23:42 PM
its said there was a big falling out between luke and sandra and corine, i dont think luke and sandra have spoken for many years. can anyone shed some light on this?

It was reported on 14th April 2014:

“JODI Jones’ killer, Luke Mitchell, has demanded the right to be given Satanic textbooks in prison because of his “religious beliefs”.
Mitchell has reportedly asked for six books, including The Devil’s Notebook and Satan Speaks, after claiming access to occult materials was his human right.
Among the texts is The Satanic Bible, which exhorts the creation of a lawless society where human sacrifice and murder is not just tolerated but encouraged.
The 25-year-old is understood to have made the request to the chaplain of Shotts prison, where he is serving life for murdering Jodi in June 2003. Mitchell’s Satanic links as a teenager were highlighted during his trial.
The Scottish Prison Service is said to be considering the request although it can ban inmates from obtaining books not on the approved list of suppliers.
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/killer-luke-mitchell-demands-satanic-books-in-jail-1-3375463


Then on 16th July 2014
“A CRIMINOLOGIST who spearheaded efforts to overturn Luke Mitchell’s conviction for the murder of his girlfriend Jodi Jones has withdrawn from the campaign to free him.
Dr Sandra Lean, who highlighted his case in her book No Smoke! The Shocking Truth About British Justice, led the battle against Mitchell’s life sentence alongside his mother, Corinne.
Her withdrawal follows a ruling by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which found there were no grounds to challenge the guilty verdict.
Following the report’s publication, Dr Lean admitted it was a “shattering blow” to the long-running campaign to clear 25-year-old Mitchell’s name, but said he would “not give up his fight”.
Sources said Mrs Mitchell had become unhappy with Dr Lean’s involvement in the wake of the SCCRC ruling, which followed two years of investigation by Scotland’s official justice watchdog.
Dr Lean would not comment on any factors behind her departure, adding the “reasons would remain private as a matter of respect”.
Mrs Mitchell confirmed Dr Lean had left, but did not want to comment further.
Dr Lean said: “I really have nothing to say about this. I believe Luke is 100 per cent completely innocent. The reason for my withdrawal will remain private as a matter of respect.”
Dr Lean added she would not be involved with the website and forum set up to promote Mitchell’s cause as “I no longer have power of attorney”.
But a source said: “Mrs Mitchell blames Dr Lean for the SCCRC appeal failing, which is completely wrong. Dr Lean has dedicated ten years of her life to the cause and has done a really good job.
“It’s appalling for her to be treated this way and it’s left the campaign in disarray.”

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/criminologist-withdraws-from-fight-to-free-luke-mitchell-1-3478153

Wonder if the source was Billy Middleton?
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 06, 2019, 01:19:30 PM
16th July 2014
“A CRIMINOLOGIST who spearheaded efforts to overturn Luke Mitchell’s conviction for the murder of his girlfriend Jodi Jones has withdrawn from the campaign to free him.
Dr Sandra Lean, who highlighted his case in her book No Smoke! The Shocking Truth About British Justice, led the battle against Mitchell’s life sentence alongside his mother, Corinne.
Her withdrawal follows a ruling by the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC), which found there were no grounds to challenge the guilty verdict.
Following the report’s publication, Dr Lean admitted it was a “shattering blow” to the long-running campaign to clear 25-year-old Mitchell’s name, but said he would “not give up his fight”.
Sources said Mrs Mitchell had become unhappy with Dr Lean’s involvement in the wake of the SCCRC ruling, which followed two years of investigation by Scotland’s official justice watchdog.
Dr Lean would not comment on any factors behind her departure, adding the “reasons would remain private as a matter of respect”.
Mrs Mitchell confirmed Dr Lean had left, but did not want to comment further.
Dr Lean said: “I really have nothing to say about this. I believe Luke is 100 per cent completely innocent. The reason for my withdrawal will remain private as a matter of respect.”
Dr Lean added she would not be involved with the website and forum set up to promote Mitchell’s cause as “I no longer have power of attorney”.
But a source said: “Mrs Mitchell blames Dr Lean for the SCCRC appeal failing, which is completely wrong. Dr Lean has dedicated ten years of her life to the cause and has done a really good job.
“It’s appalling for her to be treated this way and it’s left the campaign in disarray.”

https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/criminologist-withdraws-from-fight-to-free-luke-mitchell-1-3478153

Wonder if the source was Billy Middleton?

Wrongly Accused Person Organsation, Billy Middleton, explains in his latest rendering...

 The road to where things now are for Luke and his case has been a long, difficult and often stressful one for all those who have genuinely believed in and supported him. I say genuinely because, as we know from experience, not everyone who becomes involved in cases such as this have genuine motives. Sandra became involved at a much earlier stage than most, but I don't think anyone with any credibility would suggest she has been anything other than supportive, or that she hasn't tried hard for almost 11 years, at great personal hardship, and often in difficult circumstances, to both help and to expose facts of the case which otherwise would probably still not be known.

Unfortunately, shortly before the SCCRC refusal, at a time when she knew it's decision was imminent, Sandra came to a point whereby she was no longer prepared to carry on and wrote to Luke explaining why. She remains supportive to this day. Anyone involved in the horror of fighting a wrongful conviction will understand the ever present difficulties of the situation.

Luke was merely a child himself when he was incarcerated, now, although he's not been allowed to develop as he should have been, he's a man. What he does now, and the choices he now makes are his alone to make and his responsibility. I wish him well, hope he makes wise choices and is someday successful. For me every day longer will be yet another too long for both him and Jodi to finally get the justice they deserve. However, in the absence of the connection that once existed, and the mandate which went along with it to validate what has been exposed both here on the forum and on his caseblog, WAP is in a difficult position. It is the most sensitive of cases, and the extent and nature of what has been highlighted could only be done in large part due to the fact it has been done on the basis of having access to the supporting documents. Clearly that is no longer the case, and while I had hoped to be able to archive it due to a SCCRC referral, I don't really see how it can remain available.

So while I wish Luke well and hope for a positive outcome, anything which depends on access to his paperwork will have to be taken offline in a week's time roughly. It does not in any way reflect a change in opinion on his case, and if anyone wants to start a topic which isn't notably said to be backed up by case papers they are perfectly free to do so in the general forum area as with any other deserved case providing discussion remains polite, respectful to all concern and dignified.l

Considerable thought has been given to this decision, and it has not been arrived at lightly, but sadly I can't see how, given the nature of the case and all that goes along with it how it can remain now.


www.forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder-general/150/
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 06, 2019, 01:29:11 PM
Wrongly Accused Person Organsation, Billy Middleton, explains in his latest rendering...

 
Unfortunately, shortly before the SCCRC refusal, at a time when she knew it's decision was imminent, Sandra came to a point whereby she was no longer prepared to carry on and wrote to Luke explaining why. 


Oh dear
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 06, 2019, 11:27:20 PM
Oh dear

@ 36.09 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uK7OVE_5L7Y

Sandra Lean stated: “When the commission refused to refer the case back - I had no idea what else could be done. With a case as strong as we put forward..... ” and I didn’t know what else I could do emotions were running high obviously it was a major blow that they refused to refer it back but I didn’t know where we could go after that..


Billy Middleton stated: “Unfortunately, shortly before the SCCRC refusal, at a time when she knew it's decision was imminent, Sandra came to a point whereby she was no longer prepared to carry on and wrote to Luke explaining why.
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 07, 2019, 03:46:55 PM
Billy Middleton stated: “Unfortunately, shortly before the SCCRC refusal, at a time when she knew it's decision was imminent, Sandra came to a point whereby she was no longer prepared to carry on and wrote to Luke explaining why. 

“no longer prepared to carry on” doesn’t seem to fit in with what’s been claimed elsewhere around the time?

prepared
adjective UK ​  /prɪˈpeəd/ US ​  /prɪˈperd/

 ready to deal with a situation:
When she called on me, I wasn't prepared.
They were prepared for the worst.

made earlier:
The spokesperson read a prepared statement.

be prepared to do sth​
to be willing, or happy to agree to do something:
Would you be prepared to help me get things ready for the party?
People are not really prepared to talk about these kinds of personal problems.



She was prepared before but no longer prepared at that time? What changed? What happened around that time?

Why was she longer willing or happy?

Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Parky41 on July 09, 2019, 09:57:48 AM
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.4560.html

(Luke’s clothing, am I correct in saying this was meant to be the same clothes he wore to school that day that he was still in that night? If so who corroborated this?) Quote Bullseye.


[Yes. again, from memory, there were some witnesses from school who described those clothes, then the boys he was out playing with in the early evening also described those  clothes.

There are 30 - 40 boxes of documents. When they were returned from the SCCRC, the papers were just chucked in wily-nily and have never been properly sorted ever since. It will take me a long time to sort them all into the sort of order that would allow me to access specific papers quickly. I know what's there because it was me who sorted them before they went to the Commission in the first place.]


Were the 30-40? boxes of documents in their "wily-nily" state, handed into MOJO as such? Ms Lean visited MOJO offices at least once or twice a week, claiming she was the only person who accessed the files whilst there.
What did she do with the paper work, over this lengthy period of time, if not organize it into order? Was Ms Mitchell helping her with the files? Just a thought. Another thought being (working around response here) Would memory, of a case studied for 16yrs, books written around and so forth, not have information of importance steadfast in memory. 
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 09, 2019, 10:49:41 AM
Well, knock me down with a feather!!...Sandra Lean gets it wrong again!!

After many long years promoting the 'Luke Mitchell is innocent' agenda, Dr Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton have called it a day and exited from the case.  Has this something to do with what I predicted quite some time ago and that it that the SCCRC have refused to refer the case to Edinburgh's Court of Appeal.

Sandra Leans co admin at Wrongly Accused Person Organsation, Billy Middleton, explains in his latest rendering...

 The road to where things now are for Luke and his case has been a long, difficult and often stressful one for all those who have genuinely believed in and supported him. I say genuinely because, as we know from experience, not everyone who becomes involved in cases such as this have genuine motives. Sandra became involved at a much earlier stage than most, but I don't think anyone with any credibility would suggest she has been anything other than supportive, or that she hasn't tried hard for almost 11 years, at great personal hardship, and often in difficult circumstances, to both help and to expose facts of the case which otherwise would probably still not be known.

Unfortunately, shortly before the SCCRC refusal, at a time when she knew it's decision was imminent, Sandra came to a point whereby she was no longer prepared to carry on and wrote to Luke explaining why. She remains supportive to this day. Anyone involved in the horror of fighting a wrongful conviction will understand the ever present difficulties of the situation.

Luke was merely a child himself when he was incarcerated, now, although he's not been allowed to develop as he should have been, he's a man. What he does now, and the choices he now makes are his alone to make and his responsibility. I wish him well, hope he makes wise choices and is someday successful. For me every day longer will be yet another too long for both him and Jodi to finally get the justice they deserve. However, in the absence of the connection that once existed, and the mandate which went along with it to validate what has been exposed both here on the forum and on his caseblog, WAP is in a difficult position. It is the most sensitive of cases, and the extent and nature of what has been highlighted could only be done in large part due to the fact it has been done on the basis of having access to the supporting documents. Clearly that is no longer the case, and while I had hoped to be able to archive it due to a SCCRC referral, I don't really see how it can remain available.

So while I wish Luke well and hope for a positive outcome, anything which depends on access to his paperwork will have to be taken offline in a week's time roughly. It does not in any way reflect a change in opinion on his case, and if anyone wants to start a topic which isn't notably said to be backed up by case papers they are perfectly free to do so in the general forum area as with any other deserved case providing discussion remains polite, respectful to all concern and dignified.l

Considerable thought has been given to this decision, and it has not been arrived at lightly, but sadly I can't see how, given the nature of the case and all that goes along with it how it can remain now.


www.forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder-general/150/

”although he’s not been allowed to develop as he should have been”

Who’s he blaming here? Corrine Mitchell? The prison? Luke?

What is known about Luke Mitchell’s development at 14 nearly 15?

What was it the police said about him, yet Corrine Mitchell has publicly claimed her 14/15 year old son was more intelligent than the police? How did she arrive at this perception?

What is Corrine Mitchell’s understanding of how a child develops; in particular - socially and emotionally.

For example, she claimed before meeting [Name removed], Luke spent much time with his pony and would often go out riding with her. How did this impact on him socially and emotionally?
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 09, 2019, 11:43:55 AM
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.4560.html

(Luke’s clothing, am I correct in saying this was meant to be the same clothes he wore to school that day that he was still in that night? If so who corroborated this?) Quote Bullseye.


[Yes. again, from memory, there were some witnesses from school who described those clothes, then the boys he was out playing with in the early evening also described those  clothes.

There are 30 - 40 boxes of documents. When they were returned from the SCCRC, the papers were just chucked in wily-nily and have never been properly sorted ever since. It will take me a long time to sort them all into the sort of order that would allow me to access specific papers quickly. I know what's there because it was me who sorted them before they went to the Commission in the first place.]


Were the 30-40? boxes of documents in their "wily-nily" state, handed into MOJO as such? Ms Lean visited MOJO offices at least once or twice a week, claiming she was the only person who accessed the files whilst there.
What did she do with the paper work, over this lengthy period of time, if not organize it into order? Was Ms Mitchell helping her with the files? Just a thought. Another thought being (working around response here) Would memory, of a case studied for 16yrs, books written around and so forth, not have information of importance steadfast in memory.

Re Luke’s clothing - this is a crucial aspect of the case.

We don’t know if he changed after school, nor in between taking Mia out for a walk between 9pm and when he received a text from [Name removed]’s Mum. We don’t know if he hid items of clothing that day nor whether any were burnt in the garden that night.

Excerpt from “No Smoke”
“Furthermore, witnesses who claimed to have noticed “burning smells” coming from the garden that evening reported these as being “between 6.30pm and 7.30pm” and later “some time around 10pm.

(Didn’t Corrine and Shane have a fire that night?)
[19] There was evidence that the appellant had owned and worn a parka-style jacket in the months prior to the murder, that he was wearing such a jacket early in the evening of the deceased's murder and that no such jacket was found when the appellant's home was searched on 4 July 2003. The Crown sought to link this with evidence that a log burner in the back garden of the appellant's home was used on 30 June at around 1830 - 1930 and later, at around 2200, and with evidence of an unusual smell emanating from it. https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judgment?id=e2988aa6-8980-69d2-b500-ff0000d74aa7

Ashes from the log burner could have been emptied at any time up to when the house was first searched. I find it difficult to imagine how one family liaison officer could watch all three Mitchell’s at the same time. Plus Shane was left behind when the police took Luke to the station.

Although she was assigned to the family the following day, this didn’t include moving in with them. She wasn’t with them at all times. Which still left time for any bulky items not burned down in the fire to have been removed and discarded elsewhere.
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 09, 2019, 11:59:44 AM
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.4560.html

(Luke’s clothing, am I correct in saying this was meant to be the same clothes he wore to school that day that he was still in that night? If so who corroborated this?) Quote Bullseye.


[Yes. again, from memory, there were some witnesses from school who described those clothes, then the boys he was out playing with in the early evening also described those  clothes.

There are 30 - 40 boxes of documents. When they were returned from the SCCRC, the papers were just chucked in wily-nily and have never been properly sorted ever since. It will take me a long time to sort them all into the sort of order that would allow me to access specific papers quickly. I know what's there because it was me who sorted them before they went to the Commission in the first place.]


Were the 30-40? boxes of documents in their "wily-nily" state, handed into MOJO as such? Ms Lean visited MOJO offices at least once or twice a week, claiming she was the only person who accessed the files whilst there.
What did she do with the paper work, over this lengthy period of time, if not organize it into order? Was Ms Mitchell helping her with the files? Just a thought. Another thought being (working around response here) Would memory, of a case studied for 16yrs, books written around and so forth, not have information of importance steadfast in memory.

Good points re the 30-40 boxes Parky (highlighted in blue)

Personally I would have ensured I had COPIES of anything and everything I’d submitted to the CCRC in case anything were lost during said review. The CCRC would have received one set and I’d have kept an identical second set.

Did Sandra Lean hand over 30-40 boxes to the CCRC and not keep a copy of what she/they had submitted?

Sandra Leans co admin at Wrongly Accused Person Organsation, Billy Middleton, explains in his latest rendering...

 
Unfortunately, shortly before the SCCRC refusal, at a time when she knew it's decision was imminent, Sandra came to a point whereby she was no longer prepared to carry on and wrote to Luke explaining why. She remains supportive to this day. Anyone involved in the horror of fighting a wrongful conviction will understand the ever present difficulties of the situation.
 
www.forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/luke-mitchell-wrongly-convicted-of-murder-general/150/

According to Billy Middleton Sandra Lean wrote to Luke before the SCCRC’s refusal.

What happened to her notes on the case and all other case related paperwork? Was it given to Corrine Mitchell? Did Luke or Corrine Mitchell ask for it back?

However, last month Mitchell's mother Corinne blasted MOJO for "doing nothing" since taking on her son's case and recovered his case files from their office
https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1439054-miscarriages-of-justice-charity-stripped-of-lottery-funding/

Mitchell's mum Corinne is calling for the knife to be tested, and yesterday she removed files from the Glasgow office of the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation (Mojo) claiming they hadn't done enough.
She says that she is trying to find a new lawyer to launch a fresh appeal with the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC).
Mojo bosses said to the Record that they were only providing "space and facilities" and "some administrative and casework support" – and never said they would prepare an application to the SCCRC.

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/luke-mitchell-supporters-want-kitchen-16444615

(Note: Underlined above)

Did Sandra Lean also write to Corrine Mitchell or ONLY to Luke? Because to this day I do not understand why she chose to contact me following the revealing of Simon Halls guilt and subsequent confession? Why choose to contact the messenger? She claimed to have spoken to others, who’s cases she highlighted in “No Smoke” yet chose to not write to Simon Hall?

Stephanie also thinks No Smoke should have been withdrawn or revised. I understand Stephanie’s right to feel that way. While she is also entitled to ask questions, I am under no obligation to answer them. However, on this occasion, I choose to address a couple of matters raised by Stephanie for the benefit of others who may be interested.
I spoke with many people (including others whose cases were mentioned or discussed) about the question of withdrawing the book. Not one of them wanted the book withdrawn. There were discussions about possible revisions which would, of necessity, have taken a great deal of time and effort - time and effort that I was not capable of devoting to the matter at that time.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382961.html#msg382961

I don’t understand her reasoning?

Wouldn’t basic logic suggest going direct to the source?

She goes on:
We will never know if Simon Hall’s confession was genuine, or the confused utterings of a crumbling sanity. The decision about whether to take up, or continue to carry, the baton for claimed Miscarriages of Justice is a matter for the person deciding to do so, and their own conscience.” You see, to this day, we have only Stephanie’s word about the circumstances leading up to the confession, .......

She stated this in January 2017, yet back in 2014 she claimed to me, “I’ve wasted 10 years of my life!” amongst other disclosures.

This self serving stance was a quite obvious strategic move designed to achieve HER long-term and overall aim, which for me is not grounded in truth-seeking or fact finding - its game planning.

Following the news MOJO Scotland are being investigated by the governments criminal justice division

Lean told STV News: "Part of the problem was the promises being made were not being kept. The case review itself was something of a farce. There was no central strategy. There was no planned route to how this review was going to take place. https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1439054-miscarriages-of-justice-charity-stripped-of-lottery-funding/

Following my experiences and having learned I was conned by Simon Hall;

In order to be a con artist you have to take advantage of other people's belief in you.”

Why We All Fall for Con Artists
Con artists surround us: Bernie Madoff. Nigerian princes. Psychics. But we never think we’ll fall prey to their wiles. We can spot a gimmick a mile away, while those who become victims are foolish, or greedy, or both. Well, that’s not quite the case. If the NSA can be hacked, so can the average — or even exceptional — human mind. Our capacity to trust, which makes us successful, also makes us vulnerable — as does the natural bias to overrate our own bullshit detection.

Are certain types of people more skilled or motivated in conning?
In my book I talk about the dark triad of traits: psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism. Any of those can predispose someone to being a con artist. In order to be a con artist you have to take advantage of other people’s belief in you, and psychopaths don’t really have a conscience, so it’s much easier for them to take that step. Narcissism, you have to have an overinflated sense of self in order to rationalize conning other people, especially if you’re not a psychopath. If you’re someone who feels emotion normally, narcissism will protect you, because you say, “Well, I deserve it.” And finally, Machiavellianism is a textbook definition of a con artist, because it’s someone who is like Machiavelli’s “ideal prince,” someone who uses the tools of persuasion and deception and connivance to get what he wants. The ends justify the means. But a lot of it, as with so many things in psychology, is a meeting of predisposition and opportunity.
https://www.thecut.com/2016/01/why-we-all-fall-for-con-artists.html
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 09, 2019, 02:26:13 PM
Good points re the 30-40 boxes Parky (highlighted in blue)

Personally I would have ensured I had COPIES of anything and everything I’d submitted to the CCRC in case anything were lost during said review. The CCRC would have received one set and I’d have kept an identical second set.

Did Sandra Lean hand over 30-40 boxes to the CCRC and not keep a copy of what she/they had submitted?

According to Billy Middleton Sandra Lean wrote to Luke before the SCCRC’s refusal.

What happened to her notes on the case and all other case related paperwork? Was it given to Corrine Mitchell? Did Luke or Corrine Mitchell ask for it back?

However, last month Mitchell's mother Corinne blasted MOJO for "doing nothing" since taking on her son's case and recovered his case files from their office
https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1439054-miscarriages-of-justice-charity-stripped-of-lottery-funding/

Mitchell's mum Corinne is calling for the knife to be tested, and yesterday she removed files from the Glasgow office of the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation (Mojo) claiming they hadn't done enough.
She says that she is trying to find a new lawyer to launch a fresh appeal with the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC).
Mojo bosses said to the Record that they were only providing "space and facilities" and "some administrative and casework support" – and never said they would prepare an application to the SCCRC.

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/luke-mitchell-supporters-want-kitchen-16444615

(Note: Underlined above)

Did Sandra Lean also write to Corrine Mitchell or ONLY to Luke? Because to this day I do not understand why she chose to contact me following the revealing of Simon Halls guilt and subsequent confession? Why choose to contact the messenger? She claimed to have spoken to others, who’s cases she highlighted in “No Smoke” yet chose to not write to Simon Hall?

Stephanie also thinks No Smoke should have been withdrawn or revised. I understand Stephanie’s right to feel that way. While she is also entitled to ask questions, I am under no obligation to answer them. However, on this occasion, I choose to address a couple of matters raised by Stephanie for the benefit of others who may be interested.
I spoke with many people (including others whose cases were mentioned or discussed) about the question of withdrawing the book. Not one of them wanted the book withdrawn. There were discussions about possible revisions which would, of necessity, have taken a great deal of time and effort - time and effort that I was not capable of devoting to the matter at that time.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382961.html#msg382961

I don’t understand her reasoning?

Wouldn’t basic logic suggest going direct to the source?

She goes on:
We will never know if Simon Hall’s confession was genuine, or the confused utterings of a crumbling sanity. The decision about whether to take up, or continue to carry, the baton for claimed Miscarriages of Justice is a matter for the person deciding to do so, and their own conscience.” You see, to this day, we have only Stephanie’s word about the circumstances leading up to the confession, .......

She stated this in January 2017, yet back in 2014 she claimed to me, “I’ve wasted 10 years of my life!” amongst other disclosures.

This self serving stance was a quite obvious strategic move designed to achieve HER long-term and overall aim, which for me is not grounded in truth-seeking or fact finding - its game planning.

Following the news MOJO Scotland are being investigated by the governments criminal justice division

Lean told STV News: "Part of the problem was the promises being made were not being kept. The case review itself was something of a farce. There was no central strategy. There was no planned route to how this review was going to take place. https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1439054-miscarriages-of-justice-charity-stripped-of-lottery-funding/

Following my experiences and having learned I was conned by Simon Hall;

In order to be a con artist you have to take advantage of other people's belief in you.”

Why We All Fall for Con Artists
Con artists surround us: Bernie Madoff. Nigerian princes. Psychics. But we never think we’ll fall prey to their wiles. We can spot a gimmick a mile away, while those who become victims are foolish, or greedy, or both. Well, that’s not quite the case. If the NSA can be hacked, so can the average — or even exceptional — human mind. Our capacity to trust, which makes us successful, also makes us vulnerable — as does the natural bias to overrate our own bullshit detection.

Are certain types of people more skilled or motivated in conning?
In my book I talk about the dark triad of traits: psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism. Any of those can predispose someone to being a con artist. In order to be a con artist you have to take advantage of other people’s belief in you, and psychopaths don’t really have a conscience, so it’s much easier for them to take that step. Narcissism, you have to have an overinflated sense of self in order to rationalize conning other people, especially if you’re not a psychopath. If you’re someone who feels emotion normally, narcissism will protect you, because you say, “Well, I deserve it.” And finally, Machiavellianism is a textbook definition of a con artist, because it’s someone who is like Machiavelli’s “ideal prince,” someone who uses the tools of persuasion and deception and connivance to get what he wants. The ends justify the means. But a lot of it, as with so many things in psychology, is a meeting of predisposition and opportunity.
https://www.thecut.com/2016/01/why-we-all-fall-for-con-artists.html

”There were discussions about possible revisions which would, of necessity, have taken a great deal of time and effort - time and effort that I was not capable of devoting to the matter at that time”

”Time and effort” to write a new book but no ”time and effort” to revise an old one?

WHY? Why would someone choose to allow errors in their reasoning to stand without correction and choose to carry those errors of reasoning forward, presumably in the hope no one would notice? What type of person would make a conscious choice to do this?

Why choose to carry on regardless knowing mistakes have been exposed and have not been corrected?

Articles of interest:

Snowball lie
A lie or deception that takes on a life of its own, spiraling out of the control of the ones who started it and often mutating in the process. What distinguishes a Snowball Lie from a "Fawlty Towers" Plot lie is that it attracts other characters to keep it alive and expand it, either by explicitly furthering the deception for their own purposes or by sincerely buying into it and carrying it on in the honest belief that it is real — or to avoid being embarrassed by their "ignorance" or "inexperience".
Usually a Snowball Lie will eventually grow to a point where it will collapse, either under the weight of its internal contradictions or after some insightful person Pulls The Thread on it. Sometimes, though, a perfect Snowball Lie will show no signs of ever stopping, and its creators will find themselves forced to kill it — with varying degrees of success, and varying degrees of repercussions to themselves. In particularly ironic situations, the Snowball Lie can become an unstoppable juggernaut that displaces the truth and becomes a new "truth" in its own right.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SnowballLie

Neuroscientists show how tiny fibs snowball into big lies
A little dishonesty goes a long way. Scientists who studied the brain activity of people who told small lies to benefit themselves found that these fibs appeared to pave the way to telling whoppers later.
The findings, published in the journal Nature Neuroscience, demonstrate how self-serving lies can escalate, and offer a window into the processes in the brain at work.
It’s commonly held wisdom that small transgressions often lead to bigger and bigger ones, study co-author Tali Sharot of University College London said in a news briefing.
“Whether it’s evading tax, infidelity, doping in sports, making up data in science or financial fraud, deceivers often recall how small acts of dishonesty snowballed over time and they suddenly found themselves committing quite large crimes,” Sharot said.
The researchers suspected this had to do with a biological process known as emotional adaptation, where over time the brain responds less and less strongly to a repeated stimulus.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/if-you-tell-little-lies-your-brain-may-get-used-to-it-and-let-you-easily-tell-big-ones/2016/10/28/eeedfc3a-9b9f-11e6-9980-50913d68eacb_story.html?utm_term=.4de6b37d7e8e

Lying as a skill-The development of deception in children
https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=eHV_8YC_NL0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA271&dq=the+snowball+effect+and+deception&ots=78yZTicLjM&sig=IlxrURpkHqfuTij3qNgAAVd48jw#v=onepage&q&f=false

The lies we tell and what they say about us
http://oro.open.ac.uk/34401/1/JU%2CLK%2CLFF.2011.pdf

“And so, I would simply revise the book to reflect the known facts, as they currently stand.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382961.html#msg382961

What about the known facts of Luke Mitchell’s movements on the night [Name removed] was murdered?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10768.msg544394#msg544394

Excerpt from “No Smoke”
Given that there were no positive sightings of Jodi that evening, there is no proof of what time she left the house. When police later claimed that they were interested in Luke because he had been “the last person to see her alive, and the first to find her dead,” they appear to have missed this critical factor? In an interesting display of double standards, the police accept, without corroboration, the word of one mother, but not another! Similarly, there is nothing to prove that Mr Ovens told Luke that Jodi had “left to meet him,” except Mr Ovens own contention that this is so. Had he said, “Jodi’s gone out,” or “Jodi’s not here,” the whole insinuation surrounding the reasons for Luke not calling back collapses.
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 09, 2019, 03:24:15 PM
Were the 30-40? boxes of documents in their "wily-nily" state, handed into MOJO as such? Ms Lean visited MOJO offices at least once or twice a week, claiming she was the only person who accessed the files whilst there.
What did she do with the paper work, over this lengthy period of time, if not organize it into order? Was Ms Mitchell helping her with the files? Just a thought. Another thought being (working around response here) Would memory, of a case studied for 16yrs, books written around and so forth, not have information of importance steadfast in memory.

I wonder if Corrine Mitchell organised for the 30-40 boxes to be handed to MOJO after requesting them from the CCRC?

Her comment to James English about apparently not being able to watch Luke’s lie detector test, because it reminded her of a death row inmate or something or other, could suggest a possible dissociative state.

Dissociation as avoidance coping usually happens because of a traumatic event. Being powerless to do anything to change or stop a traumatic event may lead people to disconnect from the situation to cope with feelings of helplessness, fear or pain. Dissociation can help people get through to the end of the traumatic experience. People who dissociate during trauma are more likely to develop a pattern of dissociating as a coping strategy.
https://depts.washington.edu/hcsats/PDF/TF-%20CBT/pages/7%20Trauma%20Focused%20CBT/Dissociation-Information.pdf

And if, in a dissociative state, I would imagine if would have been made worse at that time by the fact her and Luke no longer had anyone fighting their cause?

And following her public attack on MOJO and Donald Findlay etc it’s far to assume they’ve burned many, if not all bridges, apart from Sandra Lean?

But why choose to go back to Sandra Lean?

Would memory, of a case studied for 16yrs, books written around and so forth, not have information of importance steadfast in memory.”

I’d have thought so but then I’m basing that on my cognitions. (I believe I’ve got a memory like an elephant.) 8(0(*


cognition
/kɒɡˈnɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses
.

Is It True That Elephants Never Forget
”Elephants are incredible creatures. The largest land mammals on earth, they show a wide range of behavioral and emotional patterns in their up-to-60-year lifespans. They grieve over the bodies of dead herd members, and can even recognize their own reflections in a mirror. And, of course, there's that old saying: "Elephants never forget." While it may be an exaggeration, there's more truth to the adage than you might realize.

In the wild, an elephant’s memory is key to its survival—and its herd’s. Each herd has a matriarchal structure, with one older female in charge. When younger males in the group reach sexual maturity—usually around 14 years of age—they leave the herd to roam solo or occasionally form groups with other males. Proof of elephants' long memories lies in their behavior: When confronted with an unfamiliar elephant, matriarchs will huddle in defensive positions because they realize that those elephants could pose a threat to the herd's safety.

Science has also proven that elephants have great memories. In 2007, researchers at the University of Saint Andrews in Scotland placed urine samples in front of female elephants at the Amboseli National Park in Kenya; according to Scientific American, the elephants "acted up" when they smelled urine that didn't come from an elephant in their herd. The researchers concluded that elephants can recognize and track as many as 30 of their companions. "Imagine taking your family to a crowded department store and the Christmas sales are on," said psychologist Richard Byrne, one of the scientists who participated in the study. "What a job to keep track of where four or five family members are. These elephants are doing it with 30 traveling-mates." Elephants “almost certainly know every [member] in their group,” Byrne said, and exhibit cognitive abilities “far in advance of anything other animals have been shown to have.”

Elephants don't just remember companions they've spent long stretches of time with, either. A pair of captive elephants have shown that these animals can recognize other friendly elephants even when they had only spent short periods of time together. At The Elephant Sanctuary—a non-profit organization based in Hohenwald, Tennessee, that is the U.S.'s largest natural-habitat refuge developed specifically for endangered elephants—in 1999, an elephant named Jenny became very animated when a new elephant named Shirley arrived. After looking into the animals’ backgrounds, workers at the Sanctuary found that the two had performed with the same circus for only a few months—22 years earlier.

Their superb memories help elephants stay alive in ways that go beyond just recognizing threats. Matt Lewis, a Senior Program Officer with the World Wildlife Fund’s Species Conservation Program, tells mental_floss that one of the best examples of elephant cognition “comes from desert-adapted elephants, where the matriarchs remember where reliable water can be found and are able to guide their herds to water over very long distances, and over the span of many years. This is a pretty clear indication that elephants have a great ability to remember details about their spatial environment for a very long time.” Studies have also shown matriarchs who have lived through dry spells before will lead their herds to more fertile land, while younger matriarchs who haven't experienced a drought are more likely to stay put.

The elephants are able to use their whopping 10.5-pound brains to encode identification and survival details, imprinting the key data to their memory to be recalled later. But an elephant's amazing memory comes only with age and experience—and older, larger elephants are often a target of hunters. “The tragedy," says Lewis, "is that when one of these [elephants] is lost to poaching, the information dies with her,” leaving the rest of the herd at a disadvantage—and having severe consequences for the species as a whole.

http://mentalfloss.com/article/52381/it-true-elephants-never-forget

the information dies with her” (reminds me of Sandra Leans comment to James English about why she claimed to have written a second book)

Would memory, of a case studied for 16yrs, books written around and so forth, not have information of importance steadfast in memory.”

Q - How many times over the years has Sandra Lean said she needs to check her notes, check the case papers etc? Imo her actions would suggest her memory recall is poor or lacking for some reason?

Recall in memory refers to the mental process of retrieval of information from the past. Along with encoding and storage, it is one of the three core processes of memory. There are three main types of recall: free recall, cued recall and serial recall. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_(memory)
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 10, 2019, 04:32:44 PM
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.4560.html

(Luke’s clothing, am I correct in saying this was meant to be the same clothes he wore to school that day that he was still in that night? If so who corroborated this?) Quote Bullseye.


[Yes. again, from memory, there were some witnesses from school who described those clothes, then the boys he was out playing with in the early evening also described those  clothes.

There are 30 - 40 boxes of documents. When they were returned from the SCCRC, the papers were just chucked in wily-nily and have never been properly sorted ever since. It will take me a long time to sort them all into the sort of order that would allow me to access specific papers quickly. I know what's there because it was me who sorted them before they went to the Commission in the first place.]


Were the 30-40? boxes of documents in their "wily-nily" state, handed into MOJO as such? Ms Lean visited MOJO offices at least once or twice a week, claiming she was the only person who accessed the files whilst there.
What did she do with the paper work, over this lengthy period of time, if not organize it into order? Was Ms Mitchell helping her with the files? Just a thought. Another thought being (working around response here) Would memory, of a case studied for 16yrs, books written around and so forth, not have information of importance steadfast in memory.

Do you think the CJS/SCCRC are aware of Sandra Leans paltering?

Paltering increases the odds of not reaching an agreement at the bargaining table and can greatly harm one’s reputation if the counterpart finds out about the deception — as it often happens after the fact.

It’s difficult for negotiators to realize that the world really is small,” Gino says. “When we use deception in negotiations, oftentimes the other side finds out. If that’s the case, the reputation could be harmed to the point that you’re unlikely to engage in negotiations with the same person. We’re so focused on the short term, we don’t think this through enough.”

https://hbr.org/2016/10/theres-a-word-for-using-truthful-facts-to-deceive-paltering

What knowledge do you think they gained from the way in which she presented Luke Mitchell’s submissions?

Using the truth to mislead (paltering) feels less bad than lying, but will cost you in the long run
Paltering then, is a form of deception that’s effective at actively leading other parties to false conclusions, just like straight-out lying. Perpetrators can enjoy a sense of plausible deniability, as the statements are technically true, but the harm they cause to their relationships is no less palpable.
https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/01/11/paltering-feels-less-bad-than-lying-but-will-cost-you-in-the-long-run/
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Parky41 on July 10, 2019, 09:46:20 PM
Do you think the CJS/SCCRC are aware of Sandra Leans paltering?
Quote

Having all documentation, the ability to gain weight through paltering is removed. Their decision based on their conclusion of 'all' the facts and not of theories. Referral subsequently refused. Experienced, legal bodies making the submission would have been a better avenue of choice. IMO.

Paltering in itself, will to a point, gain what it seeks with those who have no access to 'all' the facts of any case. If blind trust is put in the person/s putting it out. Those who cry, "we know everything" we can back it up IF required to do so leaves an open ended 'get out clause' Produce what I can, when I can, if legally I can or permitted to do so.  Thus if it doesn't exist, the probability of finding out the non existence is highly unlikely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK7OVE_5L7Y&lc=z23ciztb3xvqwj1at04t1aokg4uwqqfrvpvevcqnyw1pbk0h00410.1561985025591331

Ms Leans comment of "Why do they feel the need to embellish stories, or just make up stories, fed into the swirling mass of misinformation"


Why indeed?  Double edged sword again?
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 06:39:21 AM
Quote
14th July 2014
Wrongly Accused Person Organsation, Billy Middleton, explains in his latest rendering...


Unfortunately, shortly before the SCCRC refusal, at a time when she knew it's decision was imminent, Sandra came to a point whereby she was no longer prepared to carry on and wrote to Luke explaining why. 

Did she recognise (As I eventually did re Simon Hall) she’d been the one doing all the work and Luke Mitchell wasn’t pulling his weight?

Did the content of the below articles, for example, trigger her into writing to him?

Was she annoyed with him for showing his true colours?

Was HIS behaviour perceived as “a slap in the face?”

14th April 2014
Killer Luke Mitchell demands Satanic books in jail
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/killer-luke-mitchell-demands-satanic-books-in-jail-1-3375463

12th July 2014
Sordid jail letters from
 Luke Mitchell have opened a window into the warped mind of Jodi Jones’s murderer
Mitchell wrote the letters from Polmont Young Offenders Institution after falling headlong into a honeytrap,
The 16-year-old he believed he was writing to was in fact an undercover journalist investigating the workings
of his mind.
Mitchell wrote his letters in 2008 but they have never been published.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-sleazy-letters-brutal-3845609

In 2008 he would have been around 19-20 years old?  “although he’s not been allowed to develop as he should have been” (Billy Middleton) http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4792.msg544349#msg544349

Did she wonder if she was being duped yet again?

I ask because of this:
"I refer to your recent communications with me, your posts on the Bamber forum, and our previous exchanges.

While I appreciate that fighting a MOJ is an uphill struggle, and a steep learning curve, there are some "mistakes" which cannot be explained as ignorance, enthusiastic but misguided belief, or any of the other well trodden routes most people take on their journey towards justice.

I personally believe that your recent online behaviour, the way you handled Simon's confession to the other burglary, and the consequent attacks of Shaun and Stephanie Bon have all been detrimental to public support for Simon. The letter, supposedly from Simon, was a disgraceful slap in the face to many, many people who have tried to help Simon over the years.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg384705.html#msg384705

What Sandra Lean perceived as “mistakes” was in fact Simon Halls guilt being exposed. His true colours were being laid bare for all to see.

In 2012 it was stated here: http://www.optimumadvocates.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/lie-detector-tests-article.pdf
37. As for the uploading of the test footage into the public domain, it seems that no prison rules were broken and Luke Mitchell does have a post-conviction right to freedom of expression.

Yet Corrine Mitchell claimed the same year:

It’s only right that he should finally have this opportunity to have his say.”

This is the first time Luke has been allowed to talk. He wasn’t even allowed to take the stand at the trial. It gives the public the chance to see the real Luke after all of the made-up rubbish in the tabloids.”
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/killer-luke-mitchell-breaks-silence-with-letter-in-own-words-1-2279505

It doesn’t add up!

Snowball lie
A lie or deception that takes on a life of its own, spiraling out of the control of the ones who started it and often mutating in the process. What distinguishes a Snowball Lie from a "Fawlty Towers" Plot lie is that it attracts other characters to keep it alive and expand it, either by explicitly furthering the deception for their own purposes or by sincerely buying into it and carrying it on in the honest belief that it is real — or to avoid being embarrassed by their "ignorance" or "inexperience".
Usually a Snowball Lie will eventually grow to a point where it will collapse, either under the weight of its internal contradictions or after some insightful person Pulls The Thread on it. Sometimes, though, a perfect Snowball Lie will show no signs of ever stopping, and its creators will find themselves forced to kill it — with varying degrees of success, and varying degrees of repercussions to themselves. In particularly ironic situations, the Snowball Lie can become an unstoppable juggernaut that displaces the truth and becomes a new "truth" in its own right.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SnowballLie

Has the Luke Mitchell case become an unstoppable juggernaut as referred to above?

Why hasn’t Luke Mitchell used his right to freedom of expression for all these years and instead allowed others to do his bidding for him?
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 11:35:13 AM
Lithium states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452433.html#msg452433
Why does Shane tell people his brother's guilty. The same Shane who destroyed his alibi. The same one who section himself just before his brother was arrested with it.

Sounds to me like someone who was struggling with giving the false alibi after pressure from his mum.

We need to hear from him tbh.


What’s interesting with this is similarly Simon Halls brother also allegedly section himself in the lead up to his brothers murder trial?

I’ve long suspected this was linked to the fact he was terrified he’d be called to give evidence at his brothers murder trial and when cross examined was scared he’d land his brother right in it (As he eventually did in 2012) and indeed himself.
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 03:10:38 PM
Gordo30 states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452479.html#msg452479
“Sandra has put much out via publications and other media outlets if this was not true where’s the litigation ?

Yet. No litigations yet.
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Parky41 on July 11, 2019, 05:30:59 PM
Gordo30 states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452479.html#msg452479
“Sandra has put much out via publications and other media outlets if this was not true where’s the litigation ?

Yet. No litigations yet.

Ms Leans admits in her solo podcast of putting information out, at times on the basis of seeing what response it may evoke. Highlights this when talking about the 'mystery' condom man. Used deliberately to see how the newspapers/media would use it. It seems this is evident in other areas too. It may be IMO, that some is done for the purpose of provocation. Putting misinformation out, hoping some response may be made that she could later use. Perhaps, even to provoke some kind of response between people directly involved with this case. The "be afraid, very afraid" comment being such. Using this type of tactic, via misinformation going back over some period of time now. Not saying, that is how it is, but how it appears to be at times.
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 11, 2019, 06:26:19 PM
Ms Leans admits in her solo podcast of putting information out, at times on the basis of seeing what response it may evoke. Highlights this when talking about the 'mystery' condom man. Used deliberately to see how the newspapers/media would use it. It seems this is evident in other areas too. It may be IMO, that some is done for the purpose of provocation. Putting misinformation out, hoping some response may be made that she could later use. Perhaps, even to provoke some kind of response between people directly involved with this case. The "be afraid, very afraid" comment being such. Using this type of tactic, via misinformation going back over some period of time now. Not saying, that is how it is, but how it appears to be at times.

Antagonist by name antagonist by nature maybe?

The entire thing is see through to me.
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 12, 2019, 11:20:51 AM
Ms Leans admits in her solo podcast of putting information out, at times on the basis of seeing what response it may evoke. Highlights this when talking about the 'mystery' condom man. Used deliberately to see how the newspapers/media would use it. It seems this is evident in other areas too. It may be IMO, that some is done for the purpose of provocation. Putting misinformation out, hoping some response may be made that she could later use. Perhaps, even to provoke some kind of response between people directly involved with this case. The "be afraid, very afraid" comment being such. Using this type of tactic, via misinformation going back over some period of time now. Not saying, that is how it is, but how it appears to be at times.

Categorical imperative, in the ethics of the 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant, founder of critical philosophy, a moral law that is unconditional or absolute for all agents, the validity or claim of which does not depend on any ulterior motive or end.
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 12, 2019, 02:24:29 PM
Ms Leans admits in her solo podcast of putting information out, at times on the basis of seeing what response it may evoke. Highlights this when talking about the 'mystery' condom man. Used deliberately to see how the newspapers/media would use it. It seems this is evident in other areas too. It may be IMO, that some is done for the purpose of provocation. Putting misinformation out, hoping some response may be made that she could later use. Perhaps, even to provoke some kind of response between people directly involved with this case. The "be afraid, very afraid" comment being such. Using this type of tactic, via misinformation going back over some period of time now. Not saying, that is how it is, but how it appears to be at times.

Is her strategy aimed at starting some kind of revolution?
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Parky41 on July 12, 2019, 09:19:21 PM
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.4590.html

 Sandra Lean.
Quote
Wrong again! The details of the confession were never made public. It was never revealed whether Simon Hall had legal representation when making the confession. It was never revealed whether he had been assessed by a psychiatrist or psychologist or what his mental state was in the lead up to the confession - was he in sound mind, fully aware of what he was saying/doing? I can see no reason why those details were not publicly known -- they should have been, in order to confirm that the confession actually fitted the details of the crime and that he was not, for example, suffering some sort of mental breakdown and just saying anything.

Presuming Ms Lean knew all the details of the crime, would Simon not have knowing them anyway? Why therefore include that in seeking for proof?
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 12, 2019, 09:49:17 PM
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.4590.html

 Sandra Lean.
Presuming Ms Lean knew all the details of the crime, would Simon not have knowing them anyway? Why therefore include that in seeking for proof?

assessed by a psychiatrist or psychologist”

An NHS Trust faces questions over why a known schizophrenic was declared “no risk to himself or others” just a day before he brutally stabbed to death a father in front of his teenage son.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/12/man-guilty-surrey-train-attack-murder/
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Parky41 on July 12, 2019, 10:19:48 PM
Hold on a minute, I'm going to make a confession here, can you please assess me first?
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 12, 2019, 10:23:53 PM
Hold on a minute, I'm going to make a confession here, can you please assess me first?

Don’t Parky
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 12, 2019, 10:36:47 PM
Hold on a minute, I'm going to make a confession here, can you please assess me first?

The history of academic criminology is one of grand pronouncements that don’t often prove out in the real world.
https://www.city-journal.org/html/what-criminologists-dont-say-and-why-15328.html
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Parky41 on July 12, 2019, 10:37:20 PM
You beat me. Apologies, in a rather (highly) bad way attempting to show, there is no reproach. Thus earlier comments of 'get out clauses'


Sandra Lean
Quote
I'm on record many, many times saying my search is for the truth. If that truth turns out to be that Luke Mitchell is guilty as charged, then so be it - the reason I do what I do is because we don't know for sure, because of all the unanswered questions. In my opinion, that's not justice and we should never accept it as such. It's not only Luke's case I say this about - it's every case I become involved with.


Guilt or innocence isn't the crux, it's on wrongful conviction on evidence presented. Even with a confession, it will and is questioned. Thus why, I am working around the purpose of doing 'as the roman's did' The deliberate selectiveness of partial parts of evidence stitched together and pumped out. This is what is being attributed to those who prosecute, why do the same? Or relatively worse? Yes, the system of prosecution, matches evidence together to accumulate a case. Not, spout fragments of multiple mismatched pieces to cause confusion-which is of course the aim?
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 12, 2019, 10:47:20 PM
You beat me. Apologies, in a rather (highly) bad way attempting to show, there is no reproach. Thus earlier comments of 'get out clauses'


Sandra Lean
I'm on record many, many times saying my search is for the truth. If that truth turns out to be that Luke Mitchell is guilty as charged, then so be it - the reason I do what I do is because we don't know for sure, because of all the unanswered questions. In my opinion, that's not justice and we should never accept it as such. It's not only Luke's case I say this about - it's every case I become involved with.

Guilt or innocence isn't the crux, it's on wrongful conviction on evidence presented. Even with a confession, it will and is questioned. Thus why, I am working around the purpose of doing 'as the roman's did' The deliberate selectiveness of partial parts of evidence stitched together and pumped out. This is what is being attributed to those who prosecute, why do the same? Or relatively worse? Yes, the system of prosecution, matches evidence together to accumulate a case. Not, spout fragments of multiple mismatched pieces to cause confusion-which is of course the aim?

 8((()*/
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Parky41 on July 12, 2019, 11:26:27 PM
https://insidetime.org/truth-justice-certainty-and-finality/

Sandra Lean
Quote
One of the things I’ve seen over and over in the last 12 years is those fighting injustice being accused of “selective interpretation” of the facts to support claims of innocence. Yet, as we see here, often those making such accusations are doing exactly that – selectively choosing which points they will claim as “facts” to accuse those locked in a desperate and oftentimes apparently impossible battle for justice


Good for the goose? Which is why I am trying to pick up on 'selective interpretation' Would be a losing battle if I were to try and engage in some pointless debate, when, I (someone who holds, not, every single piece of documentation)Savvy enough perhaps, to notice the holes in even the basic particles of misinformation given. Witnessing (disgracefully) in forums of past and present, the response, that any negative towards innocence produces. A professional body, acting in childish, foolish taunts. "be afraid, be very afraid"  I underlinded the above, as, inadvertantly, meaningfully, cleverly or simply, it is up to the reader/viewer what it paints. There are no accusations to parties a,b,c ,d,e and so forth, the childish cry of 'not my fault if it incurs consequences towards innocents, I didn't make them do it'. (The blame game)

"Innocents Betrayed "    Are the innocents in the case of Luke Mitchell being portrayed as guilty? From the very first officer who arrived on the scene that night, blasted as a liar?
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 13, 2019, 12:15:27 AM
https://insidetime.org/truth-justice-certainty-and-finality/

Sandra Lean
One of the things I’ve seen over and over in the last 12 years is those fighting injustice being accused of “selective interpretation” of the facts to support claims of innocence. Yet, as we see here, often those making such accusations are doing exactly that – selectively choosing which points they will claim as “facts” to accuse those locked in a desperate and oftentimes apparently impossible battle for justice

Good for the goose? Which is why I am trying to pick up on 'selective interpretation' Would be a losing battle if I were to try and engage in some pointless debate, when, I (someone who holds, not, every single piece of documentation)Savvy enough perhaps, to notice the holes in even the basic particles of misinformation given. Witnessing (disgracefully) in forums of past and present, the response, that any negative towards innocence produces. A professional body, acting in childish, foolish taunts. "be afraid, be very afraid"  I underlinded the above, as, inadvertantly, meaningfully, cleverly or simply, it is up to the reader/viewer what it paints. There are no accusations to parties a,b,c ,d,e and so forth, the childish cry of 'not my fault if it incurs consequences towards innocents, I didn't make them do it'. (The blame game)

Sandra Lean states:
”So, to take a hypothetical example, in a murder case where the victim was killed by a stab wound to the chest,”

Her “hypothetical example” being the Sean Toal case and hopes no one will notice she’s been caught out AGAIN

“A hypothetical example is a fictional example that can be used when a speaker is explaining a complicated topic that makes the most sense when it is put into more realistic or relatable terms.

Maybe next time she should request all comment on her articles are closed down before being published

What it “paints” is see through and has been for a long time now


Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 13, 2019, 12:28:36 AM
Gaslighting, manipulation, blah blah
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 13, 2019, 12:58:23 AM
You beat me. Apologies, in a rather (highly) bad way attempting to show, there is no reproach. Thus earlier comments of 'get out clauses'


Sandra Lean

Guilt or innocence isn't the crux, it's on wrongful conviction on evidence presented. Even with a confession, it will and is questioned. Thus why, I am working around the purpose of doing 'as the roman's did' The deliberate selectiveness of partial parts of evidence stitched together and pumped out. This is what is being attributed to those who prosecute, why do the same? Or relatively worse? Yes, the system of prosecution, matches evidence together to accumulate a case. Not, spout fragments of multiple mismatched pieces to cause confusion-which is of course the aim?

Blatant attempts at distorting people’s reality
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 13, 2019, 09:41:35 AM
Blatant attempts at distorting people’s reality

Denial allows someone to keep going unchanged despite reality. Denial is the path of psychological and moral least resistance.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/29/the_odd_body_denial/
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 13, 2019, 10:53:52 AM
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.4590.html
Why therefore include that in seeking for proof?

A true truth-seeker doesn't have a predefined goal as to what type of information he wants to find. He's weary of the trap of cherry-picking information that shows what one wants to be true, as opposed to what is actually true.

http://darwinian-medicine.com/are-you-a-truth-seeker/
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 13, 2019, 11:12:40 AM
Sandra Lean states here:
But no other phones were ever tested for forensic traces either (again, from memory). We know [Name removed] and [Name removed] had phones on them that afternoon. We know the bike, by their own admission, was at the V point at 5.15pm but they couldn't say where they were. Wouldn't it have seemed obvious to check out their phones for forensic traces, if for no other reason than they couldn't remember where they were at such a critical time? Of course, by the time they figured out these two had lied about the time they were on the path, there would be no guarantee they still had the same phones anyway (and just about everyone connected to the investigation, except Luke, had at least two mobile numbers - who would ever have been able to tell which phones were in use that evening?)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452573.html#msg452573

The individuals who’s reputations she appears to be attempting to tarnish have grown up and out of the “teenage rebellion” phase.

But for Luke Mitchell https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/killer-luke-mitchell-demands-satanic-books-in-jail-1-3375463 some things never change

Two common types of rebellion are against socially fitting in (rebellion of non-conformity) and against adult authority (rebellion of non-compliance.) In both types, rebellion attracts adult attention by offending it.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/surviving-your-childs-adolescence/200912/rebel-cause-rebellion-in-adolescence
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 13, 2019, 11:50:13 AM
LUKE MITCHELL
Inside I was breaking down a lot. The press were attacking me. I couldn’t do anything right. If I had been crying they would have been called crocodile tears. There was a long period of not feeling anything at all,” he recalls.

“Note psychopath's ability to "talk their way around" their tendency to take advantage of others. Intellectually, we may identify what they're doing...we may even call them out for it. But these persons play on our emotions to get us to dismiss their behavior.
Research supports these conclusions--that some individuals are highly skilled at using the ability of emotional influence for selfish gain.
 https://www.inc.com/justin-bariso/neuroscience-shows-psychopaths-can-use-emotional-intelligence-to-harm-heres-how-to-protect-yourself.html

Mitchell, who was aged 14 at the time of the murder, was given strong medication to deal with trauma. He cites this as a reason for his apparently emotionless behaviour but explains further: “When the jury visited the crime scene, I was told ‘stay flat and don’t react’- which probably didn’t help in their eyes.”

He says that at the scene, someone fainted, and in the commotion an individual had held him back. He did not react at that moment, stating that he had taken the advice given to him.

Mitchell recalls the day of the murder and how he was forced to lead the police to the area where Jodi’s body lay: “I was the youngest there, and I don’t know why they asked. I stopped near the wall. I said I can’t go any further. I was scared.”

I never did trust the police before. I was always wary. I didn't think that they'd do what they did to a child. I quickly realised that it didn't matter what I said. I was in shock at the time.

He breaks eye contact for a moment: “I’ve become galvanised to it. It’s the story of my life really.

“I was always bullied as a kid - by my teachers, other schoolkids. I was always taught never throw the first punch. I've always been blamed for things I didn't do. This situation is an escalated version of that.”


The media affected the way people gave evidence - it altered their perception.”

I don’t know what else to do. What can I do? There’s times I feel like smashing myself up, but it’s an impotent anger and it achieves nothing. I shut all my emotional things down. I don’t see there being any other way. It’s adapt or die. If you don’t, you let it crush you and it will kill you.”

I had motorbikes and horses. I wanted to join the armed forces but this put a complete stop to it obviously. I joined the cadets aged 13 and everything felt right. It was the only thing I had geared myself towards.”

 “I want to have my own bit of land and live self-sufficiently off the grid. I’d like to grow and hunt for my own food and be ignored by the world.

I never wanted to be famous. Anonymity was always important to me. So, it’s been robbed of me.”

The last time I was truly happy was with Jodi. I was always bullied by teachers and considered suicide, but all that went away. She became my connection to the world. When I was with Jodi nothing mattered, then she was taken away.”
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/16881794.luke-mitchell-interview-i-would-rather-stay-behind-bars-than-admit-my-guilt-for-murder-of-jodie-jones/
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 13, 2019, 02:17:39 PM
Sandra Lean
Jul 18, 2012#228
“Thank you Chelsea Marie and Nugnug.

I'm now into my tenth year of the learning process that is involved with fighting injustice, and I'm very well aware there is still so much to learn.

None of us has the "answers" - I believe most people do the best they can, with the best of intentions - I dont think any of us know, when we first start out, what we are getting into, or what it will involve - the desire to try to help right some terrible wrongs is what I believe we all have in common.

The personal attacks and divisions are very sad - they direct attention away from what really matters, dilute the strength that could be built by everyone working together, and, in my opinion, they scare people off who might otherwise become involved.


Sandra Lean
Jul 20, 2012
#231
Chelsea Marie and Kircaldy, I am currently working on two further books - I hope to have the first published before the end of this year, the other will be sometime next year.

These are difficult books to write - it is not just the facts of the individual cases, and the flaws in the system which need to be highlighted - the agony of those involved is an ever present consideration, whether it's the pain of the wrongly accused and convicted and their families, or the suffering of those who have lost loved ones to terrible crimes.

That doesn't mean, of course, that the books should not be written, but the depth of involvement required to write them in ways which take into consideration the emotional trauma of all involved takes its own toll. Thank you both for your comments.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-appeal-and-media-links-t662-s220.html
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Parky41 on July 13, 2019, 03:37:47 PM
Sandra Lean states here:
But no other phones were ever tested for forensic traces either (again, from memory). We know [Name removed] and [Name removed] had phones on them that afternoon. We know the bike, by their own admission, was at the V point at 5.15pm but they couldn't say where they were. Wouldn't it have seemed obvious to check out their phones for forensic traces, if for no other reason than they couldn't remember where they were at such a critical time? Of course, by the time they figured out these two had lied about the time they were on the path, there would be no guarantee they still had the same phones anyway (and just about everyone connected to the investigation, except Luke, had at least two mobile numbers - who would ever have been able to tell which phones were in use that evening?)
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg452573.html#msg452573

The individuals who’s reputations she appears to be attempting to tarnish have grown up and out of the “teenage rebellion” phase.

But for Luke Mitchell https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/killer-luke-mitchell-demands-satanic-books-in-jail-1-3375463 some things never change

Two common types of rebellion are against socially fitting in (rebellion of non-conformity) and against adult authority (rebellion of non-compliance.) In both types, rebellion attracts adult attention by offending it.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/surviving-your-childs-adolescence/200912/rebel-cause-rebellion-in-adolescence

The impression (at times hard to figure the WHY?) Was this was a false question asked by Gordo30
Quote
Sandra was there any forensics that came back from the mobile phone itself? Was it tested?


Both parties having discussed the phone, on many, previous occasions. Asked, for oppertunity of response to highlight some point. Interesting (possibly false) that "to mind" comes into it. Could simply be true, ageing process, alzeimers?

Interesting, the point-of most being connected having two phones, except Luke. He very well could have? Would only be his word and that of Ms Mitchells that he didn't. Swapping of sims. Could possibly be an explantion as to why his texts where not showing? Mobile phones, in their infancy-data lost on transfer?
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 13, 2019, 05:11:18 PM
The impression (at times hard to figure the WHY?) Was this was a false question asked by Gordo30

Both parties having discussed the phone, on many, previous occasions. Asked, for oppertunity of response to highlight some point. Interesting (possibly false) that "to mind" comes into it. Could simply be true, ageing process, alzeimers?

Interesting, the point-of most being connected having two phones, except Luke. He very well could have? Would only be his word and that of Ms Mitchells that he didn't. Swapping of sims. Could possibly be an explantion as to why his texts where not showing? Mobile phones, in their infancy-data lost on transfer?

and just about everyone connected to the investigation, except Luke, had at least two mobile numbers - who would ever have been able to tell which phones were in use that evening?”

Is the above an excerpt from her new book?
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 13, 2019, 05:22:08 PM
The impression (at times hard to figure the WHY?) Was this was a false question asked by Gordo30

Both parties having discussed the phone, on many, previous occasions. Asked, for oppertunity of response to highlight some point. Interesting (possibly false) that "to mind" comes into it. Could simply be true, ageing process, alzeimers?

Interesting, the point-of most being connected having two phones, except Luke. He very well could have? Would only be his word and that of Ms Mitchells that he didn't. Swapping of sims. Could possibly be an explantion as to why his texts where not showing? Mobile phones, in their infancy-data lost on transfer?

Also, does “copycat murder” feature in her new book?

Maybe someone who’s read the book knows? Anyone?
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 13, 2019, 05:26:44 PM
The impression (at times hard to figure the WHY?) Was this was a false question asked by Gordo30

Both parties having discussed the phone, on many, previous occasions. Asked, for oppertunity of response to highlight some point. Interesting (possibly false) that "to mind" comes into it. Could simply be true, ageing process, alzeimers?

Interesting, the point-of most being connected having two phones, except Luke. He very well could have? Would only be his word and that of Ms Mitchells that he didn't. Swapping of sims. Could possibly be an explantion as to why his texts where not showing? Mobile phones, in their infancy-data lost on transfer?

Good point and no doubt one the police would have also considered
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 13, 2019, 08:24:44 PM
Sandra Lean
Jul 18, 2012#228
“Thank you Chelsea Marie and Nugnug.

I'm now into my tenth year of the learning process that is involved with fighting injustice, and I'm very well aware there is still so much to learn.

None of us has the "answers" - I believe most people do the best they can, with the best of intentions - I dont think any of us know, when we first start out, what we are getting into, or what it will involve - the desire to try to help right some terrible wrongs is what I believe we all have in common.

The personal attacks and divisions are very sad - they direct attention away from what really matters, dilute the strength that could be built by everyone working together, and, in my opinion, they scare people off who might otherwise become involved.


Sandra Lean
Jul 20, 2012
#231
Chelsea Marie and Kircaldy, I am currently working on two further books - I hope to have the first published before the end of this year, the other will be sometime next year.

These are difficult books to write - it is not just the facts of the individual cases, and the flaws in the system which need to be highlighted - the agony of those involved is an ever present consideration, whether it's the pain of the wrongly accused and convicted and their families, or the suffering of those who have lost loved ones to terrible crimes.

That doesn't mean, of course, that the books should not be written, but the depth of involvement required to write them in ways which take into consideration the emotional trauma of all involved takes its own toll. Thank you both for your comments.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-appeal-and-media-links-t662-s220.html

A year later Simon Hall confessed his guilt, the year after she allegedly writes to Luke Mitchell withdrawing from his campaign

Criminologist withdraws from fight to free Luke Mitchell
https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/criminologist-withdraws-from-fight-to-free-luke-mitchell-1-3478153
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 13, 2019, 08:32:31 PM
Sandra Lean
Jul 18, 2012#228
“Thank you Chelsea Marie and Nugnug.

I'm now into my tenth year of the learning process that is involved with fighting injustice, and I'm very well aware there is still so much to learn.

None of us has the "answers" - I believe most people do the best they can, with the best of intentions - I dont think any of us know, when we first start out, what we are getting into, or what it will involve - the desire to try to help right some terrible wrongs is what I believe we all have in common.

The personal attacks and divisions are very sad - they direct attention away from what really matters, dilute the strength that could be built by everyone working together, and, in my opinion, they scare people off who might otherwise become involved.


Sandra Lean
Jul 20, 2012
#231
Chelsea Marie and Kircaldy, I am currently working on two further books - I hope to have the first published before the end of this year, the other will be sometime next year.

These are difficult books to write - it is not just the facts of the individual cases, and the flaws in the system which need to be highlighted - the agony of those involved is an ever present consideration, whether it's the pain of the wrongly accused and convicted and their families, or the suffering of those who have lost loved ones to terrible crimes.

That doesn't mean, of course, that the books should not be written, but the depth of involvement required to write them in ways which take into consideration the emotional trauma of all involved takes its own toll. Thank you both for your comments.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-appeal-and-media-links-t662-s220.html

The personal attacks and divisions are very sad - they direct attention away from what really matters,”

Yet a year and a half earlier:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg384537.html#msg384537

»ADMINISTRATORS NOTE: I HAVE BEEN SENT THE FOLLOWING BY SANDRA AT 20:59 = That's Dr Sandra Lean to you and me (published by Billy Middleton November 23, 2010, 10:12:25 pm)

It is with extreme sadness and regret that I am making this post, but the events of this afternoon have left me with no choice. Whether people accept it or not, posts on internet sites have real life consequences.

Almost two months ago, at the beginning of October,  Stephanie requested that Simon’s caseblog be closed, pending the appeal. I explained at the time, on the forum,  that this is quite common practice in the run up to an appeal.  At that time, there were also discussions regarding taking down all facebook related content connected with Simon’s case(which Wrongly Accused Person had no connection with whatsoever) as Stephanie felt she was being attacked from many angles. The forum at Wrongly Accused was not one of the places this was happening.

Stephanie was happy with this arrangement at the time, and posted to that effect on the forum.

It was confirmed on October 3rd that Billy had closed Simon’s caseblog, and put up a message stating that this was pending the appeal. For reasons which will become clear, however, he advised Stephanie that he would be writing to Simon asking him to confirm future changes, etc, to the site.

The following series of events covers recent claims about the closing of the site:

November 17th at 12.52: an email was received at Wrongly Accused, addressed to Billy, which began, “Dear Billy, you may or may not have received a letter from Simon requesting that his site be taken down from Wrongly Accused.” It goes on, “We ask that you please remove all content relating to Simon’s case, and that the thread on the wrongly accused be locked.”

November 18th at 15:40 (less than 27 hours later) another email was received stating that Billy “appeared to be ignoring emails.” A facebook post was also made, on Stephanie’s behalf, asking that Billy read his “private emails.”

November 19that 10.48am: a request was made to let Stephanie know if Simon’s letter had been received, and on November 20th, it was confirmed that it had not yet been.

November 20th  at 10.04am: Stephanie posted on the forum “Simon has been asking for over a week to have his caseblog closed down completely and for this thread to be locked.” This post was less than 72 hours after the initial email regarding a letter Billy “may or may not have received.” 

November 21st:The  post was re-posted on the McKie site
 
November 22nd, at 1.09 (which is 12.09, real time): Stephanie posted “After two weeks of Billy ignoring Simon’s express wishes and requests.....” (this was 5 days after the initial contact.)

November 22nd at 6.12pm (5 hours after the above post) an email was received at Wrongly Accused from Stephanie as follows: “It would appear you have received Simon's letter. Therefore, please remove entirely his caseblog.I think you will find, if he asked for a message to be put up, he meant within the thread, bearing in mind he is in prison and does not understand how it all works. We wish the site to no longer be found in a search, it's that simple.”

This was the first reference to the site “no longer being found in a search.”

However, Simon’s letter had, indeed, been received by then, and a clear difficulty had arisen. It would be both unethical and unprofessional to post the letter in its entirety without Simon’s permission, but the pertinent parts state the following:

“I understand the website is closed pending appeal but other bits relating to the site are open. Is that right? If so, please stop everything to do with my case, and that includes forums, walls or whatever else people insult each other on. Also, could you change the “closed pending appeal” to the following:

“In the interests of justice and pending Mr Hall’s forthcoming appeal, this website is temporarily closed. Simon would like to thank everyone for their support and their continued interest in his case.”

We were faced with a dilemma – Simon’s letter does not talk about taking everything down, or making his case unable to be found in a search – indeed, he is quite clear that he wants a message displayed on his site, and has included the word “temporarily,” which did not feature before. He asks that everything be “stopped.” The caseblog had been closed since early October, and the forum was locked on November 21st, so Simon’s requests had already been dealt with.

Stephanie’s requests, on the other hand, had changed, and continued to change, from closing the site, to taking everything down completely, to ensuring nothing could be found in a web search (something, incidentally, we could not guarantee, even if we took the entire site down.) Even her last email is unclear – how could a message from Simon be posted in “a thread” if the forum had also been removed?

The disingenuous portrayal of delay, posted publicly within 72 hours, was deeply concerning, as there had been previous instances of such behaviour.

Between October 2nd and October 4th, at a time where I was extremely busy, I had received 20 emails from Stephanie, between private messages and those which had come through wrongly accused, along with a number of texts.  I had not had time to respond to these, but Stephanie concluded that I was “ignoring” her.

I wrote a long email on October 4th, explaining the circumstances. Part of that email, however, referred to a post Stephanie had put on the Wrongly Accused forum meantime, in her belief that I was ignoring her.  (Note this is only a 48 hour period.) I wrote, “I'm also interested in why you chose to use my facebook post (adapted) to post on wrongly accused. Following from Shirley's post as it does, it makes it look like one of the "un-named" individuals is me. I have never attacked you, criticised you or made any other negative comment about you anywhere - I may simply be reading too much into it, but that is certainly how it came across.”

Stephanie responded:“....yes, I did use your post on facebook on the wrongly accused, and when I did I knew you would be more annoyed over that than you are about what I am going through at the moment. And I have a couple of friends that will verify that. “

I was extremely concerned at this, as it appeared that Stephanie was happy to have me painted in a dishonest light, simply because I had not responded immediately to her emails. Other things going on behind the scenes had alerted me to the possibility that Stephanie was not being entirely straight with me.

The next difficulty arose over the claims that outsider/smiffy was Billy. John Lamberton was posting some pretty damning claims about things Stephanie had purportedly told him. Worried that these claims might reflect badly on Stephanie, I attempted to pre-empt further claims by suggesting a possible source of John’s assumption that outsider/smiffy was Billy. Stephanie immediately PM’d me and emailed me, but before I had even had a chance to read her messages, and respond, she had posted on the forum claiming that my post was “untrue.” I emailed Stephanie privately, although she continued to post. Part of my last message, on November 15th  was, “Before I had had a chance to respond to your messages, you were posting that what I had said was "untrue." By the time I had clarified the situation, you were still claiming in your emails that what I had said was "untrue." It seems to me you simply did not understand, or chose not to believe, what I was saying. There's nothing I can do about that - what hurts is that you could not step back, knowing me as I thought you did, and ask yourself, is there perhaps another explanation for this. Nope, instant public condemnation, in the belief that you were being attacked, when, in fact, I was trying to defend you.”

I finished this email by saying, “I can only finish by saying that I am truly heart-broken at how these events have panned out. That your words are being used to paint me as dishonest and unreliable, and that in turn is being used to undermine Luke's case, is probably one of the worst experiences in all of this. I thought you were my friend.”

On both of these occasions, Stephanie had made public accusations, apparently without any thought of consequence, and was doing so again regarding the closing/removal of Simon’s site.

We had decided that the best course of action would be to ignore the public accusations and write to Simon for further clarification, however this evening’s events have forced a decision based on other factors.

Entering a local store this evening, I was approached by a man who greeted me with the following:

 “You are one f*cking sick little bitch. How long did you think folk were going to take your lies and p*sh? Weren’t happy destroying one family’s life, eh? Now you’ve started on somebody else’s. How many more you twisted little f*ck? Yours is coming, don’t you worry about it. You’ll get yours you twisted little c**t – there’s plenty just waiting their chance.”

I assume this came about as a result of various claims being made on various websites. In principle, I would not back down to such bullying and threatening behaviour. However, I have to live here, as do my family, and in view of the fact that Simon’s appeal is imminent, it is with a very heavy heart that I have asked Billy to remove everything relating to Simon’s case from the site.

I would emphasise wholeheartedly that my support for Simon and Stephanie is unwavering, and I hope with all my heart that the appeal is successful, and they are able to begin to build their life together, as they should be.


http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383379.html#msg383379

“After you have read the above it may be helpful to read the following http://thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2016/06/20-diversion-tactics-highly-manipulative-narcissists-sociopaths-and-psychopaths-use-to-silence-you/ and see how many boxes Sandra's highly abusive,  offensive, deceptive, misleading and indeed malicious published BS it ticks.

I will be breaking the whole piece down and filling in the crucial parts she left out. Readers will then be better placed to make an informed decision and will no doubt see for themselves Dr Sandra Lean is a fraud who exploits, mistreats and abuses peiple who are in vulnerable situations
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 13, 2019, 09:15:59 PM
I reiterate the FACT the surviving Jones family are not the dysfunctional family Sandra Lean has attempted to portray to the public.

If anyone seeks proof of what I say I am happy to provide it via PM.
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Parky41 on July 14, 2019, 12:15:13 AM
A true truth-seeker doesn't have a predefined goal as to what type of information he wants to find. He's weary of the trap of cherry-picking information that shows what one wants to be true, as opposed to what is actually true.

http://darwinian-medicine.com/are-you-a-truth-seeker/

Becoming blinded, pushing the obvious so far back, even the basics are forgotten. Yet, still searching for other avenues in desperation of proof of ones own theory. A long road indeed.
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Parky41 on July 14, 2019, 12:20:04 AM
[quote “You are one f*cking sick little bitch. How long did you think folk were going to take your lies and p*sh? Weren’t happy destroying one family’s life, eh? Now you’ve started on somebody else’s. How many more you twisted little f*ck? Yours is coming, don’t you worry about it. You’ll get yours you twisted little c**t – there’s plenty just waiting their chance.”][/quote]


Confused? Only after this attack ( If it did happen?), then decided to oblige?
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 14, 2019, 12:24:58 AM
Becoming blinded, pushing the obvious so far back, even the basics are forgotten. Yet, still searching for other avenues in desperation of proof of ones own theory. A long road indeed.

And as clear as the identity of “the emperor” over on blue

The Emperor's New Clothes" (Danish: Kejserens nye klæder) is a short tale written by Danish author Hans Christian Andersen, about two weavers who promise an emperor a new suit of clothes that they say is invisible to those who are unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent – while in reality, they make no clothes at all, making everyone believe the clothes are invisible to them.
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 14, 2019, 12:32:55 AM
A true truth-seeker doesn't have a predefined goal as to what type of information he wants to find. He's weary of the trap of cherry-picking information that shows what one wants to be true, as opposed to what is actually true.

http://darwinian-medicine.com/are-you-a-truth-seeker/

Becoming blinded, pushing the obvious so far back, even the basics are forgotten. Yet, still searching for other avenues in desperation of proof of ones own theory. A long road indeed.

“A true truth-seeker doesn’t have a predefined goal as to what type of information he wants to find. He’s weary of the trap of cherry-picking information that shows what one wants to be true, as opposed to what is actually true. He has an open mind and doesn’t neglect or overlook information simply because it goes against what he prefers to be true or what he’s heard from others is true. He accepts real truths, regardless of whether they are inconvenient or not and doesn’t steer clear of unpopular and/or ridiculed truths.

“I strive to be a truth-seeker. I don’t claim that I don’t let public opinions and trends affect me at all or that I’ve always managed to stay true to the truth; however, over the years, I’ve tried to learn from my mistakes and hone my truth-seeking skills.
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 14, 2019, 12:40:54 AM
Becoming blinded, pushing the obvious so far back, even the basics are forgotten. Yet, still searching for other avenues in desperation of proof of ones own theory. A long road indeed.

January 2017
Sandra Lean stated here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383384.html#msg383384
What causes people to become "criminals?" We stopped looking at that a long time ago, and are happy now just to blame. Surely, though, it would be better to avoid or prevent criminality in the first place? My original hope had been to work with young offenders in the field of rehabilitation, however, life had a different plan for me.

Whether we like it or not, the vast majority of people serving prison sentences are going to be returned to our communities - wouldn't it make more sense to have them return as functioning, contributing members of those communities, able to create positive and meaningful lives for themselves, rather than have them return brutalised, mentally destroyed by drugs far more freely available in prisons than elsewhere? In order to do that, we'd have to understand what made them offend in the first place.


How amateur and 3 1/2 years behind!?!

Whether we like it or not, the vast majority of people serving prison sentences are going to be returned to our communities

Completely lacking in insight

Simon Hall was shipped back to closed prison conditions due to his risk factors having changed AND the prisons concerns he could escape and make his way home - to me.
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 14, 2019, 12:55:16 AM

Confused? Only after this attack ( If it did happen?), then decided to oblige?

She joined twitter in October 2018 and “the emperor” still “follows” her
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Parky41 on July 14, 2019, 01:01:10 AM
She joined twitter in October 2018 and “the emperor” still “follows” her

I know.
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 14, 2019, 01:07:24 AM
[quote “You are one f*cking sick little bitch. How long did you think folk were going to take your lies and p*sh? Weren’t happy destroying one family’s life, eh? Now you’ve started on somebody else’s. How many more you twisted little f*ck? Yours is coming, don’t you worry about it. You’ll get yours you twisted little c**t – there’s plenty just waiting their chance.”][/quote]


Confused? Only after this attack ( If it did happen?), then decided to oblige?

The above could have been sent as a message for all we know as opposed to dialogue from someone in a shop?
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Parky41 on July 14, 2019, 01:07:57 AM
January 2017
Sandra Lean stated here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383384.html#msg383384
What causes people to become "criminals?" We stopped looking at that a long time ago, and are happy now just to blame. Surely, though, it would be better to avoid or prevent criminality in the first place? My original hope had been to work with young offenders in the field of rehabilitation, however, life had a different plan for me.

Whether we like it or not, the vast majority of people serving prison sentences are going to be returned to our communities - wouldn't it make more sense to have them return as functioning, contributing members of those communities, able to create positive and meaningful lives for themselves, rather than have them return brutalised, mentally destroyed by drugs far more freely available in prisons than elsewhere? In order to do that, we'd have to understand what made them offend in the first place.


How amateur and 3 1/2 years behind!?!

Whether we like it or not, the vast majority of people serving prison sentences are going to be returned to our communities

Completely lacking in insight

Simon Hall was shipped back to closed prison conditions due to his risk factors having changed AND the prisons concerns he could escape and make his way home - to me.


Through the transparency of misinformation, it has entered my head, that there may be an unlterior motive, by gaining trust/closeness in the convicted - a means to study them?


Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 14, 2019, 01:11:01 AM

Through the transparency of misinformation, it has entered my head, that there may be an unlterior motive, by gaining trust/closeness in the convicted - a means to study them?

Do you mean gather information from the vulnerable family members of the convicted as a means to attempt to study their cases in order to help Mitchell’s, in turn helping herself?
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 14, 2019, 01:32:50 AM

Confused? Only after this attack ( If it did happen?), then decided to oblige?

Crazy making behaviour designed to distort the intended targets reality and those who read it - the double-edged sword again

Crazymaking is when a person sets you up to lose, as in the examples above: You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. You’re put in lose-lose situations, but too many games are being played for you to reason yourself out of it. There is no rhyme, reason, or emotional understanding with a crazy-maker. Worse, when the behavior is stealthy and confusing, it becomes easy to feel crazy. It feels like you’re caught in a whirlwind of chaos, with the life force being sucked from you as you are manipulated with nonstop crazy-making tactics. https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/counseling-keys/201403/how-handle-crazymaker
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 14, 2019, 01:53:45 AM
I know.

And vice versa
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 14, 2019, 02:51:35 AM

Through the transparency of misinformation, it has entered my head, that there may be an unlterior motive, by gaining trust/closeness in the convicted - a means to study them?

For comparison? Does she recognise something in them?
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 14, 2019, 10:24:35 PM
Sandra Lean
Jul 18, 2012#228
“Thank you Chelsea Marie and Nugnug.

I'm now into my tenth year of the learning process that is involved with fighting injustice, and I'm very well aware there is still so much to learn.

None of us has the "answers" - I believe most people do the best they can, with the best of intentions - I dont think any of us know, when we first start out, what we are getting into, or what it will involve - the desire to try to help right some terrible wrongs is what I believe we all have in common.

The personal attacks and divisions are very sad - they direct attention away from what really matters, dilute the strength that could be built by everyone working together, and, in my opinion, they scare people off who might otherwise become involved.


Sandra Lean
Jul 20, 2012
#231
Chelsea Marie and Kircaldy, I am currently working on two further books - I hope to have the first published before the end of this year, the other will be sometime next year.

These are difficult books to write - it is not just the facts of the individual cases, and the flaws in the system which need to be highlighted - the agony of those involved is an ever present consideration, whether it's the pain of the wrongly accused and convicted and their families, or the suffering of those who have lost loved ones to terrible crimes.

That doesn't mean, of course, that the books should not be written, but the depth of involvement required to write them in ways which take into consideration the emotional trauma of all involved takes its own toll. Thank you both for your comments.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-appeal-and-media-links-t662-s220.html

What has Sandra Lean learned?


"After Billy was arrested I sent this email to his parents. I also sent a copy to Sandra Lean, to try and confirm that I was telling the truth.

Flag this message
Re: Please note amended address
Tuesday, 11 November, 2008 9:48
From:
"MARINA THOMASON"
Add sender to Contacts
To:
"Harriets Mail"
Dear Harriet and Jim,

We've got your e-mail and we will pin the address up in the canteen at work.  I'm sure one or two of the workers will want to write to Billy.  This is a very difficult letter for me to write to you and I've struggled with my conscious whether I should or not.

During the time of Billy and Kareens wedding you were very good to us and you made me feel very welcome in your home, I felt you Harriet and me especially, clicked.  You are a nice family.  But the truth of the matter is we advised Billy and Kareen to pospone their wedding.  I took Kareen aside and Christopher took Billy and advised them to put the wedding off.  We did this because we knew the extent of the problems they had in their relationship and feared it would end in disaster. We hoped if they delayed it their relationship would come to its own natural conclusion.  We always thought someone would get hurt although we could never forsee this happening.

I don't know to what extent you know of what went on here in Cullivoe.  The police were involved on two occasions that we know of.  There were numerous other occasions that were kept quiet by the Williamsons here in Yell.  Billy and Kareens next door neighbour was very upset by what was happening.  She was Christina's chaperone to nursery in the taxi.  She said every Friday night was the same,  they would be woken up in the middle of the night with Kareen screaming and sometimes she would hear Christina crying.  She wanted to report Billy and Kareen to social services but luckily for them she spoke to her sister first about it who lives here in Cullivoe.  She suggested speaking to Jean Saunders which she did.  Jean said that if anything happened which she was worried about the neighbour was to phone her first.  As a consequence Jean and John were in the square on more than one occasion. Kareen and the bairns came here to stay the night one of the times.  It was very upsetting for me as my mam had just died suddenly 2 weeks before and I was 6 months pregnant for Amanda. When I answered the phone in the middle of the night to hear Kareen screaming I thought she was being murdered.

We never could figure out what was going on but when Kareen left Billy and went to Brae she told me a few things and it all fitted together like a jig-saw puzzle.  I know that she went on to tell her uncle Andy and Gilda even more so don't be too harsh on them because you have to understand that Kareen very much made Billy out to be the bad guy. I don't know the truth of the matter because Kareen told one story and Billy told the opposite.

I don't know where this idea that the Williamsons never visited Kareen here in Cullivoe came from because to my mind it is simply not true. Susan was there at least twice a week, Christina and Lana were best friends.  Although Carol doesn't drive she came at least once a week before or after choir practice and if she was working at the school she was there more often.  All the family turned up for any birthday parties or occasions.

I know you are living a nightmare at the moment and of course you want to believe Billy, he is your son. We will all have to await what evidence comes out at the trial.  I hope you are not to upset by this email that is not my intention at all.  No-matter what the truth is of what happened that awful night the letter we wrote from C & A still holds true and I used to call Billy Christophers' right hand. He is a terrible miss at work.

This is a hard thing for everyone involved to come to terms with and our deepest sympathy is with you,

Marina.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg385713.html#msg385713


"I do feel incredibly angry that Billy Middleton feels that he has the right to publish on the internet whatever he wants without fear of retribution.

Reading his MOJ2010 speech just puts my blood pressure right up because there is hardly one single paragraph that contains the whole truth. Unfortunately there is very little that I can state as "fact" as at it would mean exposing people and information that at the moment has to remain confidential. I am, however, now in a position to comment on the following subject things that I was told as Billy took it upon himself to expose his ex-wife as the person to whom the sexual assault charges concerned.

He himself describes the charge as "sexual abuse". I'm unclear why. As far as I know the charges were of sexual assault. To my mind sexual abuse indicates a more long term situation. A freudian slip, perhaps?. Maybe this was closer to the truth of what was happening in Billy and Kareen's relationship.

However Billy Middleton states: "They then threw in a charge of sexual abuse against my wife instead but both she and her uncle proved in court it was not physically possible because we were about 60 miles apart at the time and the doctor who examined her testified that there was no physical evidence to support it.

Billy put forward a special plea of 'consent' to the sexual assault charges yet in the statement above he is implying that it never happened and that this was "proved in court". He can't have it both ways - either his ex-wife consented or else it didn't happen, not both.

The only 'incident' of sexual assault Kareen discussed with me in any detail was the time that caused her to leave Billy in April/May 2007. Remember, this was about 2 years before the trial and 18 months before the fire. It was the first time I visited her at her aunt and uncle's house in Brae after she left Cullivoe with the kids. She told me what Billy had done to her. Needless to say, I was appalled. She was upset and confused and asked my advice on what to do. She spoke about going back to him as she was afraid if she left him for good what he would do. Billy was constantly texting her and using the children as a weapon against her, saying things like did she really want the kids to come from a broken home and she was to think about the effect all this was having on them. Things like that. I advised her not to go back to him. She was 3 months pregnant with Annalise at the time.

Kareen had not been happy for a long time. 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? She told me things had been escalating against her will in the bedroom. She did not tell me the exact date of when the assault had taken place but I did get the impression that she had waited a few days before leaving him and moving to Brae. She only went to see the GP the day after she moved to Brae on her aunt and uncle's insistance. From my understanding of what Kareen has told me because she had waited a number of days and because she had given birth to 2 children naturally the GP was non-committal about any signs of an assault having taken place.

When Kareen took Billy back most of her family and friends distanced themselves from her including me. I felt embarrassed because I had tried to advise her not to take him back but she had and it felt very awkward. I know her family felt the same way. We have spoke since about the reasons why she took him back and I can absolutely see why she did - she was a typical abused wife caught in a cycle of abuse. She told me that one of the conditions she took him back on was if he saw a counsellor. He showed her a letter with an appointment but does not know if he ever attended. All she knows is that the abuse only ever got worse and because she no longer felt she could turn to her friends and family she was completely isolated.


"For reasons only known to themselves the police never interviewed either myself or Kareen's counsellor whom she was seeing regarding unresolved issues from her childhood and also the difficulties she was experiencing within her own relationship with Billy. She told her counsellor everything.

However, following the trial Kareen's solicitor did take a statement from her counsellor. That is why Billy never fought to see the kids. His lies would be exposed before his family and he couldn't let that happen
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg385712.html#msg385712
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 14, 2019, 10:40:43 PM
The personal attacks and divisions are very sad - they direct attention away from what really matters,”

Yet a year and a half earlier:

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg384537.html#msg384537

»ADMINISTRATORS NOTE: I HAVE BEEN SENT THE FOLLOWING BY SANDRA AT 20:59 = That's Dr Sandra Lean to you and me (published by Billy Middleton November 23, 2010, 10:12:25 pm)

It is with extreme sadness and regret that I am making this post, but the events of this afternoon have left me with no choice. Whether people accept it or not, posts on internet sites have real life consequences.

Almost two months ago, at the beginning of October,  Stephanie requested that Simon’s caseblog be closed, pending the appeal. I explained at the time, on the forum,  that this is quite common practice in the run up to an appeal.  At that time, there were also discussions regarding taking down all facebook related content connected with Simon’s case(which Wrongly Accused Person had no connection with whatsoever) as Stephanie felt she was being attacked from many angles. The forum at Wrongly Accused was not one of the places this was happening.

Stephanie was happy with this arrangement at the time, and posted to that effect on the forum.

It was confirmed on October 3rd that Billy had closed Simon’s caseblog, and put up a message stating that this was pending the appeal. For reasons which will become clear, however, he advised Stephanie that he would be writing to Simon asking him to confirm future changes, etc, to the site.

The following series of events covers recent claims about the closing of the site:

November 17th at 12.52: an email was received at Wrongly Accused, addressed to Billy, which began, “Dear Billy, you may or may not have received a letter from Simon requesting that his site be taken down from Wrongly Accused.” It goes on, “We ask that you please remove all content relating to Simon’s case, and that the thread on the wrongly accused be locked.”

November 18th at 15:40 (less than 27 hours later) another email was received stating that Billy “appeared to be ignoring emails.” A facebook post was also made, on Stephanie’s behalf, asking that Billy read his “private emails.”

November 19that 10.48am: a request was made to let Stephanie know if Simon’s letter had been received, and on November 20th, it was confirmed that it had not yet been.

November 20th  at 10.04am: Stephanie posted on the forum “Simon has been asking for over a week to have his caseblog closed down completely and for this thread to be locked.” This post was less than 72 hours after the initial email regarding a letter Billy “may or may not have received.” 

November 21st:The  post was re-posted on the McKie site
 
November 22nd, at 1.09 (which is 12.09, real time): Stephanie posted “After two weeks of Billy ignoring Simon’s express wishes and requests.....” (this was 5 days after the initial contact.)

November 22nd at 6.12pm (5 hours after the above post) an email was received at Wrongly Accused from Stephanie as follows: “It would appear you have received Simon's letter. Therefore, please remove entirely his caseblog.I think you will find, if he asked for a message to be put up, he meant within the thread, bearing in mind he is in prison and does not understand how it all works. We wish the site to no longer be found in a search, it's that simple.”

This was the first reference to the site “no longer being found in a search.”

However, Simon’s letter had, indeed, been received by then, and a clear difficulty had arisen. It would be both unethical and unprofessional to post the letter in its entirety without Simon’s permission, but the pertinent parts state the following:

“I understand the website is closed pending appeal but other bits relating to the site are open. Is that right? If so, please stop everything to do with my case, and that includes forums, walls or whatever else people insult each other on. Also, could you change the “closed pending appeal” to the following:

“In the interests of justice and pending Mr Hall’s forthcoming appeal, this website is temporarily closed. Simon would like to thank everyone for their support and their continued interest in his case.”

We were faced with a dilemma – Simon’s letter does not talk about taking everything down, or making his case unable to be found in a search – indeed, he is quite clear that he wants a message displayed on his site, and has included the word “temporarily,” which did not feature before. He asks that everything be “stopped.” The caseblog had been closed since early October, and the forum was locked on November 21st, so Simon’s requests had already been dealt with.

Stephanie’s requests, on the other hand, had changed, and continued to change, from closing the site, to taking everything down completely, to ensuring nothing could be found in a web search (something, incidentally, we could not guarantee, even if we took the entire site down.) Even her last email is unclear – how could a message from Simon be posted in “a thread” if the forum had also been removed?

The disingenuous portrayal of delay, posted publicly within 72 hours, was deeply concerning, as there had been previous instances of such behaviour.

Between October 2nd and October 4th, at a time where I was extremely busy, I had received 20 emails from Stephanie, between private messages and those which had come through wrongly accused, along with a number of texts.  I had not had time to respond to these, but Stephanie concluded that I was “ignoring” her.

I wrote a long email on October 4th, explaining the circumstances. Part of that email, however, referred to a post Stephanie had put on the Wrongly Accused forum meantime, in her belief that I was ignoring her.  (Note this is only a 48 hour period.) I wrote, “I'm also interested in why you chose to use my facebook post (adapted) to post on wrongly accused. Following from Shirley's post as it does, it makes it look like one of the "un-named" individuals is me. I have never attacked you, criticised you or made any other negative comment about you anywhere - I may simply be reading too much into it, but that is certainly how it came across.”

Stephanie responded:“....yes, I did use your post on facebook on the wrongly accused, and when I did I knew you would be more annoyed over that than you are about what I am going through at the moment. And I have a couple of friends that will verify that. “

I was extremely concerned at this, as it appeared that Stephanie was happy to have me painted in a dishonest light, simply because I had not responded immediately to her emails. Other things going on behind the scenes had alerted me to the possibility that Stephanie was not being entirely straight with me.

The next difficulty arose over the claims that outsider/smiffy was Billy. John Lamberton was posting some pretty damning claims about things Stephanie had purportedly told him. Worried that these claims might reflect badly on Stephanie, I attempted to pre-empt further claims by suggesting a possible source of John’s assumption that outsider/smiffy was Billy. Stephanie immediately PM’d me and emailed me, but before I had even had a chance to read her messages, and respond, she had posted on the forum claiming that my post was “untrue.” I emailed Stephanie privately, although she continued to post. Part of my last message, on November 15th  was, “Before I had had a chance to respond to your messages, you were posting that what I had said was "untrue." By the time I had clarified the situation, you were still claiming in your emails that what I had said was "untrue." It seems to me you simply did not understand, or chose not to believe, what I was saying. There's nothing I can do about that - what hurts is that you could not step back, knowing me as I thought you did, and ask yourself, is there perhaps another explanation for this. Nope, instant public condemnation, in the belief that you were being attacked, when, in fact, I was trying to defend you.”

I finished this email by saying, “I can only finish by saying that I am truly heart-broken at how these events have panned out. That your words are being used to paint me as dishonest and unreliable, and that in turn is being used to undermine Luke's case, is probably one of the worst experiences in all of this. I thought you were my friend.”

On both of these occasions, Stephanie had made public accusations, apparently without any thought of consequence, and was doing so again regarding the closing/removal of Simon’s site.

We had decided that the best course of action would be to ignore the public accusations and write to Simon for further clarification, however this evening’s events have forced a decision based on other factors.

Entering a local store this evening, I was approached by a man who greeted me with the following:

 “You are one f*cking sick little bitch. How long did you think folk were going to take your lies and p*sh? Weren’t happy destroying one family’s life, eh? Now you’ve started on somebody else’s. How many more you twisted little f*ck? Yours is coming, don’t you worry about it. You’ll get yours you twisted little c**t – there’s plenty just waiting their chance.”

I assume this came about as a result of various claims being made on various websites. In principle, I would not back down to such bullying and threatening behaviour. However, I have to live here, as do my family, and in view of the fact that Simon’s appeal is imminent, it is with a very heavy heart that I have asked Billy to remove everything relating to Simon’s case from the site.

I would emphasise wholeheartedly that my support for Simon and Stephanie is unwavering, and I hope with all my heart that the appeal is successful, and they are able to begin to build their life together, as they should be.


What’s also interesting with this is the fact Sandra Lean had been threatened by her partner Billy Middleton in her own home and her daughter had to intervene.

Why didn’t the penny drop?

Why didn’t she recognise in him what others (Including myself) had recognised?

She wouldn’t have mentioned to me the fact he’d been leaving cigarettes burning in the ashtray if she hadn’t then doubted him?

Why didn’t she call the police and report him?
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 17, 2019, 12:21:28 AM

Sandra Lean stated: “When the commission refused to refer the case back - I had no idea what else could be done. With a case as strong as we put forward..... ” and I didn’t know what else I could do emotions were running high obviously it was a major blow that they refused to refer it back but I didn’t know where we could go after that..

So let’s go down the “Confirmation bias” route.

https://thecrimereport.org/2019/07/16/confirmation-bias-called-a-key-reason-for-wrongful-convictions/



‘Confirmation Bias’ Called a Key Reason for Wrongful Convictions
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: jixy on July 17, 2019, 06:53:04 AM
The hatred posted on this thread yet you make it your life's work to continue to harass people . Look at the times you post? what do YOU actually do to help others? erm let me see? try to make their lives a misery!
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 17, 2019, 09:38:37 AM
The hatred posted on this thread yet you make it your life's work to continue to harass people . Look at the times you post? what do YOU actually do to help others? erm let me see? try to make their lives a misery!


Sandra Lean
@SandraLean5
·
Jun 3
You know you're rattling cages when people resort to personal attacks and lies. Gives me a warm glow!!!!
https://mobile.twitter.com/SandraLean5/status/1135623855916158977
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: jixy on July 17, 2019, 09:58:20 AM
you know you have nothing more constructive to do when you stay up all hours of the night stalking people and finding pictures that are totally unrelated to a thread

A warm glow? Maybe that is something you should aim for!
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 17, 2019, 11:03:49 AM
you know you have nothing more constructive to do when you stay up all hours of the night stalking people and finding pictures that are totally unrelated to a thread

A warm glow? Maybe that is something you should aim for!

Which one of your buttons have I pushed?
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 21, 2019, 02:55:54 PM
“Luke Mitchell attacked
It came as something of a surprise to me to learn on Saturday from “The Sun” newspaper that Luke Mitchell had been subjected to an attack in Polmont YOI which had brought him within “inches” of death.
Why so surprised?
Because it never happened!!!!
I’ve spoken to several people over Sunday and today (Monday), opening the conversation with “Did you hear about the attack on Luke Mitchell,” and invariably, the response has been “Well, that’s what happens in these places” … not once did anyone, even those who believe Luke to be innocent, say “Is it true?”
This rubbish is printed and perpetuated by profiteering companies who don’t give a damn about the consequences of their actions.
So, for the record, Luke Mitchell was not attacked in any way, shape or form in Polmont YOI – the staff of Polmont are ever vigilant towards all of the people for whom they are responsible -and a very good job they do if it for all concerned.
As for Annabelle Skeggles and Kenny McAlpine, who ran this article in “The Sun,” your report card should read “could do better.
Posted by Sandra
Monday, 25 August 2008

https://miscarriageofjustice.wordpress.com/previous-blog/
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on July 21, 2019, 03:02:24 PM
“Luke Mitchell attacked
It came as something of a surprise to me to learn on Saturday from “The Sun” newspaper that Luke Mitchell had been subjected to an attack in Polmont YOI which had brought him within “inches” of death.
Why so surprised?
Because it never happened!!!!
I’ve spoken to several people over Sunday and today (Monday), opening the conversation with “Did you hear about the attack on Luke Mitchell,” and invariably, the response has been “Well, that’s what happens in these places” … not once did anyone, even those who believe Luke to be innocent, say “Is it true?”
This rubbish is printed and perpetuated by profiteering companies who don’t give a damn about the consequences of their actions.
So, for the record, Luke Mitchell was not attacked in any way, shape or form in Polmont YOI – the staff of Polmont are ever vigilant towards all of the people for whom they are responsible -and a very good job they do if it for all concerned.
As for Annabelle Skeggles and Kenny McAlpine, who ran this article in “The Sun,” your report card should read “could do better.
Posted by Sandra
Monday, 25 August 2008

https://miscarriageofjustice.wordpress.com/previous-blog/

April 2009
QUESTIONS about the supervision of prisoners were raised last night after an inmate at a young offenders' institution was subjected to nine-hour sex and torture attack by his cellmate.
James McColgan, 21, carried out the horrific attack last September at Polmont Young Offenders' Institution while awaiting trial for raping a 17-year-old female student.[/i]
https://www.scotsman.com/news-2-15012/prison-cell-sex-torturer-faces-life-1-1033688

“A SEX fiend who indecently assaulted a cellmate while awaiting trial for raping a teenage girl has been given a life sentence.
James McColgan, 21, raped the girl during a horrific ordeal in which she was stabbed, forced to cut off chunks of her hair and to go outside naked.
He repeatedly threatened to kill her.
McColgan was then held in a youth prison to await trial but carried out a torture attack on a male inmate and sexually assaulted the screaming victim.

https://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/12830916.life-for-sex-fiend-who-tortured-two/

Pressure for Polmont probe after 6 teen deaths
“The families of six teenagers who took their own lives at a young offenders’ institution have spoken out about what they believe are shortcomings that contributed to the deaths.
Craig Clifton, Raygen Merchant, Robert Wagstaff, William Lindsay (also known as Brown), Daniel Barclay and Ross McColm all died at Polmont Young Offenders’ Institution, near Falkirk.
However, it has emerged that out of 11 deaths at Polmont since 2005, fatal accident inquiries (FAI) determinations have been published in only three cases.
In the other three cases an investigation found that determinations were suppressed from the public at the sheriff’s discretion.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/pressure-for-polmont-probe-after-6-teen-deaths-1-4831632

Teenager’s death in cell ‘preventable’
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/teenagers-death-in-cell-preventable-t5h2h57s9
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on August 06, 2019, 01:53:15 PM

Confused? Only after this attack ( If it did happen?), then decided to oblige?
Wednesday 09 May 2007

“It's a suggestion that has certainly sparked high emotions.

"Yes, there has been a bit of intimidation since I started this,"

nods Sandra, reflecting on four years spent trying to fathom out who really has Jodi Jones' blood on their hands.

"I've been followed around, intimidated. It's not been very pleasant, and you'd have to be stupid not to feel uncomfortable about that. But as a mother, I'd rather know they have the right person behind bars."

In her hands, she holds the book she has finally just seen published. No Smoke: The Shocking Truth About British Justice highlights seven high-profile criminal convictions - including Mitchell's - each of them she firmly believes to be a gross miscarriage of justice. It includes cases like that of Sion Jenkins - the stepfather of Billie-Jo Jenkins who has finally been cleared of her murder - and Gordon Park, whose wife Carol Ann Park's body was found in the Lake District 30 years after she went missing.

But it is Mitchell's conviction and the court case that held Scotland gripped by the details of his oddball existence, drugs, two-timing and alleged obsession with the occult - that may incur the displeasure of her local community.

"The public opinion was so much against Luke Mitchell and the Mitchell family that to start speaking in support and start questioning things has been risky," admits Sandra.

"I was in a shop recently, talking to someone I know when another woman came in. The person I was speaking to mentioned that I'd been looking at the Luke Mitchell case, and this other woman - you know the kind, knuckles scrapping on the floor - turned and growled something like: 'Well, you'd just better watch yourself'."

There have been other, even more worrying incidents which Sandra prefers not to discuss publicly. Yet she is so driven to lift the lid on what she sees as fundamental flaws in the justice system which have sent Mitchell to jail for 20 years, that she's prepared to take the flak:

“I'll just not shop in that shop for a while," she shrugs.
https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/books/claiming-killer-innocent-part-of-search-for-truth-1-1316853
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on August 06, 2019, 02:23:37 PM
Wednesday 09 May 2007

"I was in a shop recently, talking to someone I know when another woman came in. The person I was speaking to mentioned that I'd been looking at the Luke Mitchell case, and this other woman - you know the kind, knuckles scrapping on the floor - turned and growled something like: 'Well, you'd just better watch yourself'."

There have been other, even more worrying incidents which Sandra prefers not to discuss publicly. Yet she is so driven to lift the lid on what she sees as fundamental flaws in the justice system which have sent Mitchell to jail for 20 years, that she's prepared to take the flak:

“I'll just not shop in that shop for a while," she shrugs.
https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/books/claiming-killer-innocent-part-of-search-for-truth-1-1316853

November 23, 2010, 10:12:25 pm

Sandra Lean http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4792.msg545707#msg545707
“We had decided that the best course of action would be to ignore the public accusations and write to Simon for further clarification, however this evening’s events have forced a decision based on other factors.

Entering a local store this evening, I was approached by a man who greeted me with the following:

 “You are one f*cking sick little bitch. How long did you think folk were going to take your lies and p*sh? Weren’t happy destroying one family’s life, eh? Now you’ve started on somebody else’s. How many more you twisted little f*ck? Yours is coming, don’t you worry about it. You’ll get yours you twisted little c**t – there’s plenty just waiting their chance.”

I assume this came about as a result of various claims being made on various websites. In principle, I would not back down to such bullying and threatening behaviour. However, I have to live here, as do my family, and in view of the fact that Simon’s appeal is imminent, it is with a very heavy heart that I have asked Billy to remove everything relating to Simon’s case from the site.
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on August 06, 2019, 02:27:34 PM
November 23, 2010, 10:12:25 pm

Sandra Lean http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4792.msg545707#msg545707
“We had decided that the best course of action would be to ignore the public accusations and write to Simon for further clarification, however this evening’s events have forced a decision based on other factors.

Entering a local store this evening, I was approached by a man who greeted me with the following:

 “You are one f*cking sick little bitch. How long did you think folk were going to take your lies and p*sh? Weren’t happy destroying one family’s life, eh? Now you’ve started on somebody else’s. How many more you twisted little f*ck? Yours is coming, don’t you worry about it. You’ll get yours you twisted little c**t – there’s plenty just waiting their chance.”

I assume this came about as a result of various claims being made on various websites. In principle, I would not back down to such bullying and threatening behaviour. However, I have to live here, as do my family, and in view of the fact that Simon’s appeal is imminent, it is with a very heavy heart that I have asked Billy to remove everything relating to Simon’s case from the site.

Sandra Lean:
“I would emphasise wholeheartedly that my support for Simon and Stephanie is unwavering, and I hope with all my heart that the appeal is successful, and they are able to begin to build their life together, as they should be.



The Double-Bind. “Double-binds are negative messages disguised in a positive message or gesture.

”A double bind is an emotionally distressing dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more conflicting messages, with one negating the other.
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on August 06, 2019, 03:55:11 PM
Sandra Lean:
“I would emphasise wholeheartedly that my support for Simon and Stephanie is unwavering, and I hope with all my heart that the appeal is successful, and they are able to begin to build their life together, as they should be.



The Double-Bind. “Double-binds are negative messages disguised in a positive message or gesture.

”A double bind is an emotionally distressing dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more conflicting messages, with one negating the other.

https://www.learning-mind.com/master-manipulator/

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg384537.html#msg384537
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on August 06, 2019, 04:06:24 PM
https://www.learning-mind.com/master-manipulator/

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg384537.html#msg384537

Billy Middleton aka nugnug:

“so was seaman found at the crime scene than steph.


http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg384538.html#msg384538
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Baz on August 06, 2019, 04:09:25 PM
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/some-assembly-required/201701/8-strategies-work-through-anger-and-resentment

Hope this helps.
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on August 06, 2019, 04:29:00 PM
Billy Middleton aka nugnug:

“so was seaman found at the crime scene than steph.


http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg384538.html#msg384538

Re Sue Woodroffe report

Me:
“Well here are the results from the DNA tests on the knife.”


Billy Middleton early 2010

“I’ve forwarded it to Sandra cause she's the DNA whiz kid
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on August 06, 2019, 04:46:07 PM

Billy Middleton early 2010

“I’ve forwarded it to Sandra cause she's the DNA whiz kid


 @)(++(*  @)(++(*  (&^&
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on August 06, 2019, 07:26:46 PM
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/some-assembly-required/201701/8-strategies-work-through-anger-and-resentment

Hope this helps.

 8((()*/

“With the recent U.S. election and upcoming presidential inauguration, feelings of anger and resentment have become more widespread and more intense

Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on August 08, 2019, 02:38:24 PM
Billy Middleton aka nugnug:

“so was seaman found at the crime scene than steph.


http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg384538.html#msg384538

Coward Billy Middleton (AKA Nugnug) AKA Wrongly Accused https://mobile.twitter.com/WronglyAccused1

Wrongly Accused Person Organisation, SC041953
Documents 2410 days overdue
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1988.0

Billy Middleton as Nugnug states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg453745.html#msg453745
“with most police forces an albi that had exepted earler wouldent trump fornensic evdence.
i mean there trying to get a conviction and they know a jurys more likely to convict somone on dna evdence weather they have an albi or not.
they would of at least checked the albi agian.
albis are normally only exepted at face value if theres no other evdence agianst you.

March 2009
“Judge Lord Kinclaven told the jury at the High Court in Aberdeen to put any emotion they may feel to one side when considering the evidence.
He told them that - as the Crown has already conceded - there was no forensic evidence and no admission of guilt from Middleton.
"This puts a firm focus on the circumstantial evidence," he told the 10 women and five men of the jury.
And he reminded them that despite "robust questioning", Middleton had consistently protested his innocence.
Mussel-farmer Middleton is also accused of the attempted murder of two other children on the same date, September 20, and of sexually assaulting a woman at another address on various dates.
He denies all the charges and has lodged a special defence of consent to the sexual assault allegation.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/shetland-baby-fire-death-murder-1014878


Billy Middleton May 2007 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=79.msg18242#msg18242
Quote:   
Although not written on any official document, these are my last will and testimonies.  I hope in the event of my premature death,  should any court proceedings take place, that they be considered legally binding.  To ensure authenticity of this text, I provide certain information which could only be known by myself, that is to say that some parts may be known by some members of the following text, but none by all.
It seems prudent to stipulate these facts from the onset, thus eliminating any confusion or legal rambling of which I do not wish.
Facts.
1.  No one will probably know the fact that I have even written this.  This file will be hidden in a location on the hard disk of this pc and on a physical copy, the location of which is known hopefully only by the medical professionals whom attend me, and any subsequent legal authority whom has interest in my death.  These details will be included on my person at all times.  In the event that I am taken from this world through some destructive force which renders my wallet unfindable, a second proof of authenticity can be found at C & A Thomasons Mussel shed, cullivoe pier, cullivoe, yell. These are by way of an exact copy of this testimont.  To be found above the 2nd H-beam in the depuration shed.  Though not immediately obvious, the location of this second duplicate document is known by anyone searching my known locations.

Billy Middleton http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=79.0
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on August 08, 2019, 03:46:49 PM
Liar Billy Middleton AKA Nugnug http://veronicafryd.blogspot.com/2011/06/confessional-interview-video-william.html
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on August 08, 2019, 03:56:59 PM
Liar Billy Middleton AKA Nugnug http://veronicafryd.blogspot.com/2011/06/confessional-interview-video-william.html

AKA Steven Bones https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=%40stevenbones1%20Simon%20Hall&src=typed_query
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on August 08, 2019, 06:11:49 PM
AKA Steven Bones https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=%40stevenbones1%20Simon%20Hall&src=typed_query

Over 1000 followers yet not a single like or retweet

https://mobile.twitter.com/stevenbones1/status/1154719930820022272

https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=%40stevenbones1%20Luke%20Mitchell&src=typed_query
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on August 08, 2019, 06:17:22 PM
Over 1000 followers yet not a single like or retweet

https://mobile.twitter.com/stevenbones1/status/1154719930820022272

https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=%40stevenbones1%20Luke%20Mitchell&src=typed_query

Here’s Billy Middleton AKA Stephen Bones attempting to plug United Against Injustice https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=%40stevenbones1%20United%20Against%20Injustice&src=typed_query
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on August 08, 2019, 06:28:19 PM
Liar Billy Middleton AKA Nugnug http://veronicafryd.blogspot.com/2011/06/confessional-interview-video-william.html

Pathological liars like Billy Middleton/Nugnug continue to lie when they know you know they’re lying. It’s part and parcel of their everyday life - as evidenced since 2007!

Apparently pathological liars like Billy Middleton have more white matter in the brain's prefrontal cortex?

Billy Middleton AKA Nugnug pathologically lying for the world to see http://veronicafryd.blogspot.com/2011/06/confessional-interview-video-william.html

Wonder if he ever requested Veronica Frydel to remove her videos? https://by-clips.com/channel/UC40pyWgET_vD_A5IRoT5cLw
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on August 08, 2019, 08:49:26 PM
Sandra Lean states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg453782.html#msg453782

“I've answered this question with one of my own repeatedly for over 16 years now. Why would I, a mother of two girls around Jodi's age who lived right on the doorstep of this terrible murder, fight to free someone I thought for one minute could be guilty of it? To risk having someone who could have been capable of such brutality released into the community where my own daughters lived their lives? I didn't know the Mitchell family or the Jones family at the time, so let me ask you, why do you think I did what I did, from the very beginning and have kept doing pretty much ever since? To suggest I'd lie in order to achieve that end is utterly ludicrous.


Sandra Lean went on to refer to the “Simon” she gave a dedication to in her book ‘No Smoke as a “psychopath.”

.....and to Skooby, Chi, Caz and Simon

Why?

What made Sandra Lean believe him to be a psychopath?

And WHY did she go into partnership with Billy Middleton after he’d showed his true colours to her?

A risk taker is a person who is willing to do things that involve danger or risk in order to achieve a goal.
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on August 08, 2019, 10:10:15 PM
.....and to Skooby, Chi, Caz and Simon


for helping me find the strength and courage to fly

by Sandra Lean
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on August 09, 2019, 01:48:06 PM
Sandra Lean states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg453782.html#msg453782

“I've answered this question with one of my own repeatedly for over 16 years now. Why would I, a mother of two girls around Jodi's age who lived right on the doorstep of this terrible murder, fight to free someone I thought for one minute could be guilty of it? To risk having someone who could have been capable of such brutality released into the community where my own daughters lived their lives? I didn't know the Mitchell family or the Jones family at the time, so let me ask you, why do you think I did what I did, from the very beginning and have kept doing pretty much ever since? To suggest I'd lie in order to achieve that end is utterly ludicrous.


http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg384557.html#msg384557
Sandra Lean wrote:
"Entering a local store this evening, I was approached by a man who greeted me with the following:

 “You are one f*cking sick little bitch. How long did you think folk were going to take your lies and p*sh? Weren’t happy destroying one family’s life, eh? Now you’ve started on somebody else’s. How many more you twisted little f*ck? Yours is coming, don’t you worry about it. You’ll get yours you twisted little c**t – there’s plenty just waiting their chance.”

I assume this came about as a result of various claims being made on various websites. In principle, I would not back down to such bullying and threatening behaviour. However, I have to live here, as do my family, and in view of the fact that Simon’s appeal is imminent, it is with a very heavy heart that I have asked Billy to remove everything relating to Simon’s case from the site.http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/re-simon-hall-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/

Sandra Lean said:
""The public opinion was so much against Luke Mitchell and the Mitchell family that to start speaking in support and start questioning things has been risky," admits Sandra.

I was in a shop recently, talking to someone I know when another woman came in. The person I was speaking to mentioned that I'd been looking at the Luke Mitchell case, and this other woman - you know the kind, knuckles scrapping on the floor - turned and growled something like: 'Well, you'd just better watch yourself'."

There have been other, even more worrying incidents which Sandra prefers not to discuss publicly. Yet she is so driven to lift the lid on what she sees as fundamental flaws in the justice system which have sent Mitchell to jail for 20 years, that she's prepared to take the flak: "I'll just not shop in that shop for a while," she shrugs.
http://truthinjustice.org/no-smoke.htm


Another broken link http://truthinjustice.org/no-smoke.htm

https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/books/claiming-killer-innocent-part-of-search-for-truth-1-1316853
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on August 09, 2019, 07:16:48 PM
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg384557.html#msg384557
Sandra Lean wrote:
"Entering a local store this evening, I was approached by a man who greeted me with the following:

 “You are one f*cking sick little bitch. How long did you think folk were going to take your lies and p*sh? Weren’t happy destroying one family’s life, eh? Now you’ve started on somebody else’s. How many more you twisted little f*ck? Yours is coming, don’t you worry about it. You’ll get yours you twisted little c**t – there’s plenty just waiting their chance.”

I assume this came about as a result of various claims being made on various websites. In principle, I would not back down to such bullying and threatening behaviour. However, I have to live here, as do my family, and in view of the fact that Simon’s appeal is imminent, it is with a very heavy heart that I have asked Billy to remove everything relating to Simon’s case from the site.http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/re-simon-hall-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/

Sandra Lean said:
""The public opinion was so much against Luke Mitchell and the Mitchell family that to start speaking in support and start questioning things has been risky," admits Sandra.

I was in a shop recently, talking to someone I know when another woman came in. The person I was speaking to mentioned that I'd been looking at the Luke Mitchell case, and this other woman - you know the kind, knuckles scrapping on the floor - turned and growled something like: 'Well, you'd just better watch yourself'."

There have been other, even more worrying incidents which Sandra prefers not to discuss publicly. Yet she is so driven to lift the lid on what she sees as fundamental flaws in the justice system which have sent Mitchell to jail for 20 years, that she's prepared to take the flak: "I'll just not shop in that shop for a while," she shrugs.

http://truthinjustice.org/no-smoke.htm


Another broken link http://truthinjustice.org/no-smoke.htm

https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/books/claiming-killer-innocent-part-of-search-for-truth-1-1316853

It’s clear from the above news article from May 2007 Sandra Lean had already recognised her choices were “risky” but chose to continue anyway.

What impact have her choices had on her daughters?

Sandra Lean states:
“I didn't know the Mitchell family or the Jones family at the time, so let me ask you, why do you think I did what I did, from the very beginning and have kept doing pretty much ever since? To suggest I'd lie in order to achieve that end is utterly ludicrous.”

Why did Sandra Lean choose to do what she did?

Only she can answer this question.

She didn’t know the Mitchell or Jones family but she came out in support of Luke Mitchell - after apparently Corrine Mitchell put a note through her workplace letterbox?

Following Simon Halls confession she claimed to me, “I’ve wasted 10 years of my life.” Why make such a claim?
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on August 11, 2019, 01:32:31 PM
Liar Billy Middleton AKA Nugnug http://veronicafryd.blogspot.com/2011/06/confessional-interview-video-william.html

Billy Middleton AKA Nugnug:

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
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on August 26, 2019, 11:37:22 AM
Billy Middleton AKA Nugnug:

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

Billy Middleton AKA Stephen Bones AKA Nugnug etc etc

steven bones21 February 2014 at 00:11
mesham made the mistake of accusing a lord. if he had a accused a celebratory preferably from the bbc im sure the daily mail and david mellor would be all over him showing there support.

http://jimcannotfixthis.blogspot.com/2014/02/weirdo.html

Came across the above after reading about Peter Saunders/NAPAC

Billy Middleton’s comments, in his varying guises, are extremely telling

Re Peter Saunders https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/25/child-abuse-charity-boss-resigns-government-inquiry-sexual-encounter/
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on September 19, 2019, 11:07:02 AM
Coward Billy Middleton (AKA Nugnug) AKA Wrongly Accused https://mobile.twitter.com/WronglyAccused1

Wrongly Accused Person Organisation, SC041953
Documents 2410 days overdue
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1988.0

Billy Middleton as Nugnug states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg453745.html#msg453745
“with most police forces an albi that had exepted earler wouldent trump fornensic evdence.
i mean there trying to get a conviction and they know a jurys more likely to convict somone on dna evdence weather they have an albi or not.
they would of at least checked the albi agian.
albis are normally only exepted at face value if theres no other evdence agianst you.

March 2009
“Judge Lord Kinclaven told the jury at the High Court in Aberdeen to put any emotion they may feel to one side when considering the evidence.
He told them that - as the Crown has already conceded - there was no forensic evidence and no admission of guilt from Middleton.
"This puts a firm focus on the circumstantial evidence," he told the 10 women and five men of the jury.
And he reminded them that despite "robust questioning", Middleton had consistently protested his innocence.
Mussel-farmer Middleton is also accused of the attempted murder of two other children on the same date, September 20, and of sexually assaulting a woman at another address on various dates.
He denies all the charges and has lodged a special defence of consent to the sexual assault allegation.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/shetland-baby-fire-death-murder-1014878


Billy Middleton May 2007 http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=79.msg18242#msg18242
Quote:   
Although not written on any official document, these are my last will and testimonies.  I hope in the event of my premature death,  should any court proceedings take place, that they be considered legally binding.  To ensure authenticity of this text, I provide certain information which could only be known by myself, that is to say that some parts may be known by some members of the following text, but none by all.
It seems prudent to stipulate these facts from the onset, thus eliminating any confusion or legal rambling of which I do not wish.
Facts.
1.  No one will probably know the fact that I have even written this.  This file will be hidden in a location on the hard disk of this pc and on a physical copy, the location of which is known hopefully only by the medical professionals whom attend me, and any subsequent legal authority whom has interest in my death.  These details will be included on my person at all times.  In the event that I am taken from this world through some destructive force which renders my wallet unfindable, a second proof of authenticity can be found at C & A Thomasons Mussel shed, cullivoe pier, cullivoe, yell. These are by way of an exact copy of this testimont.  To be found above the 2nd H-beam in the depuration shed.  Though not immediately obvious, the location of this second duplicate document is known by anyone searching my known locations.

Billy Middleton http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=79.0

Billy Middleton/Nugnug also gave away his identity when he bombarded me with questions over on blue re “semen.”

Following the CCRC referral, he and Sandra Lean were given access to confidential paperwork that included mention of “semen” which was allegedly detected on bedding at the crime scene.

Would be interested to learn what Billy Middleton/Nugnugs knowledge is of the longevity of semen traces being detected in such circumstances?

Simon Hall disclosed he masturbated with his underwear still on and didn’t go upstairs to the main bedroom, therefore it’s highly likely it got there via other sources. Don’t know if Mrs Albert took her bedding to be laundered elsewhere or if someone else did it for her? When it was last laundered etc etc.
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on October 19, 2019, 10:42:46 AM
Good points re the 30-40 boxes Parky (highlighted in blue)

Personally I would have ensured I had COPIES of anything and everything I’d submitted to the CCRC in case anything were lost during said review. The CCRC would have received one set and I’d have kept an identical second set.

Did Sandra Lean hand over 30-40 boxes to the CCRC and not keep a copy of what she/they had submitted?

According to Billy Middleton Sandra Lean wrote to Luke before the SCCRC’s refusal.

What happened to her notes on the case and all other case related paperwork? Was it given to Corrine Mitchell? Did Luke or Corrine Mitchell ask for it back?

However, last month Mitchell's mother Corinne blasted MOJO for "doing nothing" since taking on her son's case and recovered his case files from their office
https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1439054-miscarriages-of-justice-charity-stripped-of-lottery-funding/

Mitchell's mum Corinne is calling for the knife to be tested, and yesterday she removed files from the Glasgow office of the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation (Mojo) claiming they hadn't done enough.
She says that she is trying to find a new lawyer to launch a fresh appeal with the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission (SCCRC).
Mojo bosses said to the Record that they were only providing "space and facilities" and "some administrative and casework support" – and never said they would prepare an application to the SCCRC.

https://www.edinburghlive.co.uk/news/edinburgh-news/luke-mitchell-supporters-want-kitchen-16444615

(Note: Underlined above)

Did Sandra Lean also write to Corrine Mitchell or ONLY to Luke? Because to this day I do not understand why she chose to contact me following the revealing of Simon Halls guilt and subsequent confession? Why choose to contact the messenger? She claimed to have spoken to others, who’s cases she highlighted in “No Smoke” yet chose to not write to Simon Hall?

Stephanie also thinks No Smoke should have been withdrawn or revised. I understand Stephanie’s right to feel that way. While she is also entitled to ask questions, I am under no obligation to answer them. However, on this occasion, I choose to address a couple of matters raised by Stephanie for the benefit of others who may be interested.
I spoke with many people (including others whose cases were mentioned or discussed) about the question of withdrawing the book. Not one of them wanted the book withdrawn. There were discussions about possible revisions which would, of necessity, have taken a great deal of time and effort - time and effort that I was not capable of devoting to the matter at that time.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382961.html#msg382961

I don’t understand her reasoning?

Wouldn’t basic logic suggest going direct to the source?

She goes on:
We will never know if Simon Hall’s confession was genuine, or the confused utterings of a crumbling sanity. The decision about whether to take up, or continue to carry, the baton for claimed Miscarriages of Justice is a matter for the person deciding to do so, and their own conscience.” You see, to this day, we have only Stephanie’s word about the circumstances leading up to the confession, .......

She stated this in January 2017, yet back in 2014 she claimed to me, “I’ve wasted 10 years of my life!” amongst other disclosures.

This self serving stance was a quite obvious strategic move designed to achieve HER long-term and overall aim, which for me is not grounded in truth-seeking or fact finding - its game planning.

Following the news MOJO Scotland are being investigated by the governments criminal justice division

Lean told STV News: "Part of the problem was the promises being made were not being kept. The case review itself was something of a farce. There was no central strategy. There was no planned route to how this review was going to take place. https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1439054-miscarriages-of-justice-charity-stripped-of-lottery-funding/

Following my experiences and having learned I was conned by Simon Hall;

In order to be a con artist you have to take advantage of other people's belief in you.”

Why We All Fall for Con Artists
Con artists surround us: Bernie Madoff. Nigerian princes. Psychics. But we never think we’ll fall prey to their wiles. We can spot a gimmick a mile away, while those who become victims are foolish, or greedy, or both. Well, that’s not quite the case. If the NSA can be hacked, so can the average — or even exceptional — human mind. Our capacity to trust, which makes us successful, also makes us vulnerable — as does the natural bias to overrate our own bullshit detection.

Are certain types of people more skilled or motivated in conning?
In my book I talk about the dark triad of traits: psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism. Any of those can predispose someone to being a con artist. In order to be a con artist you have to take advantage of other people’s belief in you, and psychopaths don’t really have a conscience, so it’s much easier for them to take that step. Narcissism, you have to have an overinflated sense of self in order to rationalize conning other people, especially if you’re not a psychopath. If you’re someone who feels emotion normally, narcissism will protect you, because you say, “Well, I deserve it.” And finally, Machiavellianism is a textbook definition of a con artist, because it’s someone who is like Machiavelli’s “ideal prince,” someone who uses the tools of persuasion and deception and connivance to get what he wants. The ends justify the means. But a lot of it, as with so many things in psychology, is a meeting of predisposition and opportunity.
https://www.thecut.com/2016/01/why-we-all-fall-for-con-artists.html

Sandra Lean stated; “There were discussions about possible revisions which would, of necessity, have taken a great deal of time and effort time and effort that I was not capable of devoting to the matter at that time”

Yet another telling public statement imo.
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on February 17, 2021, 08:24:13 PM
Sandra Lean
@SandraLean5
Luke Mitchell - fourteen, fitted up and forgotten. It's time for the truth. Profits to Long Road to Justice - a new organisation being set up to help wrongly accused and convicted.
8:29 AM · Apr 2, 2019·Twitter Web Client

Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Apr 2, 2019
Replying to
@SandraLean5
Anyone reading the Facts of this case will realise 100%That Mitchell was set up to cover up police incompetence...incompetence of a criminal standard. Police showed a total disregard for law and justice and total disrespect to Jodie Jones and family#set#up
https://mobile.twitter.com/SandraLean5/status/1112980356695756800


There’s no evidence Luke Mitchell was ‘fitted up’ as Sandra Lean claims.
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on March 12, 2021, 03:18:17 PM
Sandra Lean states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg453782.html#msg453782

“I've answered this question with one of my own repeatedly for over 16 years now. Why would I, a mother of two girls around Jodi's age who lived right on the doorstep of this terrible murder, fight to free someone I thought for one minute could be guilty of it? To risk having someone who could have been capable of such brutality released into the community where my own daughters lived their lives? I didn't know the Mitchell family or the Jones family at the time, so let me ask you, why do you think I did what I did, from the very beginning and have kept doing pretty much ever since? To suggest I'd lie in order to achieve that end is utterly ludicrous.

Why did Sandra Lean move Billy Middleton in with her and her daughter? - the man who according to Sandra - left smoking cigarette ends in her ashtrays at night before bed
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on March 12, 2021, 05:23:30 PM
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg384557.html#msg384557
Sandra Lean wrote:
"Entering a local store this evening, I was approached by a man who greeted me with the following:

 “You are one f*cking sick little bitch. How long did you think folk were going to take your lies and p*sh? Weren’t happy destroying one family’s life, eh? Now you’ve started on somebody else’s. How many more you twisted little f*ck? Yours is coming, don’t you worry about it. You’ll get yours you twisted little c**t – there’s plenty just waiting their chance.”

I assume this came about as a result of various claims being made on various websites. In principle, I would not back down to such bullying and threatening behaviour. However, I have to live here, as do my family, and in view of the fact that Simon’s appeal is imminent, it is with a very heavy heart that I have asked Billy to remove everything relating to Simon’s case from the site.http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/re-simon-hall-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/

Sandra Lean said:
""The public opinion was so much against Luke Mitchell and the Mitchell family that to start speaking in support and start questioning things has been risky," admits Sandra.

I was in a shop recently, talking to someone I know when another woman came in. The person I was speaking to mentioned that I'd been looking at the Luke Mitchell case, and this other woman - you know the kind, knuckles scrapping on the floor - turned and growled something like: 'Well, you'd just better watch yourself'."

There have been other, even more worrying incidents which Sandra prefers not to discuss publicly. Yet she is so driven to lift the lid on what she sees as fundamental flaws in the justice system which have sent Mitchell to jail for 20 years, that she's prepared to take the flak: "I'll just not shop in that shop for a while," she shrugs.
http://truthinjustice.org/no-smoke.htm


Another broken link http://truthinjustice.org/no-smoke.htm

https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/books/claiming-killer-innocent-part-of-search-for-truth-1-1316853

Same broken link as the one from the wiki page here ⬇️

Interestingly wiki refers to ‘No Smoke’ by Sandra Lean but there appears to be no mention of Douglas Richard Binstead’s book ‘A Very Cumbrian Murder: The Tragic Story of the Lady in the Lake’ on the case

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_in_the_Lake_trial

Sandra Lean claimed in October 2019 she had withdrawn her book ‘No Smoke’ but it appears this may not have been the case

I've contacted the publisher today to ask for the book to be withdrawn’

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg456199.html#msg456199

At reference 50 in the wiki link above it states,

Dick, Sandra (2007-05-09). "Claiming killer innocent part of search for truth". Edinburgh Evening News. Retrieved 2007-07-02’

Interestingly clicking on the link leads to ‘truthinjustice.org’ coming soon page
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on March 16, 2021, 01:13:07 PM
Sandra Lean said:
""The public opinion was so much against Luke Mitchell and the Mitchell family that to start speaking in support and start questioning things has been risky," admits Sandra.

I was in a shop recently, talking to someone I know when another woman came in. The person I was speaking to mentioned that I'd been looking at the Luke Mitchell case, and this other woman - you know the kind, knuckles scrapping on the floor - turned and growled something like: 'Well, you'd just better watch yourself'."

There have been other, even more worrying incidents which Sandra prefers not to discuss publicly. Yet she is so driven to lift the lid on what she sees as fundamental flaws in the justice system which have sent Mitchell to jail for 20 years, that she's prepared to take the flak: "I'll just not shop in that shop for a while," she shrugs.
http://truthinjustice.org/no-smoke.htm[/color]


Another broken link http://truthinjustice.org/no-smoke.htm

At reference 50 in the wiki link above it states,

Dick, Sandra (2007-05-09). "Claiming killer innocent part of search for truth". Edinburgh Evening News. Retrieved 2007-07-02’

Interestingly clicking on the link leads to ‘truthinjustice.org’ coming soon page

Does anyone know who set up the truthinjustice.org ?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10370.msg644508#msg644508

And does anyone know who edited the wiki pages?

I noticed someone asked Sandra Lean’s daughter about this around a year ago on her YouTube channel

was it (the truthinjustice.org site) and wiki edits linked to Sandra Leans publisher Checkpoint press/Stephen T Manning?
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: John on March 16, 2021, 02:47:34 PM
Sandra Lean
@SandraLean5
Luke Mitchell - fourteen, fitted up and forgotten. It's time for the truth. Profits to Long Road to Justice - a new organisation being set up to help wrongly accused and convicted.
8:29 AM · Apr 2, 2019·Twitter Web Client

Scott Forbes
@Scf65Forbes
Apr 2, 2019
Replying to
@SandraLean5
Anyone reading the Facts of this case will realise 100%That Mitchell was set up to cover up police incompetence...incompetence of a criminal standard. Police showed a total disregard for law and justice and total disrespect to Jodie Jones and family#set#up
https://mobile.twitter.com/SandraLean5/status/1112980356695756800


There’s no evidence Luke Mitchell was ‘fitted up’ as Sandra Lean claims.

You're spot on Nicky.

Scott Forbes is an idiot. What sort of plonker tries to suck £50 grand out of the press for a fairy tale?

Poor wretch Mark Kane paid the ultimate price though and is yet another victim of this witch-hunt.
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: John on March 16, 2021, 02:51:52 PM
Why did Sandra Lean move Billy Middleton in with her and her daughter? - the man who according to Sandra - left smoking cigarette ends in her ashtrays at night before bed

I know why but I can't say publicly unfortunately.   $65*

I must say I've got to laugh after watching her latest Facebook live effort.  She never answers the real questions, just reiterates the same old...same old. Nothing new has ever come out of any investigation carried out by Sandra Lean.

The campaign followers are fed all this garbage about new evidence and withheld documents etc...  What a load of bull!
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on March 16, 2021, 02:55:48 PM
I know why but I can't say publicly unfortunately.   $65*

Sandra Lean states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg453782.html#msg453782

“I've answered this question with one of my own repeatedly for over 16 years now. Why would I, a mother of two girls around Jodi's age who lived right on the doorstep of this terrible murder, fight to free someone I thought for one minute could be guilty of it? To risk having someone who could have been capable of such brutality released into the community where my own daughters lived their lives? I didn't know the Mitchell family or the Jones family at the time, so let me ask you, why do you think I did what I did, from the very beginning and have kept doing pretty much ever since? To suggest I'd lie in order to achieve that end is utterly ludicrous.


Sandra Lean went on to refer to the “Simon” she gave a dedication to in her book ‘No Smoke as a “psychopath.”

.....and to Skooby, Chi, Caz and Simon

Why?

What made Sandra Lean believe him to be a psychopath?

And WHY did she go into partnership with Billy Middleton after he’d showed his true colours to her?

A risk taker is a person who is willing to do things that involve danger or risk in order to achieve a goal.

Thing is John it wasn’t just Billy Middleton who ‘visited’ with Sandra Lean it seems?

This statement ‘Why would I, a mother of two girls around Jodi's age who lived right on the doorstep of this terrible murder, fight to free someone I thought for one minute could be guilty of it? is meaningless from my viewpoint - especially following Sandra’s comments on the exposure of Simon Hall’s guilt

As is this, ’To risk having someone who could have been capable of such brutality released into the community where my own daughters lived their lives?’

For me the Billy Middleton ‘incident’ is evidence of the contrary

I recall a meeting with Dr Michael Naughton at Bristol university where the news on Billy Middleton’s case was discussed

Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on March 16, 2021, 03:21:14 PM
I know why but I can't say publicly unfortunately.   $65*

Apparently Sandra Lean resigned from the WronglyAccusedPersonOrg in April 2013 but my question to her would be - didn’t this ⬇️ set off any alarm bells?

Billy Middleton AKA Nugnug:

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

And what do her adult daughters make of it all?
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on March 18, 2021, 04:29:10 PM
https://insidetime.org/truth-justice-certainty-and-finality/

Sandra Lean
Quote
One of the things I’ve seen over and over in the last 12 years is those fighting injustice being accused of “selective interpretation” of the facts to support claims of innocence. Yet, as we see here, often those making such accusations are doing exactly that – selectively choosing which points they will claim as “facts” to accuse those locked in a desperate and oftentimes apparently impossible battle for justice

Good for the goose? Which is why I am trying to pick up on 'selective interpretation' Would be a losing battle if I were to try and engage in some pointless debate, when, I (someone who holds, not, every single piece of documentation)Savvy enough perhaps, to notice the holes in even the basic particles of misinformation given. Witnessing (disgracefully) in forums of past and present, the response, that any negative towards innocence produces. A professional body, acting in childish, foolish taunts. "be afraid, be very afraid"  I underlinded the above, as, inadvertantly, meaningfully, cleverly or simply, it is up to the reader/viewer what it paints. There are no accusations to parties a,b,c ,d,e and so forth, the childish cry of 'not my fault if it incurs consequences towards innocents, I didn't make them do it'. (The blame game)

"Innocents Betrayed "    Are the innocents in the case of Luke Mitchell being portrayed as guilty? From the very first officer who arrived on the scene that night, blasted as a liar?

Sandra Lean states:
”So, to take a hypothetical example, in a murder case where the victim was killed by a stab wound to the chest,”

Her “hypothetical example” being the Sean Toal case and hopes no one will notice she’s been caught out AGAIN

“A hypothetical example is a fictional example that can be used when a speaker is explaining a complicated topic that makes the most sense when it is put into more realistic or relatable terms.

Maybe next time she should request all comment on her articles are closed down before being published

What it “paints” is see through and has been for a long time now

⬆️
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on March 18, 2021, 06:05:28 PM
Sandra Lean states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg453782.html#msg453782

“I've answered this question with one of my own repeatedly for over 16 years now. Why would I, a mother of two girls around Jodi's age who lived right on the doorstep of this terrible murder, fight to free someone I thought for one minute could be guilty of it? To risk having someone who could have been capable of such brutality released into the community where my own daughters lived their lives? I didn't know the Mitchell family or the Jones family at the time, so let me ask you, why do you think I did what I did, from the very beginning and have kept doing pretty much ever since? To suggest I'd lie in order to achieve that end is utterly ludicrous.

Is the above a true statement?

I was under the impression only one of the girls (Now grown women) lived with Sandra Lean ?
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on March 18, 2021, 06:26:57 PM
Sandra Lean states here: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.msg453782.html#msg453782

“I've answered this question with one of my own repeatedly for over 16 years now. Why would I, a mother of two girls around Jodi's age who lived right on the doorstep of this terrible murder, fight to free someone I thought for one minute could be guilty of it? To risk having someone who could have been capable of such brutality released into the community where my own daughters lived their lives? I didn't know the Mitchell family or the Jones family at the time, so let me ask you, why do you think I did what I did, from the very beginning and have kept doing pretty much ever since? To suggest I'd lie in order to achieve that end is utterly ludicrous.

To forward her career, for money, for fame, for power or for the thrill of getting one over on the criminal justice system?
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on April 27, 2021, 07:20:17 PM
Thing is John it wasn’t just Billy Middleton who ‘visited’ with Sandra Lean it seems?

This statement ‘Why would I, a mother of two girls around Jodi's age who lived right on the doorstep of this terrible murder, fight to free someone I thought for one minute could be guilty of it? is meaningless from my viewpoint - especially following Sandra’s comments on the exposure of Simon Hall’s guilt

As is this, ’To risk having someone who could have been capable of such brutality released into the community where my own daughters lived their lives?’

For me the Billy Middleton ‘incident’ is evidence of the contrary

I recall a meeting with Dr Michael Naughton at Bristol university where the news on Billy Middleton’s case was discussed

‘Lived their lives’

Where were Sandra Leans two daughters living at the time of Jodi’s murder?

or

Did both Sandra’s daughters live with her at the time?
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Parky41 on April 27, 2021, 08:02:50 PM
Quote
As is this, ’To risk having someone who could have been capable of such brutality released into the community where my own daughters lived their lives?’

It is meaningless - As Ms Lean was well entangled with CM long before LM was arrested. I simply do not buy into this tale of two complete strangers meeting in 2003. There is not a fraction of it that rings true IMO, as it does with many others. A mother of two daughters whom had absolutely no way of knowing at this point, if the suspicion, only at that point upon LM was founded. One stranger, a mother of boy who is very much a suspect does not look up a complete stranger on the basis of air? Whilst another with two young daughters would become entailed suddenly with the mother of a boy suspected of murdering his girlfriend. This claimed first meeting, was in September 2003. LM was arrested in April 2004. "No Smoke" was released in 2007 which is flawed from start to finish with this case.

Furthermore the statement above is completely empty - It is empty as there is absolutely nothing of risk in the above as to what Ms Lean has done or does do. Ms Leans many claims have absolutely no basis of foundation in proving LM to be innocent. She can not explain in the slightest any of LM's actions on that evening as being credible. If there was anything at all solid in these assumptions, they would not be assumptions in the first place. There would be no speculation and innuendo. There is however plenty of scope for bias and impartiality, even if this friendship had only begun in September 2003

An example of this, is the ban on using this path alone. - Ms Lean could release multiple areas, verbatim from this girls mothers statements to show it to be false. She can not. For surely the key, the reasons and the time of this ban taking place, would be in Jodi's mothers statements. There appears to be no dispute of the fact that this girl had walked this path alone on occasion - it is when this ban took place and why? What were the reasons for it? And of course the many other witness's to this fact. The snip bits that are used do not prove that LM did not know or of his claims to hang around for the best part of two hours. That he did know, with absolute certainty how isolated this path was. That he is the one claiming she was walking this isolated path alone. That it is not at all feasible, in the slightest to accept that he had simply hung around on Newbattle R'd. There is absolutely no proof that he did so. 

Another example is that of the search party.  - Remember here that the claim is that all of this search party had walked some distance passed this V . Ms Lean, yet again could release the areas of these statements verbatim that show this clear wording. She does not as she can't, for it is not there. The search party talk of this dog at the V - When actual context is put alongside this, of where both Luke and his dog were. It completely wipes out the story of the dog finding Jodi. For they had not all walked passed this V and LM certainly had not. And If, and that is a mighty big IF, he had even stepped a couple of feet passed this V - It does not explain in the slightest the ease of which he handled this, claimed strange, unfamiliar territory. That he had been over this V mere seconds. No trepidation, nothing. This is the very reason DF did not choose to go down foolish routes of bringing in dog experts. It was completely unnecessary and unfounded.  He knew what was in those statements, from the off. Yes, he did ask about the dog and of what it had been doing, but is was at the V.  Remember here also, that initial look into the woodland at the 'Gino' break. No dog, no nothing. He introduced the woodland into the search. This woodland that he claimed never to have been in prior to that evening. And of course, we are talking around 10mins here. From the point of the search party meeting. Remarkable, isn't it. Impossible? - It was certainly proven to be.
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on April 27, 2021, 08:13:31 PM
It is meaningless - As Ms Lean was well entangled with CM long before LM was arrested. I simply do not buy into this tale of two complete strangers meeting in 2003. There is not a fraction of it that rings true IMO, as it does with many others. A mother of two daughters whom had absolutely no way of knowing at this point, if the suspicion, only at that point upon LM was founded. One stranger, a mother of boy who is very much a suspect does not look up a complete stranger on the basis of air? Whilst another with two young daughters would become entailed suddenly with the mother of a boy suspected of murdering his girlfriend. This claimed first meeting, was in September 2003. LM was arrested in April 2004. "No Smoke" was released in 2007 which is flawed from start to finish with this case.

Furthermore the statement above is completely empty - It is empty as there is absolutely nothing of risk in the above as to what Ms Lean has done or does do. Ms Leans many claims have absolutely no basis of foundation in proving LM to be innocent. She can not explain in the slightest any of LM's actions on that evening as being credible. If there was anything at all solid in these assumptions, they would not be assumptions in the first place. There would be no speculation and innuendo. There is however plenty of scope for bias and impartiality, even if this friendship had only begun in September 2003

An example of this, is the ban on using this path alone. - Ms Lean could release multiple areas, verbatim from this girls mothers statements to show it to be false. She can not. For surely the key, the reasons and the time of this ban taking place, would be in Jodi's mothers statements. There appears to be no dispute of the fact that this girl had walked this path alone on occasion - it is when this ban took place and why? What were the reasons for it? And of course the many other witness's to this fact. The snip bits that are used do not prove that LM did not know or of his claims to hang around for the best part of two hours. That he did know, with absolute certainty how isolated this path was. That he is the one claiming she was walking this isolated path alone. That it is not at all feasible, in the slightest to accept that he had simply hung around on Newbattle R'd. There is absolutely no proof that he did so. 

Another example is that of the search party.  - Remember here that the claim is that all of this search party had walked some distance passed this V . Ms Lean, yet again could release the areas of these statements verbatim that show this clear wording. She does not as she can't, for it is not there. The search party talk of this dog at the V - When actual context is put alongside this, of where both Luke and his dog were. It completely wipes out the story of the dog finding Jodi. For they had not all walked passed this V and LM certainly had not. And If, and that is a mighty big IF, he had even stepped a couple of feet passed this V - It does not explain in the slightest the ease of which he handled this, claimed strange, unfamiliar territory. That he had been over this V mere seconds. No trepidation, nothing. This is the very reason DF did not choose to go down foolish routes of bringing in dog experts. It was completely unnecessary and unfounded.  He knew what was in those statements, from the off. Yes, he did ask about the dog and of what it had been doing, but is was at the V.  Remember here also, that initial look into the woodland at the 'Gino' break. No dog, no nothing. He introduced the woodland into the search. This woodland that he claimed never to have been in prior to that evening. And of course, we are talking around 10mins here. From the point of the search party meeting. Remarkable, isn't it. Impossible? - It was certainly proven to be.

and misleading...

Only one daughter lived with Sandra Lean in 2003 - I was not aware of this until recently
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on April 27, 2021, 08:32:14 PM
This statement ‘Why would I, a mother of two girls around Jodi's age who lived right on the doorstep of this terrible murder, fight to free someone I thought for one minute could be guilty of it? is meaningless from my viewpoint - especially following Sandra’s comments on the exposure of Simon Hall’s guilt

As is this, ’To risk having someone who could have been capable of such brutality released into the community where my own daughters lived their lives?’

Maybe Sandra Lean was duped by the Mitchell’s protestations in 2003 - maybe she wasn’t

She most certainly made claim to me she had wasted 10 years of her life (following the exposure of Simon Halls guilt and subsequent confession) the suggestion being she’d been duped

Sandra Lean
‘As a clinical hypnotherapist, I know a bit about the power of suggestion. Confusion is a really powerful technique - while the conscious mind is trying to work out the confusing information, the ‘suggestion” is quietly being absorbed...’
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: mrswah on April 27, 2021, 08:42:58 PM
and misleading...

Only one daughter lived with Sandra Lean in 2003 - I was not aware of this until recently

How did you find out?

I was under the impression that her girls were around Jodi's age in 2003, and that they attended Newbattle High School.

So, where was the other daughter living?
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on April 27, 2021, 08:55:39 PM
.

So, where was the other daughter living?

With her father

Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on April 27, 2021, 08:58:44 PM
I was under the impression that her girls were around Jodi's age in 2003, and that they attended Newbattle High School.

As a clinical hypnotherapist, I know a bit about the power of suggestion, Confusion is a really powerful technique’
(Sandra Lean 4th Dec 2020)


Anything and everything Sandra Lean says or writes should be fact checked
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: faithlilly on April 27, 2021, 09:22:04 PM
With her father

Do you have a cite...Brietta insists on it?
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on April 27, 2021, 09:27:55 PM
Do you have a cite...Brietta insists on it?

Why don’t you ask her https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TBuWO8lBuhw
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: faithlilly on April 27, 2021, 11:09:46 PM
Why don’t you ask her https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TBuWO8lBuhw

That’s not how it works.
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on April 28, 2021, 07:46:26 AM
That’s not how it works.

Then ask Sandra Lean
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: mrswah on April 28, 2021, 08:32:47 AM
With her father


How do you know?
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on April 28, 2021, 08:50:33 AM

How do you know?

She divorced in 2003
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: mrswah on April 28, 2021, 11:29:02 AM
She divorced in 2003

I know, but why does that necessarily mean that one daughter lived with her father?
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on May 02, 2021, 04:59:11 PM
I know, but why does that necessarily mean that one daughter lived with her father?

I don’t know if it was an amicable arrangement or court ordered
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on May 13, 2021, 05:08:06 PM
and misleading...

Only one daughter lived with Sandra Lean in 2003 - I was not aware of this until recently

MR: ‘Did Jodie and Luke hang about a lot with her sister, brother, SK and the moped boys? We’re the siblings close or was their a lot of friction between them?
Anyone know?


LS‘Following! Must have been something off for one sibling to live with her gran and the other two with mum 🙄! I know growing up that I had to eventually live with my granny for a period of time teenage years and that’s because I didn’t get on too well with my mam when I was a teeenager 😂 typical! But yeah coulda been anything eh! Xx
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on May 13, 2021, 06:53:23 PM
Seemingly someone’s still attempting to ‘bridge the gap”   @)(++(*

https://www.facebook.com/bridgingthegapuk?_rdc=1&_rdr

https://btguk.org/bridging-the-gap-penpal-scheme-inmate-rules/
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on September 12, 2021, 08:55:10 AM
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.4560.html

(Luke’s clothing, am I correct in saying this was meant to be the same clothes he wore to school that day that he was still in that night? If so who corroborated this?) Quote Bullseye.


[Yes. again, from memory, there were some witnesses from school who described those clothes, then the boys he was out playing with in the early evening also described those  clothes.

There are 30 - 40 boxes of documents. When they were returned from the SCCRC, the papers were just chucked in wily-nily and have never been properly sorted ever since. It will take me a long time to sort them all into the sort of order that would allow me to access specific papers quickly. I know what's there because it was me who sorted them before they went to the Commission in the first place.]


Were the 30-40? boxes of documents in their "wily-nily" state, handed into MOJO as such? Ms Lean visited MOJO offices at least once or twice a week, claiming she was the only person who accessed the files whilst there.
What did she do with the paper work, over this lengthy period of time, if not organize it into order? Was Ms Mitchell helping her with the files? Just a thought. Another thought being (working around response here) Would memory, of a case studied for 16yrs, books written around and so forth, not have information of importance steadfast in memory.

I’ve not read her book ‘innocents betrayed’ but is it fully referenced and if so how did she reference the book - from her notes or from the original case papers?


She talked to me about the possibility of writing another book and self publishing when we last spoke (Around February/March 2014)
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: rulesapply on September 13, 2021, 08:14:34 PM
SL's previous publisher doesn't seem to have a good reputation. Self published may be less risky. The fewer dubious men in a person's life, the better.
Title: Re: Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton (WAP) exit from Luke Mitchell case!
Post by: Nicholas on June 12, 2022, 05:24:43 PM
Sandra Lean
"I refer to your recent communications with me, your posts on the Bamber forum, and our previous exchanges.

While I appreciate that fighting a MOJ is an uphill struggle, and a steep learning curve, there are some "mistakes" which cannot be explained as ignorance, enthusiastic but misguided belief, or any of the other well trodden routes most people take on their journey towards justice.

I personally believe that your recent online behaviour, the way you handled Simon's confession to the other burglary, and the consequent attacks of Shaun and Stephanie Bon have all been detrimental to public support for Simon. The letter, supposedly from Simon, was a disgraceful slap in the face to many, many people who have tried to help Simon over the years.

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg384705.html#msg384705

Not a ‘MOJ’ - innocence fraud!

There is the miscarriage of justice phenomenon and the ‘innocence’ fraud phenomenon, which charlatans like Sandra Lean and child killer and sexual predator Billy Middleton won’t address - for obvious reasons