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: TruthSeeker2003 on June 28, 2021, 11:52:17 PM
-
On Sunday she announced her exit. Blame was made on everyone but her. Has she lost control of the campaign? What are the real reasons behind her exit? Will it ever be made clear? Will it always be everyone else fault and not her own? She committed Hari Kari. But again she takes no blame.
-
On Sunday she announced her exit. Blame was made on everyone but her. Has she lost control of the campaign? What are the real reasons behind her exit? Will it ever be made clear? Will it always be everyone else fault and not her own? She committed Hari Kari. But again she takes no blame.
It depends what eyes you look through. Considering all the abuse she has received I think her announcement was calm and confident as always. It's the other people who are riled by her efforts who point the finger the most !
-
She committed Hari Kari.
And it’s pretty sad when a killer doesn’t want you representing them 🙄
-
It depends what eyes you look through. Considering all the abuse she has received I think her announcement was calm and confident as always. It's the other people who are riled by her efforts who point the finger the most !
‘Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or a group covertly sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or group, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgement.
-
‘Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation in which a person or a group covertly sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or group, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgement.
Gaslighting you are such an expert on everthing. It's amazing. Definitely dedicated too.
-
Gaslighting
Gaslighting is a manipulation tactic used to gain power. And it works too well.
‘Gaslighting is a tactic in which a person or entity, in order to gain more power, makes a victim question their reality. It works much better than you may think. Anyone is susceptible to gaslighting, and it is a common technique of abusers, dictators, narcissists, and cult leaders. It is done slowly, so the victim doesn't realize how much they've been brainwashed
For example, in the movie Gaslight (1944), a man manipulates his wife to the point where she thinks she is losing her mind.
In my book Gaslighting: Recognize Manipulative and Emotionally Abusive People — and Break Free I detail how gaslighters typically use the following techniques:
1. They tell blatant lies.
You know it's an outright lie. Yet they are telling you this lie with a straight face. Why are they so blatant? Because they're setting up a precedent. Once they tell you a huge lie, you're not sure if anything they say is true. Keeping you unsteady and off-kilter is the goal.
2. They deny they ever said something, even though you have proof.
You know they said they would do something; you know you heard it. But they out and out deny it. It makes you start questioning your reality—maybe they never said that thing. And the more they do this, the more you question your reality and start accepting theirs.
3. They use what is near and dear to you as ammunition.
They know how important your kids are to you, and they know how important your identity is to you. So those may be one of the first things they attack. If you have kids, they tell you that you should not have had those children. They will tell you'd be a worthy person if only you didn't have a long list of negative traits. They attack the foundation of your being.
4. They wear you down over time.
This is one of the insidious things about gaslighting—it is done gradually, over time. A lie here, a lie there, a snide comment every so often...and then it starts ramping up. Even the brightest, most self-aware people can be sucked into gaslighting—it is that effective. It's the "frog in the frying pan" analogy: The heat is turned up slowly, so the frog never realizes what's happening to it.
5. Their actions do not match their words.
When dealing with a person or entity that gaslights, look at what they are doing rather than what they are saying. What they are saying means nothing; it is just talk. What they are doing is the issue
6. They throw in positive reinforcement to confuse you.
This person or entity that is cutting you down, telling you that you don't have value, is now praising you for something you did. This adds an additional sense of uneasiness. You think, "Well maybe they aren't so bad." Yes, they are. This is a calculated attempt to keep you off-kilter—and again, to question your reality. Also look at what you were praised for; it is probably something that served the gaslighter.
7. They know confusion weakens people.
Gaslighters know that people like having a sense of stability and normalcy. Their goal is to uproot this and make you constantly question everything. And humans' natural tendency is to look to the person or entity that will help you feel more stable—and that happens to be the gaslighter.
8. They project.
They are a drug user or a cheater, yet they are constantly accusing you of that. This is done so often that you start trying to defend yourself, and are distracted from the gaslighter's own behavior.
9. They try to align people against you.
Gaslighters are masters at manipulating and finding the people they know will stand by them no matter what—and they use these people against you. They will make comments such as, "This person knows that you're not right," or "This person knows you're useless too." Keep in mind it does not mean that these people actually said these things. A gaslighter is a constant liar. When the gaslighter uses this tactic it makes you feel like you don't know who to trust or turn to—and that leads you right back to the gaslighter. And that's exactly what they want: Isolation gives them more control.
10. They tell you or others that you are crazy.
This is one of the most effective tools of the gaslighter, because it's dismissive. The gaslighter knows if they question your sanity, people will not believe you when you tell them the gaslighter is abusive or out-of-control. It's a master technique.
11. They tell you everyone else is a liar.
By telling you that everyone else (your family, the media) is a liar, it again makes you question your reality. You've never known someone with the audacity to do this, so they must be telling the truth, right? No. It's a manipulation technique. It makes people turn to the gaslighter for the "correct" information—which isn't correct information at all.
The more you are aware of these techniques, the quicker you can identify them and avoid falling into the gaslighter's trap. by Stephanie A Sardis - 11 Warning Signs of Gaslighting
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/here-there-and-everywhere/201701/11-warning-signs-gaslighting
-
Gaslighting is a manipulation tactic used to gain power. And it works too well.
‘Gaslighting is a tactic in which a person or entity, in order to gain more power, makes a victim question their reality. It works much better than you may think. Anyone is susceptible to gaslighting, and it is a common technique of abusers, dictators, narcissists, and cult leaders. It is done slowly, so the victim doesn't realize how much they've been brainwashed
For example, in the movie Gaslight (1944), a man manipulates his wife to the point where she thinks she is losing her mind.
In my book Gaslighting: Recognize Manipulative and Emotionally Abusive People — and Break Free I detail how gaslighters typically use the following techniques:
1. They tell blatant lies.
You know it's an outright lie. Yet they are telling you this lie with a straight face. Why are they so blatant? Because they're setting up a precedent. Once they tell you a huge lie, you're not sure if anything they say is true. Keeping you unsteady and off-kilter is the goal.
2. They deny they ever said something, even though you have proof.
You know they said they would do something; you know you heard it. But they out and out deny it. It makes you start questioning your reality—maybe they never said that thing. And the more they do this, the more you question your reality and start accepting theirs.
3. They use what is near and dear to you as ammunition.
They know how important your kids are to you, and they know how important your identity is to you. So those may be one of the first things they attack. If you have kids, they tell you that you should not have had those children. They will tell you'd be a worthy person if only you didn't have a long list of negative traits. They attack the foundation of your being.
4. They wear you down over time.
This is one of the insidious things about gaslighting—it is done gradually, over time. A lie here, a lie there, a snide comment every so often...and then it starts ramping up. Even the brightest, most self-aware people can be sucked into gaslighting—it is that effective. It's the "frog in the frying pan" analogy: The heat is turned up slowly, so the frog never realizes what's happening to it.
5. Their actions do not match their words.
When dealing with a person or entity that gaslights, look at what they are doing rather than what they are saying. What they are saying means nothing; it is just talk. What they are doing is the issue
6. They throw in positive reinforcement to confuse you.
This person or entity that is cutting you down, telling you that you don't have value, is now praising you for something you did. This adds an additional sense of uneasiness. You think, "Well maybe they aren't so bad." Yes, they are. This is a calculated attempt to keep you off-kilter—and again, to question your reality. Also look at what you were praised for; it is probably something that served the gaslighter.
7. They know confusion weakens people.
Gaslighters know that people like having a sense of stability and normalcy. Their goal is to uproot this and make you constantly question everything. And humans' natural tendency is to look to the person or entity that will help you feel more stable—and that happens to be the gaslighter.
8. They project.
They are a drug user or a cheater, yet they are constantly accusing you of that. This is done so often that you start trying to defend yourself, and are distracted from the gaslighter's own behavior.
9. They try to align people against you.
Gaslighters are masters at manipulating and finding the people they know will stand by them no matter what—and they use these people against you. They will make comments such as, "This person knows that you're not right," or "This person knows you're useless too." Keep in mind it does not mean that these people actually said these things. A gaslighter is a constant liar. When the gaslighter uses this tactic it makes you feel like you don't know who to trust or turn to—and that leads you right back to the gaslighter. And that's exactly what they want: Isolation gives them more control.
10. They tell you or others that you are crazy.
This is one of the most effective tools of the gaslighter, because it's dismissive. The gaslighter knows if they question your sanity, people will not believe you when you tell them the gaslighter is abusive or out-of-control. It's a master technique.
11. They tell you everyone else is a liar.
By telling you that everyone else (your family, the media) is a liar, it again makes you question your reality. You've never known someone with the audacity to do this, so they must be telling the truth, right? No. It's a manipulation technique. It makes people turn to the gaslighter for the "correct" information—which isn't correct information at all.
The more you are aware of these techniques, the quicker you can identify them and avoid falling into the gaslighter's trap. by Stephanie A Sardis - 11 Warning Signs of Gaslighting
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/here-there-and-everywhere/201701/11-warning-signs-gaslighting
@)(++(*
-
And it’s pretty sad when a killer doesn’t want you representing them 🙄
Not necessarily. If LM now has a lawyer to represent him, all well and good. There is a limit to what SL can do, and some of the people around her don't help----as you are aware!
-
In some ways, it seemed like a reluctant exit, which may suggest she was asked or even instructed to step aside.
On the other hand, it seems that there may be issues with elements of the campaign that made her want to exit.
-
Not necessarily. If LM now has a lawyer to represent him, all well and good. There is a limit to what SL can do, and some of the people around her don't help----as you are aware!
Very well said
-
In some ways, it seemed like a reluctant exit, which may suggest she was asked or even instructed to step aside.
On the other hand, it seems that there may be issues with elements of the campaign that made her want to exit.
I think we could all agree on that some elements would make her want to exit. Will be interesting to see what Luke makes of the new developments. Let's hope his new spokesperson/people have made the right call and understood his message correctly not just how they wanted to hear it.
-
In some ways, it seemed like a reluctant exit, which may suggest she was asked or even instructed to step aside.
On the other hand, it seems that there may be issues with elements of the campaign that made her want to exit.
I don't see it as reluctant. Yes I believe that the statement released by Luke and Corrine may have come as a surprise, her words.
If you have watched her lives. She mentions many times that I would happily hand all this over and leave tomorrow. Has she been subtlety laying the groundwork down for her exit? Or was she waiting for an excuse of someone else to blame for his exit?
-
In some ways, it seemed like a reluctant exit, which may suggest she was asked or even instructed to step aside.
The two versions of the statement made on behalf of killer Luke Mitchell and his mother indicates the murderer doesn’t want Sandra Lean talking for him anymore
This was emphasised by the use of capital letters
Luke has spoken to people the last few days and made it clear he will not allow ANYONE to speak for him anymore
‘Psychopaths are the equivalent of method actors, and they will play whatever role they think you want them to play so they can use you. They get a thrill out of tricking people into believing that the image they project is real when really it is a mirage, according to Inc. They are skilled performers who hide behind masks and are adept at mimicking emotions they can never really feel. One of their known tricks is manipulating others into feeling sorry for them.
https://www.rd.com/list/sneaky-signs-of-a-psychopath/
-
Transcript of Sandra Leans live YouTube/Facebook video update - 28th March 2021
(From around approx 24:27)
“The number of people who have been in touch since this started desperate for help in similar circumstances desperate for help and it really really tears me apart to have to say I’m sorry I can’t take on any new work and new cases right now there’s only one of me I don’t have the time or the resources right now to take on any new cases
Most of you know that for the vast vastvast majority of the time I’ve been doing this I’ve done it in my spare time I’ve had to work other jobs to support myself in order to be able to do this work in my spare time
In the last almost 5 weeks I have done nothing from morning to night working on THIS
so working on not just what you see with answering questions and dealing with books and things like that but behind the scenes working with people who can really help long long conversations with with people who can really help erm who’s input will be really important and what’s become apparent is the only way I can do this properly is full time and that means I need to be able to earn enough money earn a living to keep me afloat and do this work full time
To that end erm a other fantastic couple of supporters have helped me set up erm a company called innocents betrayed lots and thought that company books sales, events, services all the sorts of stuff that will be available for other people to access will go through innocents betrayed ltd they’ll be the sort of shop front if you like of that organisation which in turn will allow me to focus on THIS work full time
It’s my intention again there have been lots of unexpected expenses during the period where I’ve not been able to work for money because this has been literally full time so so I need to address that erm I’m no good to anybody if I can’t pay the bills to keep the roof over my own head erm so the the my plan is to give the profits innocents betrayed away to miscarriage of justice organisations that that can do this sort of work charitable organisations that’s my intention whatever I’m legally allowed to give away that is what I will do with it erm inevitably inevitably I can almost hear them start already listen “she’s just in it for the money” - “she’s just in it for the money” yep if I’d been doing this for the money guys I’d have given up a long long time ago arh ha ha ha a long time ago erm but yeah I just wanted that out there up front that’s that’s where I’m at the minute and over the next arh 2 or 3 weeks I’ll be I’ll be developing that and erm putting out more information about it as well now that’s our update
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RGhh114oQBw&feature=youtu.be
Transcript of Sandra Lean live Facebook video - 27th June 2021
(From approx 3:27)
‘There are 2 points I want to address firstly to the people who told lies about me and who then went on to misrepresent parts of the conversation he and I had on Friday that is and will always be between you and your conscience
The other aspect the most important in all of it that I have to address the statement now just let me yeah there was a claim that Luke advised me that all documents that have been withheld from the public for years be released immediately the implication being that I release them Luke said nothing of the sort no even if he had I could not have accepted such an instruction I’ve explained before that the difficulties with making public certain documents so not only would putting some of those documents in the public domain be an offence in Scotland it would also have or could also have an impact on Luke’s case in the future on my professional position and on the other cases that I work with
-
On Sunday she announced her exit.
And if you listen to Sandra Leans live from just the week before - she said she wouldn’t be stepping down *&^^&
-
And if you listen to Sandra Leans live from just the week before - she said she wouldn’t be stepping down *&^^&
Sandra Lean also claimed on 13th June 2021
‘Good morning, I'll be doing an update at 4pm today, but it will only be available on my Dr Sandra Lean page (I altered my streamyard subscription, not realising it meant I could only stream to one platform. I'll get is sorted out for next week). See you all there
Do we think this was intentional ? 🙄
She never seemingly got it ‘sorted out’ for the following week either 🙄
-
This case is closed. Luke Mitchell is going nowhere. He will be enjoying his prison food for many many years to come. These people can campaign, protest, deface public property, threaten journalists, troll forums all they want, it will not change a thing. It always ends in tears for them. For the simple reason, Mitchell is as guilty as they come.
-
This case is closed. Luke Mitchell is going nowhere. He will be enjoying his prison food for many many years to come. These people can campaign, protest, deface public property, threaten journalists, troll forums all they want, it will not change a thing. It always ends in tears for them. For the simple reason, Mitchell is as guilty as they come.
Ah! A voice of reason.
-
This case is closed. Luke Mitchell is going nowhere. He will be enjoying his prison food for many many years to come. These people can campaign, protest, deface public property, threaten journalists, troll forums all they want, it will not change a thing. It always ends in tears for them. For the simple reason, Mitchell is as guilty as they come.
You hope.
-
Transcript of Sandra Leans live YouTube/Facebook video update - 28th March 2021
(From around approx 24:27)
“The number of people who have been in touch since this started desperate for help in similar circumstances desperate for help and it really really tears me apart to have to say I’m sorry I can’t take on any new work and new cases right now there’s only one of me I don’t have the time or the resources right now to take on any new cases
Most of you know that for the vast vastvast majority of the time I’ve been doing this I’ve done it in my spare time I’ve had to work other jobs to support myself in order to be able to do this work in my spare time
In the last almost 5 weeks I have done nothing from morning to night working on THIS
so working on not just what you see with answering questions and dealing with books and things like that but behind the scenes working with people who can really help long long conversations with with people who can really help erm who’s input will be really important and what’s become apparent is the only way I can do this properly is full time and that means I need to be able to earn enough money earn a living to keep me afloat and do this work full time
To that end erm a other fantastic couple of supporters have helped me set up erm a company called innocents betrayed lots and thought that company books sales, events, services all the sorts of stuff that will be available for other people to access will go through innocents betrayed ltd they’ll be the sort of shop front if you like of that organisation which in turn will allow me to focus on THIS work full time
It’s my intention again there have been lots of unexpected expenses during the period where I’ve not been able to work for money because this has been literally full time so so I need to address that erm I’m no good to anybody if I can’t pay the bills to keep the roof over my own head erm so the the my plan is to give the profits innocents betrayed away to miscarriage of justice organisations that that can do this sort of work charitable organisations that’s my intention whatever I’m legally allowed to give away that is what I will do with it erm inevitably inevitably I can almost hear them start already listen “she’s just in it for the money” - “she’s just in it for the money” yep if I’d been doing this for the money guys I’d have given up a long long time ago arh ha ha ha a long time ago erm but yeah I just wanted that out there up front that’s that’s where I’m at the minute and over the next arh 2 or 3 weeks I’ll be I’ll be developing that and erm putting out more information about it as well now that’s our update
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RGhh114oQBw&feature=youtu.be
Transcript of Sandra Lean live Facebook video - 27th June 2021
(From approx 3:27)
‘There are 2 points I want to address firstly to the people who told lies about me and who then went on to misrepresent parts of the conversation he and I had on Friday that is and will always be between you and your conscience
The other aspect the most important in all of it that I have to address the statement now just let me yeah there was a claim that Luke advised me that all documents that have been withheld from the public for years be released immediately the implication being that I release them Luke said nothing of the sort no even if he had I could not have accepted such an instruction I’ve explained before that the difficulties with making public certain documents so not only would putting some of those documents in the public domain be an offence in Scotland it would also have or could also have an impact on Luke’s case in the future on my professional position and on the other cases that I work with
It all speaks for itself does it not? To actively be part of anything, to use up time - one needs to be paid. I'm not entirely sure what Ms Leans part time employment status is, that one could simply be off work for 5 weeks. As she states her whole time was taken up morning to night for that period of time in March. To state that to be any good fronting this then it would have to be on a full time basis. Thus a wage to pay the bills, to live.
At a time where it may have seemed possible. That sudden steep rise in interest. Which is similar to two years ago, when new interest came on board. Then it was to give up one of the part time jobs. Appealing for money. It did not happen. And there is still that question mark around those claims of a new legal team. Of an appeal and of potential evidence being lost within two years? As already stated, the beginning of that new website Long road to Justice, along with the Truthseeker project plus other subscriptions on You Tube channels.
Go fund me type avenues were pursued and fell flat. To then get into cahoots with C5 - in an attempt yet again to bring support on board. To promote the book. To built up funds where CM (IMO) was used as a front, a way of bypassing the obstacles around rules and regulations from fund me type sources. For other avenues pursued. The help with the new charity org? Set up and it went belly up? - As it would seem people were not happy with the handling of money, asking about the accounts round books sales. Fobbed off with not having time to do the accounts.
That one group wanted to handle their own funds, merchandise sales and so forth - to give the money to CM as had been their belief via the original requests - So all funds were not going to through Ms Lean through IB.org? Where Ms Lean was to be paid a full time wage and any excess to be handed over to other charity organisations where permittable?
Therefore control? - If you want me basically then one is going to have to pay me? The two way street ended the day IB was completed? The years of study over. The years of writing around the case, to date complete in excess of two years ago now. And everything from then has been about promoting the book. Of reaping back some payment from the time spent since the student days ended? What exactly would have been the beginning of profit over loss? How many hours notched up in those years to be paid for along with other costs?
So no, I am sorry but there has never been an endless life time of campaigning. Ever, has there? There has been gain sought continuously in this two way street? Even the endless touting of the story online. It has, no doubt also been used for study purpose. Psychology and all else involved with this.
There is no Louise Shorter in the making here. There has as always been lots of promises, false hope - to fall flat.
-
Some people think Luke is innocent others don't. This is the same with all the cases highlighted on here. Having an opinion on one case doesn't cover all.
Not strictly true for one person as they clearly think everyone ever convicted is guilty. Doesn't make them right either does it
-
On Sunday she announced her exit. Blame was made on everyone but her.
On the previous Sunday during her live Facebook ‘update’ video Sandra Lean stated,
‘I can take the trolls okay they go with the territory it’s horrible but they go with the territory’
‘It’s horrible’ ?
What about when Sandra has seemingly chosen to use some of these trolls communications for content for her Facebook posts to her followers or for her live video updates?
How does Sandra Lean differentiate between these alleged ‘trolls’ ?
-
On Sunday she announced her exit. Blame was made on everyone but her. Has she lost control of the campaign? What are the real reasons behind her exit? Will it ever be made clear?
Sandra Lean stated, (13th June 2021 during her live Facebook video)
“I don’t work with people who are dishonest with me” (cough cough 🙄)
She then went on to state,
“here are some of the comments I’ve had from Luke’s supporters
‘Drop the drama’
‘Stop making it all about you’
‘Get is sorted’
‘If you’d don’t want to be here then you don’t have to be’
‘The balls in your court’
and then,
‘now the balls in your court means we’ve done everything we possibly can it’s up to you now
I’ve been doing everything I possibly can for 18 years yeah the balls in my court
Corinne Mitchell would surely fall under the category of ‘Luke’s supporters’
So were - or have - any of these comments made about Sandra to Sandra been made directly or indirectly by Corinne or
maybe even killer Luke Mitchell?
Sandra then goes on to state,
‘’now so these these are difficult things to try to negotiate and to bring together and it kinda of became apparent that there was no will to negotiate’ (sic)
Was this really all about ‘negotiation’ or was this Sandra Leans attempt to assert her perceived authority?
-
Following killer Luke Mitchell and his mother Corinne statement (which was made for them by Lisa C Reynolds Peden)
Sandra Lean stated during her last live Facebook video,
‘So to the statement I’m not gonna address the whole thing because there’s no need I think the message was fairly self evident’
What from the following ⬇️ was Sandra Lean claiming to be ‘self evident’
Posted today on the ‘unofficial’ LM Facebook page by Lisa C Reynolds Peden ⬇️
THIS STATEMENT IS FROM LUKE AND CORINNE:
‘I have spoken to Luke and Corinne both their wishes are that everyone who is able to, attends the protest on the 17th of July in Edinburgh! They are both one hundred percent behind this group and the protest that's been organised! Luke has spoken to people the last few days and made it very clear that he will not allow ANYONE to speak for him anymore. He is a man now and will not stay in the background and longer. He has dealt with the person/people who have been telling people not to attend this protest because it wasn't organised by the 'official' group. This is not Luke's wishes and the protest is 100% legal. Luke has made it clear that the Free and retry Luke Mitchell group has his full backing and support. They I will now be posting all statements from Luke via myself.
Also they wish that all the group's come together and that any previous issues are put to bed! Luke has said that he doesn't want animosity between the groups, everyone on these groups are supposed to be here for one reason only and should all be fighting for the same cause! Luke is in charge of his life from now NO ONE ELSE!! He has taken a back seat for far too long and isn't doing it anymore.
*If you are attending any protests please wear a mask and follow all covid guide lines that are in place on the date of the protest.*
Luke and Corinne thank everyone on this group! The support is absolutely amazing! From the bonus ball tickets to raising awareness and being involved and organising two protests! It's all greatly appreciated! All money this group has raised goes directly into a bank account for Corinne.
Luke does not want photos of Jodi distributed for his fight for justice, this is insensitive to Jodis family and friends, and creates bad press for him. It is not and has never been Luke's wishes for us to find the real killer. Our job is to get Luke free and home to his mum. For anyone else to be investigated and/or charged Luke must be acquitted first.
Luke has also advised Sandra that all documents that have been withheld from the public for years be released immediately. He has been too concerned about upsetting other people, and following other wishes,but has lost his childhood, teenage years and adolescence. He will not stand for this anymore.
Luke appreciates your support and welcomes future peaceful protests and any other means of support which are within the law. All ideas from ANY groups MUST be ran by Luke in the first instance before anything is done.
Also Luke has made it very clear that the 'official' group does not speak for him nor has it ever. If you have any questions or would like to run anything by Luke please message myself as I am in daily contact with Corinne and every two days with Luke.
THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT AND HELPING ME FIGHT FOR MY FREEDOM!! BIG THINGS ARE COMING!!
Luke and Corinne have gave me permission to share with this group some pictures from his childhood. These pictures are not in the public domain. So keep your eyes peeled, I will post one later today!
💞💞💞
#lukemitchellisinnocent #freelukemitchell
given the week before she had stated during her live Facebook video,
‘and in view of everything that’s been going on you know and the way things have been I asked Luke did he want me to bow out now hand over to the legal team and bow out and he said absolutely not Luke wants me to continue and hopefully find ways for me to communicate stuff to the lawyer and all that sort of thing so one of the things that I do have to say upfront and it is quite important for people to understand this some lawyers and I don’t know about this one like I said it’s very earlier days some lawyers like when they are trying to put an application to go back to the commission or an application goes into the commission they will say to the convicted person and their families
‘take down everything off of social media’
and I’ve seen it done I’ve seen it done on a couple of cases I’ve been working on we’ve got a big following going and the lawyer said take it down erm we’re hoping that won’t be the case or or if it is the case we’ll be able to erm maintain some sort of presence maybe without being as in depth as it currently is
‘take down everything off of social media’
@)(++(*
What about those books of yours Sandra ?
Will the lawyers also be sending someone out to round up all those books you’ve sold or given away and be erasing people’s minds in the process @)(++(*
And what about all those people who watched that sham of a Channel 5 TV show Sandra?
Who will be responsible for erasing the minds of all those who watched it ?
And do you think channel 5 will remove it because killer Luke Mitchell’s alleged new lawyer said so?
@)(++(*
-
NM:
‘AE I really don't understand all the fall out. Is it Big egos??? Spitting dummies out?? I joined the other group and left within 5 minutes due to their accusations that Corrine would never see any of the money raised and a hint that SL was benefitting from people ordering book direct from her. Surely the whole point is to work together.
Does anyone know what’s happening with the money raised from Sandra Leans latest book now?
Is it being split 50/50 - half to Sandra half to Corinne & her son - or is all of it going into Sandra’s alleged new project?
-
On Sunday she announced her exit. Blame was made on everyone but her. Has she lost control of the campaign? What are the real reasons behind her exit? Will it ever be made clear? Will it always be everyone else fault and not her own? She committed Hari Kari. But again she takes no blame.
Oh dear, has she fallen out with the gang again? @)(++(*
-
On Sunday she announced her exit. Blame was made on everyone but her.
⬇️
Sandra Lean
‘I want to say a massive thank you to everyone who's helped get the word out about the documentary, to those who are still working away behind the scenes and to everyone who has sent messages of support or potential new information. Luke's "team" just got a whole lot bigger!!!! Thank you.’
SL
Well, tomorrow is going to be a big day. So I hope you'll all indulge me in a little bit of fun tonight: "If you hear "No" - it means "yes," but just not yet, Fight the most when folks think you're absurd". All 17.5 years of absurdity about to hit High C! Thanks all!!!
this is what it's all about - 17.5 years spent desperatly trying to reach the summit of maslow's pyramid - "I AM a real criminologist!" - and to hell with the people hurt or damaged along the way
She’s not
-
On the previous Sunday during her live Facebook ‘update’ video Sandra Lean stated,
‘I can take the trolls okay they go with the territory it’s horrible but they go with the territory’
‘It’s horrible’ ?
What about when Sandra has seemingly chosen to use some of these trolls communications for content for her Facebook posts to her followers or for her live video updates?
How does Sandra Lean differentiate between these alleged ‘trolls’ ?
Everyone who disagrees with her online is a troll in her view.
It was always only a matter of time before there was a power grab by the Facebook mob. I can't stop laughing (&^&
-
I have removed a number of posts relating to a moderator and moderation. If any member has an issue with moderation then please take it up with the admin team.
-
Everyone who disagrees with her online is a troll in her view.
And still nothing from killer Luke Mitchell even though she allegedly speaks to Corinne every day and Luke ever other day?
Lisa P: ’Please bear with us, we will update you in due course!
-
Everyone who disagrees with her online is a troll in her view.
I’d like to know how many different internet accounts the ‘making a murderer’ people have been posting under over the past 5 plus years
-
And it was all going so well too...then again maybe NOT?
-
And it was all going so well too...then again maybe NOT?
I suppose every battle throughout history is the same. Whether or not it's going well must depend on whose side one is on.
-
On Sunday she announced her exit.
And here’s what she said
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2021/07/04/transcript-of-sandra-leans-27th-june-2021-live-facebook-video-exit-speech/
-
I suppose every battle throughout history is the same. Whether or not it's going well must depend on whose side one is on.
You may win the battle but the war is a completely different matter entirely.
-
You may win the battle but the war is a completely different matter entirely.
Dad's army? Well not Luke's of course he deserted upon that guilty verdict.
-
And here’s what she said
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2021/07/04/transcript-of-sandra-leans-27th-june-2021-live-facebook-video-exit-speech/
I think they have all bitten off more than they can chew. All this blagging by Lean? These nonsense claims of this new legal team, in its very early stages. But she knows erm erm that they might want stuff removed from social media? Really? So let us yet again go back to 2018 and that article in the Herald. Those claims then of there being a new legal team and erm appeal? - So this legal team then (cough) to this legal team today (cough). Are a different kind of erm legal team (cough) That one would want social media stuff removed the other not so much?
Or had social media just gotten a bit crazy and out of control? Leans control, Mitchells control? And would making claims of closing down areas of social media be a good way of gaining control? In this game of tug of war? The battle of sides. CM over Lean? For it went from this new legal team, to perhaps requesting that social media be cut back. To Luke requesting that Lean stay and guide this new legal team, to show them the way! (cough cough). To those demands of handing everything over? And for Lean to say this is happening on the 30th. No legal team mentioned for this handover?
Hell of a lot of blagging going on. Severe case of Birds of a feather, of flying with the craws etc etc. And the minions, the dogsbodies who jumped on board. Buying up those lotto sales, merchandise and books are all scratching their heads waiting to see who Luke is actually choosing. The amigos however are going ahead with their own thing regardless, as and I quote "those banners are made!" Not to be wasted?
-
Do you believe that this is all nonsense and there is no legal team?
More smoke and mirrors?
-
NM:
‘AE I really don't understand all the fall out. Is it Big egos??? Spitting dummies out?? I joined the other group and left within 5 minutes due to their accusations that Corrine would never see any of the money raised and a hint that SL was benefitting from people ordering book direct from her. Surely the whole point is to work together.
Does anyone know what’s happening with the money raised from Sandra Leans latest book now?
Is it being split 50/50 - half to Sandra half to Corinne & her son - or is all of it going into Sandra’s alleged new project?
Yes where is all this money? What's it being spent on?
-
Excerpt from Sandra Leans ‘Hidden in plain view’
Page 274
The wider public also appears to believe that forensic evidence used at trial is as reliable as it is presented in fictional TV series. For example, a family member of the victim in a particularly high profile murder insisted, post conviction, when a campaign was launched questioning the safety of the convicted person, that there were “strands of [the convicted person‟s] DNA all over the body.‟ When it was pointed out that partial DNA profiles in this case were evidentially worthless (in part because there were not enough “markers‟ present to constitute a reliable match, in part because there were markers common to several potential suspects, and in part because there were several “mixed‟ profiles), this person responded “they can tell even from those bits they did get. They know it was his [DNA.]‟92
92 In the course of a series of threats made against me, this information was imparted, by the family member making the threats, as “justification” for the victim‟s family‟s fury regarding claims of innocence for the person convicted.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/9834706.pdf
-
Yes where is all this money? What's it being spent on?
Now she’s allegedly made her last Facebook video update - her followers or the public may never now know ?
‘She told Facebook followers:
“Book sales, events, services, all the other sorts of stuff that will be available for people to access, will go through Innocents Betrayed Ltd.
“It will be the shop front and in turn will allow me to focus on this work full time.
“I’ve done this in my spare time and have had to take on other jobs to support me.”
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/scottish-news/6919979/crime-expert-sandra-lean-fund-effort-free-luke-mitchell/
Yet she appeared to give the impression during her last live Facebook video she was working on other cases? ⬇️ ⬇️ ⬇️
And here’s what she said
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2021/07/04/transcript-of-sandra-leans-27th-june-2021-live-facebook-video-exit-speech/
-
She did indeed. Some months ago now.
-
I think they have all bitten off more than they can chew. All this blagging by Lean?
Below (In bold) is an excerpt from Sandra Leans ‘thesis’ Hidden in plain view
‘O’Brien is convicted but exonerated murderer Michael O’Brien one of the three men found guilty of murdering Philip Saunders back in 1987
“Other factors leading to wrongful conviction are unreliable confessions (O‟Brien, 2008…”
(Above ⬆️ is from Chapter 1 titled ‘Factors leading to wrongful conviction’ - page 7)
I’m of the view - following the overturning of the so called Cardiff Newsagent 3’s murder convictions all 3 men should have been placed under MAPPA restrictions for public protection until such time they proved they didn’t murder Philip Saunders
I remain of the firm view they did murder Philip Saunders
2013
‘The judges considered that the possibility of pauses in the alleged conversation making it easier for Mr Lewis to record what was said was “fatal” to Mr O’Brien’s position, and they dismissed the application for judicial review’ https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/michael-obrien-man-wrongly-convicted-6350640.amp?__twitter_impression=true
Operation FORTITUDE & RESOLUTE
Para 195:
‘..have found no evidence to implicate any officers in any wrongdoing, either in terms of criminal offences, or in terms of misconduct offences that would have been pursued had any officers still been serving
Link to full report ➡️ http://swplive.blob.core.windows.net/wordpress-uploads/S731-Report-Operations-Fortitude-and-Resolute-finalised.pdf
-
You may win the battle but the war is a completely different matter entirely.
I agree. I didn't ever mention a war though. Is there a war?
-
Below (In bold) is an excerpt from Sandra Leans ‘thesis’ Hidden in plain view
‘O’Brien is convicted but exonerated murderer Michael O’Brien one of the three men found guilty of murdering Philip Saunders back in 1987
“Other factors leading to wrongful conviction are unreliable confessions (O‟Brien, 2008…”
(Above ⬆️ is from Chapter 1 titled ‘Factors leading to wrongful conviction’ - page 7)
I’m of the view - following the overturning of the so called Cardiff Newsagent 3’s murder convictions all 3 men should have been placed under MAPPA restrictions for public protection until such time they proved they didn’t murder Philip Saunders
I remain of the firm view they did murder Philip Saunders
2013
‘The judges considered that the possibility of pauses in the alleged conversation making it easier for Mr Lewis to record what was said was “fatal” to Mr O’Brien’s position, and they dismissed the application for judicial review’ https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/michael-obrien-man-wrongly-convicted-6350640.amp?__twitter_impression=true
Operation FORTITUDE & RESOLUTE
Para 195:
‘..have found no evidence to implicate any officers in any wrongdoing, either in terms of criminal offences, or in terms of misconduct offences that would have been pursued had any officers still been serving
Link to full report ➡️ http://swplive.blob.core.windows.net/wordpress-uploads/S731-Report-Operations-Fortitude-and-Resolute-finalised.pdf
Martin Shipton who has been one of main journalists to have written about Michael O’Brien over the years has regularly - and wrongly in my firm view - made claim in his news article on O’Brien that he was in prison for ‘a crime he didn’t commit’
Martin Shipton’s bias on this case is clear for all to see
In 2008 Shipton published a story on O’Brien having passed a lie detector test https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/man-wrongfully-jailed-passes-lie-2149993
‘Last night, an ITV Wales documentary revealed that a lie detector test undertaken by Mr O’Brien two weeks ago had cleared him of any involvement in the murder of Mr Saunders.
A lie dectector test did not and does not ‘clear’ O’Brien of Philip Saunders murder
Bruce Burgess carried out the test ⬇️
’Jeremy Kyle Show lie detector firm’s founder lied to cops and has a record’
‘Police were forced to match earlier pictures of Burgess with the photo of him at the wheel and convicted him of perverting the course of justice in 2008.
He was also paid £5,000 plus expenses by Russian state TV to fly out to the hostile country and test the prime suspect in the Alexander Litvinenko case – where he gave dodgy results.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/9076295/jeremy-kyle-show-lie-detector-firm-criminal-record/
-
Martin Shipton who has been one of main journalists to have written about Michael O’Brien over the years has regularly - and wrongly in my firm view - made claim in his news article on O’Brien that he was in prison for ‘a crime he didn’t commit’
Martin Shipton’s bias on this case is clear for all to see
In 2008 Shipton published a story on O’Brien having passed a lie detector test https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/man-wrongfully-jailed-passes-lie-2149993
‘Last night, an ITV Wales documentary revealed that a lie detector test undertaken by Mr O’Brien two weeks ago had cleared him of any involvement in the murder of Mr Saunders.
A lie dectector test did not and does not ‘clear’ O’Brien of Philip Saunders murder
Bruce Burgess carried out the test ⬇️
’Jeremy Kyle Show lie detector firm’s founder lied to cops and has a record’
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/9076295/jeremy-kyle-show-lie-detector-firm-criminal-record/
Quick question. Where did you gain all your knowledge and training on dealing with a miscarriage of justice. did you study? Got any qualifications?
-
Quick question. Where did you gain all your knowledge and training on dealing with a miscarriage of justice. did you study? Got any qualifications?
Where did you gain all your knowledge of SF? As I've said before, are you allowed to speak on this forum for someone else? Do you have proof, cites? How does anyone else know you've even met SF? Do you expect everyone to take your word?
-
Martin Shipton who has been one of main journalists to have written about Michael O’Brien over the years has regularly - and wrongly in my firm view - made claim in his news article on O’Brien that he was in prison for ‘a crime he didn’t commit’
Martin Shipton’s bias on this case is clear for all to see
In 2008 Shipton published a story on O’Brien having passed a lie detector test https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/man-wrongfully-jailed-passes-lie-2149993
‘Last night, an ITV Wales documentary revealed that a lie detector test undertaken by Mr O’Brien two weeks ago had cleared him of any involvement in the murder of Mr Saunders.
A lie dectector test did not and does not ‘clear’ O’Brien of Philip Saunders murder
Bruce Burgess carried out the test ⬇️
’Jeremy Kyle Show lie detector firm’s founder lied to cops and has a record’
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/9076295/jeremy-kyle-show-lie-detector-firm-criminal-record/
Another axe to grind. You wouldn't believe he was innocent if you witnessed the murder yourself. To you no one is innocent. Don't you think he has been through enough without this nonsense from you?
-
Where did you gain all your knowledge of SF? As I've said before, are you allowed to speak on this forum for someone else? Do you have proof, cites? How does anyone else know you've even met SF? Do you expect everyone to take your word?
Interesting that you didn’t ask Parky for proof regarding his/her ‘judge’s direction’ claim. I’m sure the forum would appreciate a little balance from you when it comes to harassment.
-
Another axe to grind.
Raising awareness of innocence fraud - nothing whatsoever to do with axes 🙄
-
To you no one is innocent
Paul Foot’s investigations re the murder of 13 year old Carl Bridgewater and of his efforts in helping to overturn the murder convictions of Patrick Molloy, James Robinson and cousins Michael and Vincent Hickey - aka the Bridgewater four - cannot and should not be compared to how Sandra Lean has behaved
(I’m of the view Bert Spencer murderered 13 year old Carl Bridgewater)
-
Raising awareness of innocence fraud - nothing whatsoever to do with axes 🙄
No fraud only in your mind. Doesn't make it true does it? Where does your knowledge come from? Your success rate isn't great either is it?
-
Below (In bold) is an excerpt from Sandra Leans ‘thesis’ Hidden in plain view
‘O’Brien is convicted but exonerated murderer Michael O’Brien one of the three men found guilty of murdering Philip Saunders back in 1987
“Other factors leading to wrongful conviction are unreliable confessions (O‟Brien, 2008…”
(Above ⬆️ is from Chapter 1 titled ‘Factors leading to wrongful conviction’ bottom of page 6)
I’m of the view - following the overturning of the so called Cardiff Newsagent 3’s murder convictions all 3 men should have been placed under MAPPA restrictions for public protection until such time they proved they didn’t murder Philip Saunders
I remain of the firm view they did murder Philip Saunders
2013
‘The judges considered that the possibility of pauses in the alleged conversation making it easier for Mr Lewis to record what was said was “fatal” to Mr O’Brien’s position, and they dismissed the application for judicial review’ https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/michael-obrien-man-wrongly-convicted-6350640.amp?__twitter_impression=true
Operation FORTITUDE & RESOLUTE
Para 195:
‘..have found no evidence to implicate any officers in any wrongdoing, either in terms of criminal offences, or in terms of misconduct offences that would have been pursued had any officers still been serving
Link to full report ➡️ http://swplive.blob.core.windows.net/wordpress-uploads/S731-Report-Operations-Fortitude-and-Resolute-finalised.pdf
Michael O’Brien
Disappointed to hear Dr Sandra Lean being slagged off in regards to the Luke Mitchell case if it wasn't for Dr Sandra Lean The book would not have been written and the documentary film wouldn't have come about.
Some very ungrateful people out there I must say and I stand with Dr Sandra Lean.
Jane Metcalfe
I absolutely stand with Dr Sandra Lean too Michael A O'Brien, there are only a very small handful of people in this country who are as amazing, as knowledgeable , as dedicated, as gentle + as strong as Sandra is x
*&^^&
Murder of Diana Garbutt ➡️ http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11718.msg614766#msg614766
’Dr Truthseeker loses her moral compass’
https://neilwilby.com/2020/06/22/dr-truthseeker-loses-her-moral-compass/
-
Michael O’Brien
Disappointed to hear Dr Sandra Lean being slagged off in regards to the Luke Mitchell case if it wasn't for Dr Sandra Lean The book would not have been written and the documentary film wouldn't have come about.
Some very ungrateful people out there I must say and I stand with Dr Sandra Lean.
Posts like that confirm what a decent guy he is. Anyone who sees it differently needs to have a good look at themselves *%87
-
Michael O’Brien
Disappointed to hear Dr Sandra Lean being slagged off in regards to the Luke Mitchell case if it wasn't for Dr Sandra Lean The book would not have been written and the documentary film wouldn't have come about.
Some very ungrateful people out there I must say and I stand with Dr Sandra Lean.
Jane Metcalfe
I absolutely stand with Dr Sandra Lean too Michael A O'Brien, there are only a very small handful of people in this country who are as amazing, as knowledgeable , as dedicated, as gentle + as strong as Sandra is x
Denials of being a stalker &^^&*
-
I think they have all bitten off more than they can chew. All this blagging by Lean? These nonsense claims of this new legal team, in its very early stages. But she knows erm erm that they might want stuff removed from social media? Really? So let us yet again go back to 2018 and that article in the Herald. Those claims then of there being a new legal team and erm appeal? - So this legal team then (cough) to this legal team today (cough). Are a different kind of erm legal team (cough) That one would want social media stuff removed the other not so much?
Or had social media just gotten a bit crazy and out of control? Leans control, Mitchells control? And would making claims of closing down areas of social media be a good way of gaining control? In this game of tug of war? The battle of sides. CM over Lean? For it went from this new legal team, to perhaps requesting that social media be cut back. To Luke requesting that Lean stay and guide this new legal team, to show them the way! (cough cough). To those demands of handing everything over? And for Lean to say this is happening on the 30th. No legal team mentioned for this handover?
Am guessing this alleged new lawyer won’t be Aamer Anwar https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/574049/jodi-killers-lie-test-worthless/
-
Quick question. Where did you gain all your knowledge and training on dealing with a miscarriage of justice. did you study? Got any qualifications?
No poster on here is required to list their qualifications!
-
Raising awareness of innocence fraud - nothing whatsoever to do with axes 🙄
I'm sure innocence fraud exists, but is it as common as you make out?
-
No poster on here is required to list their qualifications!
It wasn't a serious question. They are such an 'expert' while they berate others . People are curious as to where this expertise comes from. The question answers itself doesn't it
-
Denials of being a stalker &^^&*
How is this acceptable on here?
-
Raising awareness of innocence fraud - nothing whatsoever to do with axes 🙄
the line you have been saying for... how many years now. May not be clear in your mind but its clear.
-
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/hideous-murder-miscarriage-justice-still-15338340
The above case was officially a MOJ, not an innocence fraud.
This thread is supposed to be about Sandra Lean's exit , not about Michael O'Brien. Anyone who wants to begin a new thread about the murder of Philip Saunders is welcome to do so.
-
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/hideous-murder-miscarriage-justice-still-15338340
The above case was officially a MOJ, not an innocence fraud.
This thread is supposed to be about Sandra Lean's exit , not about Michael O'Brien. Anyone who wants to begin a new thread about the murder of Philip Saunders is welcome to do so.
Thank you for being decent and posting that he is innocent.
-
Michael O’Brien
Disappointed to hear Dr Sandra Lean being slagged off in regards to the Luke Mitchell case if it wasn't for Dr Sandra Lean The book would not have been written and the documentary film wouldn't have come about.
Some very ungrateful people out there I must say and I stand with Dr Sandra Lean.
Jane Metcalfe
I absolutely stand with Dr Sandra Lean too Michael A O'Brien, there are only a very small handful of people in this country who are as amazing, as knowledgeable , as dedicated, as gentle + as strong as Sandra is x
*&^^&
Murder of Diana Garbutt ➡️ http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11718.msg614766#msg614766
You’re putting forward Neil Wilby as a credible individual? This individual?
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/malicious-blogger-neil-wilby-banned-7972575
-
You’re putting forward Neil Wilby as a credible individual? This individual?
https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/malicious-blogger-neil-wilby-banned-7972575
Anything is possible it seems . Credible? Erm no.
-
You’re putting forward Neil Wilby
’Dr Truthseeker loses her moral compass’
https://neilwilby.com/2020/06/22/dr-truthseeker-loses-her-moral-compass/
Highlight something from his blog ⬆️ you disagree with
Neil Wilby stated,
‘Dr Lean is best known for her support of the unsuccessful innocence campaigns involving two other murderers, Luke Mitchell and Gordon Park.
He doesn’t appear to be aware of the depth of Sandra Leans involvement in Simon Halls innocence fraud campaign (as it turned out to be)
But I suspect this is his perception possibly based on what’s available on the WWW.
And he may not have read ‘No Smoke’ ?
or be aware of the material once posted to the WAP website - given the entire site was taken down http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=442.msg428172#msg428172
What lessons, if any, did Sandra Lean learn following the exposure of Simon Halls guilt in 2012/2013?
15th November 2010
Sandra Lean
‘I am finished with MoJ work. I intended to bow out in October, but was talked around by many people at the UAI day. That was a mistake. I will finish Luke's case, and that's it. I have nothing left to give.’
1st January 2011 - re Simon Hall’s appeal verdict
Sandra Lean - ‘skeleton statements’
Conviction overturned, no re-trial
‘We are obviously delighted that the Court of Appeal has finally recognised what we have been telling them all along – Simon was always innocent of this crime. There will be many issues to be addressed in the coming months, including questions regarding why evidence pointing to other suspects was never properly investigated, and why it has taken so long to get to this stage. Bearing in mind that the real perpetrators may yet be brought to trial, and they deserve a fair trial, which is something not afforded to Simon, I cannot go into too much detail about the other evidence at this time. However, should the authorities fail to re-open the investigation into Mrs Albert’s death and pursue the real murderers, then we will not hesitate to make public everything we have uncovered. One way or another, the whole truth will come out, we will make sure of it.
Conviction quashed, Re-trial ordered.
‘Although we are pleased that the Court of Appeal has finally recognised that the conviction of Simon was flawed, we are disappointed in the decision to stage a re-trial. Although I am unable to say too much at this stage, the CPS knew about several other pieces of evidence pointing away from Simon and towards another perpetrator right from the beginning of this case.
It is shameful that it has taken this long for them to admit this conviction was unsafe, and an outrage that an innocent man must remain in prison awaiting another trial, when the original case against him has collapsed. Simon has already lost more than eight years of his life to this disgrace, and now must wait for the system to set up yet another ordeal in his fight to prove his innocence.
However, we are confident that the re-trial will exonerate Simon completely, and he will finally walk out of prison the way he walked in – innocent.
Sandra Lean, who featured Simon’s case in her book “No Smoke” said this morning, “What today’s decision means is that the British Justice system would rather allow murderers to walk among us, and innocent men to languish in jails for crimes they did not commit, than simply admit they got it wrong. Given that the DPP himself said that without the fibre evidence, there was no case, this re-trial appears to be nothing more than a face-saving exercise from a prosecution machine that cannot accept its own failings. Perhaps the best that can be said about it is that it offers the opportunity for Simon to finally clear his name.”
Conviction Upheld
‘This decision is an affront to justice. The CPS knows that there was another burglary that evening in Capel. They know that the SOCOs went directly from that crime scene to the murder scene. They know that there was DNA on the knife that did not belong to Simon, that the original fibre investigation concluded no match for the fibres, and that the jury was misled into believing that the knife that was used to kill Mrs Albert must have come from an opened drawer in her own kitchen.
They also know that another man confessed to this murder. So why do they insist on keeping an innocent man in prison, and refusing to acknowledge the existence of this other evidence? What can possibly be gained by allowing the real perpetrators to remain free and unpunished?
We will not rest until the whole truth of this case has been made public, and that includes the collusion and cover-up which has allowed this gross miscarriage of justice to persist for so long, and which, sadly, in light of today’s decision, will be allowed to continue.
We will never give up the fight for justice for Simon. The truth will come out – all of it. The DPP himself said that without the fibre evidence, there was no case. The fibre evidence has now been discredited – why is Simon to remain in prison for another man’s crime?
Sandra Lean, who featured Simon’s case in her book “No Smoke” said this morning, “This is a dark day for British Justice. This decision tells us that the justice system in this country would rather allow murderers to walk among us, and innocent men to languish in prison for crimes they did not commit, than simply admit, “We got it wrong.” Any other industry behaving in this way would be closed down – the justice industry is answerable to no-one. The fight for Simon Hall’s freedom goes on.”
-
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/hideous-murder-miscarriage-justice-still-15338340
The above case was officially a MOJ, not an innocence fraud.
An MOJ does not equate to factual innocence
The Murder of Philip Saunders 1987
Related allegations and complaints made by Michael O’BRIEN
⬇️
http://swplive.blob.core.windows.net/wordpress-uploads/S731-Report-Operations-Fortitude-and-Resolute-finalised.pdf
An MOJ is said to be a ‘breach of the carriage of justice
Adam’s para 116
‘Innocence as such is not a concept known to our criminal justice system’
-
Interesting that you didn’t ask Parky for proof regarding his/her ‘judge’s direction’ claim. I’m sure the forum would appreciate a little balance from you when it comes to harassment.
I have patience, faithlilly. One question at a time. I'm still waiting for the first answer.
-
An MOJ does not equate to factual innocence
The Murder of Philip Saunders 1987
Related allegations and complaints made by Michael O’BRIEN
⬇️
http://swplive.blob.core.windows.net/wordpress-uploads/S731-Report-Operations-Fortitude-and-Resolute-finalised.pdf
An MOJ is said to be a ‘breach of the carriage of justice
Adam’s para 116
‘Innocence as such is not a concept known to our criminal justice system’
Thank you, Nicholas. When I have time, I promise to read it all !!
-
Anything is possible it seems . Credible? Erm no.
It would appear that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
-
Highlight something from his blog ⬆️ you disagree with
Neil Willy stated,
‘Dr Lean is best known for her support of the unsuccessful innocence campaigns involving two other murderers, Luke Mitchell and Gordon Park.
He doesn’t appear to be aware of the depth of Sandra Leans involvement in Simon Halls innocence fraud campaign (as it turned out to be)
But I suspect this is his perception possibly based on what’s available on the WWW.
And he may not have read ‘No Smoke’ ?
or be aware of the material once posted to the WAP website - given the entire site was taken down http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=442.msg428172#msg428172
One's critical thinking skills may have been enough for her thesis to merit a pass - they are not credible in the real world though, are they? When one takes on board the word of known liars and works back from this. I mentioned before about the rotten apples spoiling the way our system works for others. Of those who have genuinely been wrongly accused/convicted, mixed in with those playing the system to the max. And we have the same thing happening here do we not? - When one is promoting liars, rightfully accused/convicted people along with those who are genuine.
And it is unsurprising why many discussions are overrun by those promoting this case as a possible MOJ, with misinformation and downright lies. For the truth in this case could not be any clearer, that Luke Mitchell was all but banged to rights. There was no damning forensic evidence. That there was an abundance of circumstantial evidence of which only a fraction was used - For the Crown to built their case from. And they did an outstanding Job in having this case as watertight as possible. For the avenues for appeals held no merit, they failed. Those painstaking months of hard work, dotting every I and crossing every T. Here we are more than 16 yrs from that conviction and Luke Mitchell is still banged upl where he belongs.
And how easy it has been for that perfect audience who know very little of this case. To readily accept what has been put out in the book/documentary. Where some of the believers/audience are those who have genuinely fought/fighting wrongful convictions. It is at the very heart of them, they know first hand how the system can get it wrong. That they do not know Ms Lean, they have no reason to doubt the word that she speaks. It is this blind faith, not only with the afflicted but with others that have drawn this support. That the lack of knowledge of this case has by far been the easiest to manipulate. Of Scottish Law and disclosure where people can not see how far the evidence has been twisted.
But of where it matters most, of these years gone by since that conviction 16yrs ago. That all that has been managed is to write this story, this trios version of their case. Of these claims of seeking Justice and Truth? When what we have witnessed since the release of IB is anything but truthful measures? And I will mention again that article from the Herald some two years ago. Where Ms Lean stated clearly that there was a new legal team on board. That there were hopes of a fresh appeal. That there was evidence that may be lost if funds were not produced within that two year time frame. That the "Long Road to Justice" was already promised. And we are left wondering if it was just the usual hot air, to promote the book to gain funds. For this legal team vanished as quickly as it had been mentioned. That Ms Mitchell in her podcast had been far from honest also. As with Ms Lean in hers with simple things such as AB only being shown a picture of LM to Identify. These half truths to draw the viewer/reader in.
And here we are yet again. Those promises of wonderful things to come. Just over two months ago there was talk of something happening, that it was being kept hush hush - that the biggest impact was required. That all would be revealed very soon? And bang - the impact was that there was to be a massive divide, that Ms Lean was stepping down from spearheading anything. That the mention of this new legal team turned into Ms Lean being demanded to hand those case files over. That it has been discovered that Ms Mitchell had not been without electric, water nor bread and butter. That it became apparent that this tug at heart strings were mainly for purse strings, to fund the new charity? Thus the fund me sites were yet again taken down. And people may say, or certainly have been aware it was more of a front than anything, that it should not matter? But it does when honesty and truth are being promoted?
I had been reading Ms Leans thesis, and it is easy to spot where Ms Mitchell and Luke participated. One should not be surprised at the lies for they have been widely published over time. But I was drawn to the appeal Judges. Of how they had mistakenly said the search trio left from Easthouse's. And the mountains made out of this over time. Of how the trio, the murderer, his mother and friend have tried consistently to draw away from how prepped and ready LM was. That he had gotten ready and been on RDP within 9 mins of that call to the police. We have already witnessed the blatant lies. Of search trios walking from the very top of Mayfield, of walking backwards and old arthritic grannies. Which should be enough for people to sit up and think why? Why are these people lying for there is only one reason for these lies, that there has only ever been one reason for all the lies - to hide the truth. That of which can not be changed, no matter how hard one tries, how many lies are told -That LM filled Ms Lean head with lies, of his actions and whereabouts that evening. That there is only one reason as to why he was on this path prior to 11pm, for he was prepped and ready. For he knew, being the murderer that the call/text would come, from Jodi's parents looking for their daughter.
To then grasp onto this error by the appeals judges. Claiming they either knew more and had slipped up (that massive conspiracy theory). Which in turn meant the search trio had lied under oath ( I know, the irony!) That it would explain why the search trio had gotten to this path quickly? I know the irony again, for there was none quicker than LM. So we have the lies, the Judges and this conspiracy theory in an attempt to cover up the lies of the Mitchells. The other irony of making claim to this being a whopper of an error by the appeal Judges? That Luke's defence advised them it meant nothing, which is bang on. But what of those massive whoppers of the errors Ms Lean told in "No Smoke". Of "they mystery man that followed Jodi into the path" - That is what is classed as a grave error. For Ms Lean to claim she only had media reports to go by? That in the same book one makes a song and dance of there being no ID by AB of Jodi. Yet Ms Lean had Jodi being followed into this path? When there had never been any such report of Jodi walking into this path by the media, far less a mystery man following her onto it.
So all these claims, this strive to show people there was no case for LM to answer to? That he was somehow singled out, fitted up with tunnel vision. Why all the lies? Why all the manipulation, the twists and turns. The consistent hopping from one foot to the next. The actual changing of testimony on the Mitchells behalf? When the truth is ones critical thinking was scarred from the off. In that 7 month period of calm prior to Mitchells arrest. That a massive part of this blight on our justice system stems from believing liars? Of Mitchell, Prout, Hall, Middleton, Parks and goodness knows who else? Who uses the honesty of those who were wrongfully convicted, who have suffered a terrible injustice by throwing these rotten apples in beside them. Is it not these very actions that cast dispersion, cause further problems for those who are indeed innocent? For these abusers of the system do cause problems for the honest and truthful amongst us.
-
One's critical thinking skills may have been enough for her thesis to merit a pass
I don’t agree and am of the view it should be investigated
-
When one takes on board the word of known liars and works back from this. I mentioned before about the rotten apples spoiling the way our system works for others. Of those who have genuinely been wrongly accused/convicted, mixed in with those playing the system to the max.
What methodology are you using to separate the two?
-
And it is unsurprising why many discussions are overrun by those promoting this case as a possible MOJ,
How are you defining an ‘MOJ’ ?
And how are they defining an MOJ?
-
And how easy it has been for that perfect audience who know very little of this case.
And of ‘that perfect audience’ what is their understanding of an ‘MOJ’ ?
-
For the truth in this case could not be any clearer, that Luke Mitchell was all but banged to rights.
I concur
-
I don’t agree and am of the view it should be investigated
I don't believe it's up to any of us to question Sandra Lean's (or anybody's) qualifications.
They are not given lightly.
-
Scrub that. Rushed response as I was heading out earlier. Which was not quite addressing your questions.
-
Scrub that. Rushed response as I was heading out earlier. Which was not quite addressing your questions.
The comparison is in that of which is broadly understood. Where one of more people in the chain have breached something in law. We know all the usual/prominent areas, and we know it is virtually everyone of them that Ms Lean attempts to apply to this case. Police incompetence, eye witness testimony, unreliable witness testimony, perjury, incompetent defence, circumstantial evidence, media pressure/prejudice, human rights. Wrongful direction by the Judge and on it goes.
The one I would like to pick up on, as you highlighted before is that of Confirmation bias. It is this which I believe Ms Lean is guilty of. She made the decision that Luke Mitchell was innocent, uninvolved in the death of his girlfriend in that 7 month period of the calm before the storm. At at time when all three believed there would be no arrest. That there was and could not be evidence, the naivety and lack of understanding, around how time consuming the build up of circumstantial cases can be. That those preconceptions she had that were wrong.
One had already made their mind up, prior to knowing anything of the evidence. That at this point whilst colluding together they had built their own hypothesis around the others in this case. The mystery man, the duo, the brother and stranger. On the limited amount of information available. That Ms Leans information was added to by the Mitchell themselves. Of Luke's relationship with the duo and the Jones family.
That when that arrest did come around, she sought information to support the hypotheses already in place, the bias could not have been any stronger at this point. That everything that became known around the Mitchells, their evidence was completely played down, it did not support her hypothesis. And this was only to continue and added to, with the likes of SK, JaF and MK. Still downplaying everything around the Mitchells, of the clear evidence they had gave which was damning, the main part of why LM could not be eliminated.
And we know without a shadow of doubt she continued along this path for so long, how could one possibly backtrack? Those days of Jigsawman and onto "No Smoke". She had spent so long building up on this hypothesis, her case from those days prior to this arrest. Of using every means available to spread those theories around. To draw away from the evidence, the evidence that they the Mitchells gave.
And it really does all apply in reverse, of everything she attempts to pin onto the police she is actually guilty of herself, is she not? It has been her tunnel vision, her confirmation bias that has brought us to the present day. Of the questions she set herself from that completely biased viewpoint, as soon as she became involved with the Mitchells. Of then attempting to work through that standard list of breaches and badly applying them to this case. And it fails, thus why we border on ridicule, with this one officer out of three noting "with the boyfriend". That scraping to find wrong in others whilst blanking the Mitchells.
Of tying in cases where there has been a clear breach, where innocent people have suffered a MOJ and laying them alongside the Mitchell case. By using those comparisons to show her audience how it works. And for those who are innocent, it is easy to understand and take on board what Ms Lean projects. That when people do not know this case, they easily come away with the proclamation of Innocence, of those breaches that are in effect all too simple are they not? - For there is blind faith in the author. They do not know the confirmation bias on which it has all been founded upon.
-
The comparison is in that of which is broadly understood. Where one of more people in the chain have breached something in law. We know all the usual/prominent areas, and we know it is virtually everyone of them that Ms Lean attempts to apply to this case. Police incompetence, eye witness testimony, unreliable witness testimony, perjury, incompetent defence, circumstantial evidence, media pressure/prejudice, human rights. Wrongful direction by the Judge and on it goes.
I strongly suspect if ALL of the case files Sandra Lean has/had (Did she keep a copy of one of those alleged purchased external hard drives for her reference?) in her possession we’re to be uploaded to the WWW there could be several possibly even many false narratives (as I view it) applied to the material contained within them
-
I strongly suspect if ALL of the case files Sandra Lean has/had (Did she keep a copy of one of those alleged purchased external hard drives for her reference?) in her possession we’re to be uploaded to the WWW there could be several possibly even many false narratives (as I view it) applied to the material contained within them
She gave the impression over the years she couldn’t recall a lot of what was contained in those case files she used to draw on
If her memory were as poor as the impression she appeared to give - how will she remember ALL of the details for future reference if ever required ?
I’ve not read her second book but if as you say it only contains around 5% of the actual facts of the case papers (I have no reason to doubt what you say on this as this point) how will she be able to reference/recall the other 95% ?
-
The one I would like to pick up on, as you highlighted before is that of Confirmation bias. It is this which I believe Ms Lean is guilty of. She made the decision that Luke Mitchell was innocent, uninvolved in the death of his girlfriend in that 7 month period of the calm before the storm. At at time when all three believed there would be no arrest. That there was and could not be evidence, the naivety and lack of understanding, around how time consuming the build up of circumstantial cases can be. That those preconceptions she had that were wrong.
One had already made their mind up, prior to knowing anything of the evidence. That at this point whilst colluding together they had built their own hypothesis around the others in this case. The mystery man, the duo, the brother and stranger. On the limited amount of information available. That Ms Leans information was added to by the Mitchell themselves. Of Luke's relationship with the duo and the Jones family.
That when that arrest did come around, she sought information to support the hypotheses already in place, the bias could not have been any stronger at this point. That everything that became known around the Mitchells, their evidence was completely played down, it did not support her hypothesis. And this was only to continue and added to, with the likes of SK, JaF and MK. Still downplaying everything around the Mitchells, of the clear evidence they had gave which was damning, the main part of why LM could not be eliminated.
And we know without a shadow of doubt she continued along this path for so long, how could one possibly backtrack? Those days of Jigsawman and onto "No Smoke". She had spent so long building up on this hypothesis, her case from those days prior to this arrest. Of using every means available to spread those theories around. To draw away from the evidence, the evidence that they the Mitchells gave.
Sandra Lean had a choice
Her behaviour initially may have stemmed from her ‘confirmation bias’ but I don’t view this to be the cause of why it continued
-
And it really does all apply in reverse, of everything she attempts to pin onto the police she is actually guilty of herself, is she not? It has been her tunnel vision, her confirmation bias that has brought us to the present day.
As I said it may have stemmed from her ‘confirmation bias’ in the early months/years but I don’t consider confirmation bias played a part after so many of the cases/campaigns she was involved with turned out to be clear examples of innocence fraud
Id be interested to hear what she learned following her Social Sciences (Psychology and Sociology) degree in 2000, if anything, and whether or not she forgot it all ?
-
it is easy to understand and take on board what Ms Lean projects
I stopped attempting to ‘understand and take on board ‘ anything she had to say some years ago
SL
Stephanie claims she wants me to revise my book, and has spent 16 pages of posts refusing to give me the accurate information with which I could do so!
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg384561.html#msg384561
There was already a wealth of ‘accurate information’ in the public domain re Simon Hall (And there was a wealth on the Bamber forum where she was a member and regularly posted 🙄) by the time she stated the above
But she gave me the strong impression she wasn’t really interested in the truth or justice
Gaslighting, triangulation, smear campaigns - these are some of the tools used by toxic & manipulative abusers
‘They use a plethora of diversionary tactics that distort the reality of their victims and deflect responsibility.’
https://www.domesticshelters.org/articles/identifying-abuse/20-diversion-tactics-highly-manipulative-narcissists-sociopaths-and-psychopaths-use-to-silence-you-part-i#.WRONGVdW[Name removed]I
https://www.domesticshelters.org/articles/identifying-abuse/diversion-tactics-highly-manipulative-narcissists-sociopaths-and-psychopaths-use-to-silence-you-part-ii#.WUiQbVdW[Name removed]I
https://www.domesticshelters.org/articles/identifying-abuse/diversion-tactics-highly-manipulative-narcissists-sociopaths-and-psychopaths-use-to-silence-you-part-iii
‘Most importantly, toxic abusers love to maintain control in whatever way they can.’
https://www.domesticshelters.org/articles/identifying-abuse/diversion-tactics-highly-manipulative-narcissists-sociopaths-and-psychopaths-use-to-silence-you-part-iv
Remember this ➡️ http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg384700.html#msg384700
Sandra Lean - 2010
"My motivation has been called into question, my honesty and integrity trashed, all because I chose to devote seven years of my life trying to help people. Yes, I know you were at the centre of a hate campaign, but that wasn't my doing and I played no part in it whatsoever - nobody could ever have used a single word I had said about you, because there was nothing to use.
" 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.
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.
There was absolutely no intention to 'scapegoat' you for anything
My post was an attempt to take the wind out of his sails by saying, Yes, Stephanie did talk to John, but not in the sinister/negative way he is trying to portray it. What John has done is take an innocent mistake by Stephanie and turn it into a weapon for him to use against others
-
That when that arrest did come around, she sought information to support the hypotheses already in place, the bias could not have been any stronger at this point. That everything that became known around the Mitchells, their evidence was completely played down
Not in 2014 to me it wasn’t
And I shared much of what she told me with others - especially in the lead up to Simon Halls inquest
-
Sandra Lean had a choice
Her behaviour initially may have stemmed from her ‘confirmation bias’ but I don’t view this to be the cause of why it continued
Of course there were choices but having gone down so many roads, different cases, Simons included - Admitting failure was/is not going to happen? For it is not seen as failure upon herself, is it? That is the problem as I see it.
Her personal idiosyncrasies are somewhat renowned are they not? The strength she strives in being blameless is, paradoxically, also her weakness? As we have seen in recent times, resulting in this retreat, for now. The same retreat that has happened at other points in time.
Whilst others my feel your objections against Ms Lean are unwarranted, I for the most part don't. I have made it very clear what my stance is, I make no bones over it. There are no room for lies in those claiming to seek truth?!
-
Of course there were choices but having gone down so many roads, different cases, Simons included - Admitting failure was/is not going to happen? For it is not seen as failure upon herself, is it? That is the problem as I see it.
Her personal idiosyncrasies are somewhat renowned are they not? The strength she strives in being blameless is, paradoxically, also her weakness? As we have seen in recent times, resulting in this retreat, for now. The same retreat that has happened at other points in time.
Whilst others my feel your objections against Ms Lean are unwarranted, I for the most part don't. I have made it very clear what my stance is, I make no bones over it. There are no room for lies in those claiming to seek truth?!
I absolutely agree. The judge’s direction claim was my particular favourite.
-
I absolutely agree. The judge’s direction claim was my particular favourite.
I agree too.
-
I agree too.
I mean, I agree too with Ps statement.
-
I don't believe it's up to any of us to question Sandra Lean's (or anybody's) qualifications.
They are not given lightly.
mrswah, I want to be really clear here. I have never asked anyone for proof of educational qualifications. I have asked if certain people are allowed to talk for others who, apparently, are unable to speak for themselves for whatever reason. Because the information has been presented as second hand information I asked for proof. Never once have I asked anyone for proof of qualifications. Others have turned their question into a "joke" question, not a serious issue and have never been pulled up for BS. Perhaps if, from now on, I say that none of my questions are serious ones, I'll be allowed too? As for SL showing proof of anything, of course the author should. If not,, why not? What's to hide? Not in the public domain so I can't give you proof, illegal for me to show you proof...... Then, if that's the case, why expect people to believe? Blind faith is cult stuff. Why doesn't SL wait until she can show the proof before she whips up a crowd? I'll tell you why, IMO, because she whips up a crowd that needs nothing more than being whipped up. They don't require proof. This is a cult. IMO.
-
mrswah, I want to be really clear here. I have never asked anyone for proof of educational qualifications. I have asked if certain people are allowed to talk for others who, apparently, are unable to speak for themselves for whatever reason. Because the information has been presented as second hand information I asked for proof. Never once have I asked anyone for proof of qualifications. Others have turned their question into a "joke" question, not a serious issue and have never been pulled up for BS. Perhaps if, from now on, I say that none of my questions are serious ones, I'll be allowed too? As for SL showing proof of anything, of course the author should. If not,, why not? What's to hide? Not in the public domain so I can't give you proof, illegal for me to show you proof...... Then, if that's the case, why expect people to believe? Blind faith is cult stuff. Why doesn't SL wait until she can show the proof before she whips up a crowd? I'll tell you why, IMO, because she whips up a crowd that needs nothing more than being whipped up. They don't require proof. This is a cult. IMO.
Let me ask you this. Do you believe Parky when he claimed that the judge directed the jury that he would only accept a majority verdict of 13 or more?
-
Why can't you ever answer or address a straight question with a straight answer? Why do you always have to involve someone else? What about Parky? What does Parky have to do with my answer? Nothing. But, but, but.... what about anyone else but you answering a straight question? How about that, faithlilly? Parky is a different conversation.
-
Can you prove the judge didn't?
-
I absolutely agree. The judge’s direction claim was my particular favourite.
And there we have yet again the blameless directing blame elsewhere. That stark difference between someone claiming you are a liar to actually being one. Where proof has been shown time and again of the lies told from those spearheading this farce of a campaign. Half truths, misinformation and downright lies. Money by menace and much more.
22nd January 2005
Boyfriend led search with joint in his hand CANNABIS
LUKE Mitchell was a drug dealer as well as a murderer.
The teenager, his fingers visibly black with tar from burning cannabis, joined in the torchlight hunt for Jodi's body with a joint in hand.
He later told a psychiatrist that he was rolling the equivalent of 300 joints a week before the murder, and said he doubled his consumption after it.
Although this level of usage was dismissed by police and a pharmacologist, experts said the use of cannabis was undoubtedly rife among his age group.
Users news from the HeraldScotland
Can you tell us exactly when it was LM had bloods take for analysis? For we know without a shadow of a doubt those claimed blood samples, between 5 - 6am. Were not of the morning of July the 1st. Or if they were, they were not for the purpose of substance abuse. Where in one of Ms Leans 'lives' over this past couple of months she was asked about this. To do yet again with cannabis in Jodi's system. Where she made claim to Luke only smoking prior to 7pm. That perhaps he had lost track of real time due to this? That he had stepped into the Abbey for a smoke, that this would explain why he possibly could have missed Jodi passing by? Given reason as to why he asked his mother if she had been to the house?
Not only this, one went into great detail about different strengths. That Luke, his age group were unlikely to have had the means to obtain a "super strength" variety. That what he had was of the weak variety, thus why it did not show in his system.That the possibility that it showed in Jodi's system, was due to someone given her a joint laced with strong stuff. That this then could account for rendering her senseless prior to the attack.
We already know he had been smoking after 7pm with the boys. We know strength has nothing to do with being in someones system when they died. What is wrong will all of this, is the feeding of more misinformation to back up lies already told. In these blatant attempts to weakly, and shamefully try to prove, that Jodi could not have smoked cannabis with Luke Mitchell just prior to her death.
To not only continue to try and squirm away from the lies already told, the assumptions and misinformation - but to attempt to stick to what she wants others to believe. What has always been intended, of Jodi having that smoke, up to two hours before her death with someone closer to home.
When we know the only person that Jodi was smoking with that day was LM, the person she usually smoked it with. At a place they often went to do this, in the RD wood. Where they hung out.
-
Why can't you ever answer or address a straight question with a straight answer? Why do you always have to involve someone else? What about Parky? What does Parky have to do with my answer? Nothing. But, but, but.... what about anyone else but you answering a straight question? How about that, faithlilly? Parky is a different conversation.
You posted this
‘ Not in the public domain so I can't give you proof, illegal for me to show you proof...... Then, if that's the case, why expect people to believe? Blind faith is cult stuff. ’
From this I think it’s sensible to assume that if you don’t see proof of a claim you don’t tend to believe it so I’ll ask again, do you believe Parky’s claim, without proof, or not? I know it may be uncomfortable answering but consistency is all I’m asking for.
-
And there we have yet again the blameless directing blame elsewhere. That stark difference between someone claiming you are a liar to actually being one. Where proof has been shown time and again of the lies told from those spearheading this farce of a campaign. Half truths, misinformation and downright lies. Money by menace and much more.
Lovely but are you now willing to substantiate your claim about the judge’s direction with proof?
Can you tell us exactly when it was LM had bloods take for analysis? For we know without a shadow of a doubt those claimed blood samples, between 5 - 6am. Were not of the morning of July the 1st. Or if they were, they were not for the purpose of substance abuse. Where in one of Ms Leans 'lives' over this past couple of months she was asked about this. To do yet again with cannabis in Jodi's system. Where she made claim to Luke only smoking prior to 7pm. That perhaps he had lost track of real time due to this? That he had stepped into the Abbey for a smoke, that this would explain why he possibly could have missed Jodi passing by? Given reason as to why he asked his mother if she had been to the house?
All very interesting but are you now willing to substantiate your claim about the judge’s direction with proof?
Not only this, one went into great detail about different strengths. That Luke, his age group were unlikely to have had the means to obtain a "super strength" variety. That what he had was of the weak variety, thus why it did not show in his system.That the possibility that it showed in Jodi's system, was due to someone given her a joint laced with strong stuff. That this then could account for rendering her senseless prior to the attack.
You keep chipping away but while you do could you please substantiate your claim about the judge’s direction with proof?
We already know he had been smoking after 7pm with the boys. We know strength has nothing to do with being in someones system when they died. What is wrong will all of this, is the feeding of more misinformation to back up lies already told. In these blatant attempts to weakly, and shamefully try to prove, that Jodi could not have smoked cannabis with Luke Mitchell just prior to her death.
To not only continue to try and squirm away from the lies already told, the assumptions and misinformation - but to attempt to stick to what she wants others to believe. What has always been intended, of Jodi having that smoke, up to two hours before her death with someone closer to home.
That’s settled then so are you now willing to substantiate your claim about the judge’s direction with proof?
When we know the only person that Jodi was smoking with that day was LM, the person she usually smoked it with. At a place they often went to do this, in the RD wood. Where they hung out.
-
I think you need to take a breath, you appear to be getting rather overwrought.
You posted this
‘ Not in the public domain so I can't give you proof, illegal for me to show you proof...... Then, if that's the case, why expect people to believe? Blind faith is cult stuff. ’
From this I think it’s sensible to assume that if you don’t see proof of a claim you don’t tend to believe it so I’ll ask again, do you believe Parky’s claim, without proof, or not? I know it may be uncomfortable answering but consistency is all I’m asking for.
I require the same proof over the board. I would like proof of what Parky says but I've never commented on it. I give it no more credence than I give the claims of SL without proof. Don't worry about me being over wrought. That would take more than you. It's all obvious defletion. Worthless at best. Straight answers are all that's required. The differences, IMO, between SL and Parky are, Parky doesn't want my money and IF Parky IS lying to me, he was never heading the campaign to have a child killer released anyway.
-
I think you need to take a breath, you appear to be getting rather overwrought.
You posted this
‘ Not in the public domain so I can't give you proof, illegal for me to show you proof...... Then, if that's the case, why expect people to believe? Blind faith is cult stuff. ’
From this I think it’s sensible to assume that if you don’t see proof of a claim you don’t tend to believe it so I’ll ask again, do you believe Parky’s claim, without proof, or not? I know it may be uncomfortable answering but consistency is all I’m asking for.
Back to my question if you would please, faithlilly.
-
Why can't you ever answer or address a straight question with a straight answer? Why do you always have to involve someone else? What about Parky? What does Parky have to do with my answer? Nothing. But, but, but.... what about anyone else but you answering a straight question? How about that, faithlilly? Parky is a different conversation.
Ah! There's my question, faithlilly.
-
I require the same proof over the board. I would like proof of what Parky says but I've never commented on it. I give it no more credence than I give the claims of SL without proof. Don't worry about me being over wrought. That would take more than you. It's all obvious defletion. Worthless at best. The usual, awful sarcasm one can expect from someone who can't do any different. Straight answers are all that's required. The differences, IMO, between SL and Parky are, Parky doesn't want my money and IF Parky IS lying to me, he was never heading the campaign to have a child killer released anyway.
Does Sandra Lean want your money? Why?
Was SL ever heading a campaign "to have a child killer released", or was she heading a campaign to secure a review of an investigation and trial that she believed to have been unfair?
-
LM was found guilty by a jury of his peers for the murder of a child so, yes, SL was most definitely campaigning for the release of a convicted child killer. Please remember that his appeals were never based on his supposed innocence. Why not? As for the money, she's not getting it anyway, however she dresses up her begging bowl. Good night to all.
-
And there we have yet again the blameless directing blame elsewhere. That stark difference between someone claiming you are a liar to actually being one. Where proof has been shown time and again of the lies told from those spearheading this farce of a campaign. Half truths, misinformation and downright lies. Money by menace and much more.
Can you tell us exactly when it was LM had bloods take for analysis? For we know without a shadow of a doubt those claimed blood samples, between 5 - 6am. Were not of the morning of July the 1st. Or if they were, they were not for the purpose of substance abuse. Where in one of Ms Leans 'lives' over this past couple of months she was asked about this. To do yet again with cannabis in Jodi's system. Where she made claim to Luke only smoking prior to 7pm. That perhaps he had lost track of real time due to this? That he had stepped into the Abbey for a smoke, that this would explain why he possibly could have missed Jodi passing by? Given reason as to why he asked his mother if she had been to the house?
Not only this, one went into great detail about different strengths. That Luke, his age group were unlikely to have had the means to obtain a "super strength" variety. That what he had was of the weak variety, thus why it did not show in his system.That the possibility that it showed in Jodi's system, was due to someone given her a joint laced with strong stuff. That this then could account for rendering her senseless prior to the attack.
We already know he had been smoking after 7pm with the boys. We know strength has nothing to do with being in someones system when they died. What is wrong will all of this, is the feeding of more misinformation to back up lies already told. In these blatant attempts to weakly, and shamefully try to prove, that Jodi could not have smoked cannabis with Luke Mitchell just prior to her death.
To not only continue to try and squirm away from the lies already told, the assumptions and misinformation - but to attempt to stick to what she wants others to believe. What has always been intended, of Jodi having that smoke, up to two hours before her death with someone closer to home.
When we know the only person that Jodi was smoking with that day was LM, the person she usually smoked it with. At a place they often went to do this, in the RD wood. Where they hung out.
How do you know that Luke was the only person Jodi had been smoking with on that day???
-
Ah! There's my question, faithlilly.
That’s was more of a rhetorical rant than a question.
-
That’s was more of a rhetorical rant than a question.
Please forget your personal take on my question and take it as a straight question that only requires a straight answer.
-
That’s was more of a rhetorical rant than a question.
Anyway, it's half one and I'm definitely going to sleep now. Any last word you can't resist, I'll pick up on in the morning. Think we're getting off topic again anyway. Good night.
-
mrswah, I want to be really clear here. I have never asked anyone for proof of educational qualifications. I have asked if certain people are allowed to talk for others who, apparently, are unable to speak for themselves for whatever reason. Because the information has been presented as second hand information I asked for proof. Never once have I asked anyone for proof of qualifications. Others have turned their question into a "joke" question, not a serious issue and have never been pulled up for BS. Perhaps if, from now on, I say that none of my questions are serious ones, I'll be allowed too? As for SL showing proof of anything, of course the author should. If not,, why not? What's to hide? Not in the public domain so I can't give you proof, illegal for me to show you proof...... Then, if that's the case, why expect people to believe? Blind faith is cult stuff. Why doesn't SL wait until she can show the proof before she whips up a crowd? I'll tell you why, IMO, because she whips up a crowd that needs nothing more than being whipped up. They don't require proof. This is a cult. IMO.
It's really bad to involve other people in questions isn't it &^^&*
Let's see where someone had actually asked a serious question about anyone's qualifications on here other than demand more and more proof about SL
I wouldn't dream of asking anyone a serious question about their qualifications on here. Not only do I not care...how could some have time? Being here is a 24/7 job.
The dedication shines but doesn't leave time for much else does it?
Ps in case you missed it no one asked anyone for their qualifications as was stated at the time. It answers itself
Posting comments on behalf of someone who is under attack interrupts the flow. Yes how awful is that?
People can make up anything and then say oh well they aren't in the forum blah blah so it doesn't matter
You keep mentioning SF and his Twitter. You were encouraged to ask him if you doubt what he says. You didn't so that's another excuse to berate and not believe him
-
It's really bad to involve other people in questions isn't it &^^&*
Let's see where someone had actually asked a serious question about anyone's qualifications on here other than demand more and more proof about SL
I wouldn't dream of asking anyone a serious question about their qualifications on here. Not only do I not care...how could some have time? Being here is a 24/7 job.
The dedication shines but doesn't leave time for much else does it?
Ps in case you missed it no one asked anyone for their qualifications as was stated at the time. It answers itself
Posting comments on behalf of someone who is under attack interrupts the flow. Yes how awful is that?
People can make up anything and then say oh well they aren't in the forum blah blah so it doesn't matter
You keep mentioning SF and his Twitter. You were encouraged to ask him if you doubt what he says. You didn't so that's another excuse to berate and not believe him
How do you know I didn't ask him?
-
How do you know I didn't ask him?
So am I wrong?
-
So am I wrong?
How do you know I didn't ask him?
-
In regards to the discussion around the judges direction to the jury. Is this something a judge can do/has done?
Also, has there been any further updates from LM and his new legal team?
-
How do you know I didn't ask him?
Thought you didn't like riddles and liked answers. Some of your ideas are good just that you do not stick to them yourself.
-
This case is closed. Luke Mitchell is going nowhere. He will be enjoying his prison food for many many years to come. These people can campaign, protest, deface public property, threaten journalists, troll forums all they want, it will not change a thing. It always ends in tears for them. For the simple reason, Mitchell is as guilty as they come.
I agree.
-
In regards to the discussion around the judges direction to the jury. Is this something a judge can do/has done?
Also, has there been any further updates from LM and his new legal team?
I, too, would like answers to your questions!
-
Good Morning!
Just a reminder: please keep on topic, and refrain from squabbling. Many thanks.
-
We know all the usual/prominent areas, and we know it is virtually everyone of them that Ms Lean attempts to apply to this case. Police incompetence, eye witness testimony, unreliable witness testimony, perjury, incompetent defence, circumstantial evidence, media pressure/prejudice, human rights. Wrongful direction by the Judge and on it goes.
I’m still waiting to see a chronological list of all the media articles - which also includes the ones where the Mitchell’s spoke to journalists.
I’d also like to see proof Sky news stated the interview with killer Luke and Corinne Mitchell wouldn’t be aired on the day of [Name removed]’s funeral. Not that it makes any difference to the bigger picture on this.
This ‘memorial’ obviously wasn’t a private affair because if it were the Mitchell’s wouldn’t have invited the press into their home in the first place (Because the media didn’t force their way in).
And I suspect the candle on the table - with the words written on it - was most probably Corinne Mitchell’s idea.
-
The one I would like to pick up on, as you highlighted before is that of Confirmation bias. is this which I believe Ms Lean is guilty of.
I’m of the view she uses ‘confirmation bias’ as a manipulation tactic
-
She made the decision that Luke Mitchell was innocent,
She most certainly did not in 2014 to me
-
The one I would like to pick up on, as you highlighted before is that of Confirmation bias. It is this which I believe Ms Lean is guilty of. She made the decision that Luke Mitchell was innocent, uninvolved in the death of his girlfriend in that 7 month period of the calm before the storm. At at time when all three believed there would be no arrest. That there was and could not be evidence, the naivety and lack of understanding, around how time consuming the build up of circumstantial cases can be. That those preconceptions she had that were wrong.
Was Sandra Lean involved with the Mitchell’s around the time of the Sky interview?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=67.msg458#msg458
And if so what was the level of her communication with them around this time?
What did she think about them inviting James Matthews into their home on the day of [Name removed]’s funeral? And did she think it was a good idea?
-
Of course there were choices but having gone down so many roads, different cases,
Do you mean using various manipulation tactics ?
-
Can you tell us exactly when it was LM had bloods take for analysis? For we know without a shadow of a doubt those claimed blood samples, between 5 - 6am. Were not of the morning of July the 1st. Or if they were, they were not for the purpose of substance abuse. Where in one of Ms Leans 'lives' over this past couple of months she was asked about this. To do yet again with cannabis in Jodi's system. Where she made claim to Luke only smoking prior to 7pm.
8((()*/
Excerpts from https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12412528.jodi-murder-trial-told-of-cannabis-sessions/
‘JODI Jones smoked cannabis with the youth accused of murdering her just hours before she died, a court was told yesterday.
‘He said Mr Mitchell, Jodi, and himself were there most lunchtimes and it was Mr Mitchell who had the cannabis ''99.9% of the time'', adding: ''Usually Luke would roll a joint and have some of it himself and pass it round other members of the group.''
-
but to attempt to stick to what she wants others to believe.
and it’s so see through 🙄 and for me has been since 2014
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383098.html#msg383098
Why did Sandra Lean not contact Simon Hall directly?
Sandra Lean: From the minute I heard about the confession, I had questions about its validity, which I expressed directly to you, Stephanie. After six months of no contact, I emailed you on hearing about the confession - I explained I'd emailed "to let you and Simon know that many people did not believe the "confession" as reported was genuine, or had been truly voluntarily made." That was 18th August 2013.
And why did she choose to attempt to use triangulation ? https://www.healthline.com/health/narcissistic-triangulation
I’d never heard of Sandra Lean or her book ‘No Smoke’ until around the time I made contact with her in early 2009
And why did she choose to attempt to use ‘the double bind’ ?
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.
⬇️ ⬇️ ⬇️
On 8th Aug 2013 Sandra sent the following
Dear Stephanie,
I heard, at around 2pm this afternoon, the news that Simon had "confessed his
guilt."
I don't want to say too much by email, but I wanted you to know that I am thinking
of you both this evening, and everything I have said in the past regarding Simon's
case still stands. Many of the others I have spoken with today feel the same way.
I have a new mobile number ********, and a new landline number from tomorrow
*******. I have no idea if this message will reach you. I hope it does.
Sandra
‘Double binds are often utilized as a form of control without open coercion—the use of confusion makes them difficult both to respond to and to resist’ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383104.html#msg383104
‘20 Diversion Tactics Highly Manipulative Narcissists, Sociopaths And Psychopaths Use To Silence You’
Excerpt:
‘If you think you’re going to have a thoughtful discussion with someone who is toxic, be prepared for epic mindf..kery rather than conversational mindfulness.
Malignant narcissists and sociopaths use word salad, circular conversations, ad hominem arguments, projection and gaslighting to disorient you and get you off track should you ever disagree with them or challenge them in any way. They do this in order to discredit, confuse and frustrate you, distract you from the main problem and make you feel guilty for being a human being with actual thoughts and feelings that might differ from their own. In their eyes, you are the problem if you happen to exist. https://thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2016/06/20-diversion-tactics-highly-manipulative-narcissists-sociopaths-and-psychopaths-use-to-silence-you/
Her personal idiosyncrasies are somewhat renowned are they not?
See above (Although I could go on..)
-
How do you know that Luke was the only person Jodi had been smoking with on that day???
Jodi had just had punishment lifted for smoking cannabis. She was at home with her mother after finishing school. Now if one wishes to believe that her mother like Mitchells didn't give two hoots around 14yr olds taking drugs, that the punishment was made up, (other witnesses to the fact) then everyone's choice to do so. If one also wishes to pick up on this, ignoring the point of the post, that Lean contorts anything to suit. That there has been lies told repeatedly over the years. Luke Mitchell was smoking drugs the whole evening, even whilst on this search. So where exactly did this claimed drugs test come into play? - It is BS.
As for the smoking with Jodi prior to her death. Luke Mitchell was not at home. If one wishes to ignore every lie told around those 45minutes originally, to ignore any reason why they lied. Again, one's choice to do so. That whole concocted story squeezed into less than 15mins. Jodi left to meet only him. He was seen by AB in Easthouse's. They hung around in RD wood, unless you are of the same mind as others, that those initials just miraculously appeared on the tree. Again ignoring Mitchells lies, of his denial of EVER being in that woodland strip. Of the existence of the V. Just accepts those lies - as you say, wasn't he just like any other teenager? - We are still waiting for a list of those same teenagers, who murdered their girlfriends and inflicted those type of horrific injuries?
So yes, I am sure that the person that Jodi Jones smoked cannabis with, prior to her death was LM. She is highly unlikely to have smoked it at home, on the School bus or that short walk to where she met Luke. In an area they frequented, Into the RD wood, the perfect place for that smoke, out of sight - which turned into the place, out of sight, that Luke Mitchell murdered her.
-
And why did she choose to attempt to use ‘the double bind’ ?
⬇️ ⬇️ ⬇️
‘Double binds are often utilized as a form of control without open coercion—the use of confusion makes them difficult both to respond to and to resist’ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383104.html#msg383104
I saw through her behaviour at the time
And still she continued 🙄 ⬇️
Dear Stephanie,
I did not email you on behalf of anyone but myself. I did so to let you and Simon know that many people did not believe the "confession" as reported was genuine, or had been truly voluntarily made. There is no ego in this for me, and certainly no personal agenda, other than being able to help if and where I can.
I'm sorry this is the standpoint you are taking, and sorrier still that you have chosen to respond in the manner you have. As a matter of courtesty, I mentioned the decision about No Smoke, as six other families are immediately affected by the reports of Simon's confession, and it may be in their interests to simply withdraw the book from circulation altogether.
If, as you appear to be implying, Simon's confession is both genuine and voluntary, then I thank you for the clarification. You appear to have forgotten that I was highlighting Simon's case, along with many others for several years before WAP came into existence.
You were not averse to accepting the many, many hours of advice, assistance and support you had from me, personally, for a very long time. I sincerely hope you do not begrudge others the same - it is not the case that, because Simon has confessed, the others must, as a result, be guilty.
Simon had a huge amount of support from a very large number of people. Perhaps you would consider that those people, at the very least, deserve an explanation?
Sandra
Back in 2014 she also stated,
‘As I said, others on this forum are free to make of this whatever they choose’
This appears to have since morphed into ‘make of that what you will’ 🙄
-
I, too, would like answers to your questions!
And as for the Judges direction. Of course they can give direction. They did give direction.
And as for the claimed new legal team - I'm still waiting to hear what happened to the one in 2018? Of the claimed appeal and startling evidence that was date stamped by two years - At a time the plight for funds was also being made. - Does none of this matter? That those, (one in particular) who attempt to campaign talk utter BS?
-
She most certainly did not in 2014 to me
I know. That facade to others. The front.
-
I know. That facade to others. The front.
And why I very firmly view her as a fraud
And making out she’s been working on the case for some alleged 18 years 🙄
In actual factual man hours I suspect it could be whittled down to months - weeks even
-
Does Sandra Lean want your money? Why?
Was SL ever heading a campaign "to have a child killer released", or was she heading a campaign to secure a review of an investigation and trial that she believed to have been unfair?
Two sides of the same coin - She is asking for this review in the hope that it will lead into this child killer being freed. By way of half truths, misinformation and downright lies - of that there is not doubt. From the very first source, the Mitchells who were lying. And you hit the nail on the head. A trial SHE believed to be unfair. So this woman, this nobody who got into cahoots with liars felt in her non expert opinion, it was not fair? And she felt this because she chose to push the side of liars first and foremost. As she has done with others. Of which she has been wrong, to gather some money now? And where is she? - Certainly not having a break after years of endless campaigning for there has been none. It has always been a woman using for her own gain, via study material and so forth. To be a budding author, those goals - at others expense? Has it not? That clear two way street of give and take.
Of course the lies, the misinformation and all else - will not gain him any freedom, nor a review. Just cause harm to the pawns she uses along the way.
-
And why I very firmly view her as a fraud
And making out she’s been working on the case for some alleged 18 years 🙄
In actual factual man hours I suspect it could be whittled down to months - weeks even
Definitely - The most hours given have been for personal gain. Study, qualifications etc. There has been not tiresome, endless campaigning. That is where the foot is put down, when the real work needs to be done.
-
this review
In reality this ‘review’ has already taken place
By the police and lawyers
-
and it’s so see through 🙄 and for me has been since 2014
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383098.html#msg383098
I should clarify here in my 18th Aug 2014 reply to Sandra Lean I stated the following ⬇️
You know, I know and many many others know Billy Middleton's stories do not add up and that he is clearly guilty of causing that fire.
I do not forget the conversations we had on this subject!
Your ego's and personal agendas are clear for all to see and have been for a very long time.
WAP was only set up in order for Billy Middleton to appease his guilt. The truth always outs in the end!
I DO NOT believe Billy Middleton set up the WAP site to ‘appease his guilt’ - this was an error on my part at the time/in the moment
I view Billy Middleton to be a sadistic individual and as such my firm view is he set up WAP to further torment his victims
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/fury-as-dad-of-annalise-middleton-sets-1019199
-
Was Sandra Lean involved with the Mitchell’s around the time of the Sky interview?
Yes. She got involved around that time.
-
In reality this ‘review’ has already taken place
By the police and lawyers
Quite so. There is nothing new to bring to the table. To want now after all other avenues have been exhausted. For one clear purpose which is absolutely ridiculous to use - So It may show others if Ms Lean is correct or not? Which spirals back around that revolving door of feigned importance. That this woman, who in reality should not be given the time of day around the Mitchell case. Where there is absolute proof that there can be no objective viewpoint - By that simple, all too clear, highly relevant factor of being closely in collusion with them. At a point in time when there appeared no arrest would be forthcoming. Bias does not come any stronger IMO.
-
Was Sandra Lean involved with the Mitchell’s around the time of the Sky interview?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=67.msg458#msg458
And if so what was the level of her communication with them around this time?
What did she think about them inviting James Matthews into their home on the day of [Name removed]’s funeral? And did she think it was a good idea?
Sorry I meant to send you a link earlier. It's after 47 minutes into the video.
https://youtu.be/fqQ7lnucUMI
-
Sorry I meant to send you a link earlier. It's after 47 minutes into the video.
https://youtu.be/fqQ7lnucUMI
Thanks
James English asks,
‘Were you around then or was it after when he went to prison’
Sandra Lean states,
‘I was involved from September 2003 so 10 weeks after the murder’
JE: And that’s when you got involved
SL: Yeah
What isn’t clear from this ⬆️
Was it 10 weeks after the murder Corinne Mitchell put an alleged note through her work place door?
The Sky interview was on the 3rd September 2003
So did Sandra see Luke and Corinne on the TV on the 3rd Sept and then started gossiping to some of the locals and that’s how Corinne heard Sandra was talking about Luke ?
or was it something else which triggered her gossip?
Sandra’s never made it clear when she started gossiping and to whom ?
-
Thanks
James English asks,
‘Were you around then or was it after when he went to prison’
Sandra Lean states,
‘I was involved from September 2003 so 10 weeks after the murder’
JE: And that’s when you got involved
SL: Yeah
What isn’t clear from this ⬆️
Was it 10 weeks after the murder Corinne Mitchell put an alleged note through her work place door?
The Sky interview was on the 3rd September 2003
So did Sandra see Luke and Corinne on the TV on the 3rd Sept and then started gossiping to some of the locals and that’s how Corinne heard Sandra was talking about Luke ?
or was it something else which triggered her gossip?
Sandra’s never made it clear when she started gossiping and to whom ?
Just my opinion but the story about the note ? I don't believe it for a second.
-
Thanks
James English asks,
‘Were you around then or was it after when he went to prison’
Sandra Lean states,
‘I was involved from September 2003 so 10 weeks after the murder’
JE: And that’s when you got involved
SL: Yeah
What isn’t clear from this ⬆️
Was it 10 weeks after the murder Corinne Mitchell put an alleged note through her work place door?
The Sky interview was on the 3rd September 2003
So did Sandra see Luke and Corinne on the TV on the 3rd Sept and then started gossiping to some of the locals and that’s how Corinne heard Sandra was talking about Luke ?
or was it something else which triggered her gossip?
Sandra’s never made it clear when she started gossiping and to whom ?
You need to read the book, Nicholas!!! Sandra tells of how she became involved.
-
That this woman, who in reality should not be given the time of day around the Mitchell case.
She really shouldn’t ⬇️
Sandra Lean
‘The reason I put the book out is if I were forced to give up so if anything happened to me I don’t think there’s anybody else in Scotland got the level of knowledge of the case that I’ve got and the idea was put everything in there and then if anybody else wants to come along and take over the informations there
@)(++(* @)(++(*
The above can be heard a couple of minutes past the 47:00 here ⬇️
Sorry I meant to send you a link earlier. It's after 47 minutes into the video.
https://youtu.be/fqQ7lnucUMI
-
Jodi had just had punishment lifted for smoking cannabis. She was at home with her mother after finishing school. Now if one wishes to believe that her mother like Mitchells didn't give two hoots around 14yr olds taking drugs, that the punishment was made up, (other witnesses to the fact) then everyone's choice to do so. If one also wishes to pick up on this, ignoring the point of the post, that Lean contorts anything to suit. That there has been lies told repeatedly over the years. Luke Mitchell was smoking drugs the whole evening, even whilst on this search. So where exactly did this claimed drugs test come into play? - It is BS.
As for the smoking with Jodi prior to her death. Luke Mitchell was not at home. If one wishes to ignore every lie told around those 45minutes originally, to ignore any reason why they lied. Again, one's choice to do so. That whole concocted story squeezed into less than 15mins. Jodi left to meet only him. He was seen by AB in Easthouse's. They hung around in RD wood, unless you are of the same mind as others, that those initials just miraculously appeared on the tree. Again ignoring Mitchells lies, of his denial of EVER being in that woodland strip. Of the existence of the V. Just accepts those lies - as you say, wasn't he just like any other teenager? - We are still waiting for a list of those same teenagers, who murdered their girlfriends and inflicted those type of horrific injuries?
So yes, I am sure that the person that Jodi Jones smoked cannabis with, prior to her death was LM. She is highly unlikely to have smoked it at home, on the School bus or that short walk to where she met Luke. In an area they frequented, Into the RD wood, the perfect place for that smoke, out of sight - which turned into the place, out of sight, that Luke Mitchell murdered her.
We know that Luke and Jodi had been smoking during their school lunch hour that day, as this was confirmed in court by a witness (Alistair Leitch), who had been smoking with them. We can't be sure, however, that she was smoking with Luke shortly before he (allegedly) killed her----and that is assuming she actually met Luke before she was killed.
-
She really shouldn’t ⬇️
Sandra Lean
‘The reason I put the book out is if I were forced to give up so if anything happened to me I don’t think there’s anybody else in Scotland got the level of knowledge of the case that I’ve got and the idea was put everything in there and then if anybody else wants to come along and take over the informations there
@)(++(* @)(++(*
So very similar to John Morris and his book on mass murderer and child killer David Morris
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Struck+off+solicitor+was+taken+on+by+law+firm%3B+TRIBUNAL%3A+Swansea...-a088672757
-
You need to read the book, Nicholas!!! Sandra tells of how she became involved.
But ‘Sandra tells’ all sorts of BS
-
We know that Luke and Jodi had been smoking during their school lunch hour that day, as this was confirmed in court by a witness (Alistair Leitch), who had been smoking with them. We can't be sure, however, that she was smoking with Luke shortly before he (allegedly) killed her----and that is assuming she actually met Luke before she was killed.
Jodi was in school all afternoon. The pathology report stated up to two hours before death. So not from lunchtime. Not a scrap of evidence to suggest she smoked before stepping on that school bus with her friends. Highly unlikely to have went home stoned! whilst being on a punishment for smoking. Equally unlikely that she smoked in the house. Or had the means to have on that short walk to meeting with Luke.
You accept every lie he told and excuse it - that is entirely up to you. You again ignore the point of the manipulation by Lean, again entirely up to you. I firmly believe that it was with Mitchell, that they shared that joint just before he murdered her.
He was not home, again if you believe that concocted story of a dinner tale squeezed into less than 15mins - Then you are going to believe every single lie you are told. - Does that seem fair to assume?
-
Jodi was in school all afternoon. The pathology report stated up to two hours before death. So not from lunchtime. Not a scrap of evidence to suggest she smoked before stepping on that school bus with her friends. Highly unlikely to have went home stoned! whilst being on a punishment for smoking. Equally unlikely that she smoked in the house. Or had the means to have on that short walk to meeting with Luke.
You accept every lie he told and excuse it - that is entirely up to you. You again ignore the point of the manipulation by Lean, again entirely up to you. I firmly believe that it was with Mitchell, that they shared that joint just before he murdered her.
He was not home, again if you believe that concocted story of a dinner tale squeezed into less than 15mins - Then you are going to believe every single lie you are told. - Does that seem fair to assume?
You are implying that SL and the Mitchells tell lies, while you tell the truth-------I haven't yet seen any reason why I should believe you rather than them . That is not saying that Luke told no lies (he obviously WAS familiar with the woods, for example), or that Sandra gets some things wrong. It may also be the case that Luke is as guilty as sin------but I certainly don't have your confidence! How do you know, for sure, that he wasn't at home? How do you know for sure that he didn't cook dinner? How do you know for sure that he met up with Jodi that evening?
-
You are implying that SL and the Mitchells tell lies, while you tell the truth-------I haven't yet seen any reason why I should believe you rather than them . That is not saying that Luke told no lies (he obviously WAS familiar with the woods, for example), or that Sandra gets some things wrong. It may also be the case that Luke is as guilty as sin------but I certainly don't have your confidence! How do you know, for sure, that he wasn't at home? How do you know for sure that he didn't cook dinner? How do you know for sure that he met up with Jodi that evening?
I
I was careful to state it's only my opinion.
-
I
I was careful to state it's only my opinion.
I once asked Sandra Lean where she first met SF. This was in the comments section of a YouTube video. Sandra Lean told me she first met SF at Scott's Caravans when SF went there to tell CM everything he knew because apparently no one was listening. Sandra Lean told me this was at the end of 2006. She told me she was there with Corinne. This seemed like a huge coincidence to me that SL happened to be there so I asked if the meeting was prearranged. She had also stated that after that she would occasionally meet with SF at Stirling for coffee but the first time they met was at Corinne's place of work. SL didn't answer me or any of my questions after that. The thread has been deleted but others must have read it too. On other videos, SL is adamant that the first time she ever met SF was at Stirling University where they both studied. Both stories can't be true. Also, if no one was listening to SF before he visited with Corinne in 2006, why is he now saying he gave a sworn statement to an honest lawyer in 2005?
Why would Corinne Mitchell put a note through the door of the local alternative therapist looking for help? SL wasn't a criminologist then. They were complete strangers apparently. Didn't CM have friends and family to turn to? The woman who ran the local disco Luke attended told a newspaper that Luke had support and that she herself supported Luke so why the note to a complete stranger? As I've said, it's only my opinion but I don't believe it. I don't expect anyone else to agree with me.
-
‘And as for the Judges direction. Of course they can give direction. They did give direction.’
No they didn’t.
‘utter BS?’
Absolutely agree
-
Two sides of the same coin - She is asking for this review in the hope that it will lead into this child killer being freed. By way of half truths, misinformation and downright lies - of that there is not doubt. From the very first source, the Mitchells who were lying. And you hit the nail on the head. A trial SHE believed to be unfair. So this woman, this nobody who got into cahoots with liars felt in her non expert opinion, it was not fair? And she felt this because she chose to push the side of liars first and foremost. As she has done with others. Of which she has been wrong, to gather some money now? And where is she? - Certainly not having a break after years of endless campaigning for there has been none. It has always been a woman using for her own gain, via study material and so forth. To be a budding author, those goals - at others expense? Has it not? That clear two way street of give and take.
Of course the lies, the misinformation and all else - will not gain him any freedom, nor a review. Just cause harm to the pawns she uses along the way.
Of course Dr Lean is supported in her efforts by various experts in their fields.
-
I once asked Sandra Lean where she first met SF. This was in the comments section of a YouTube video. Sandra Lean told me she first met SF at Scott's Caravans when SF went there to tell CM everything he knew because apparently no one was listening. Sandra Lean told me this was at the end of 2006. She told me she was there with Corinne. This seemed like a huge coincidence to me that SL happened to be there so I asked if the meeting was prearranged. She had also stated that after that she would occasionally meet with SF at Stirling for coffee but the first time they met was at Corinne's place of work. SL didn't answer me or any of my questions after that. The thread has been deleted but others must have read it too. On other videos, SL is adamant that the first time she ever met SF was at Stirling University where they both studied. Both stories can't be true. Also, if no one was listening to SF before he visited with Corinne in 2006, why is he now saying he gave a sworn statement to an honest lawyer in 2005?
Why would Corinne Mitchell put a note through the door of the local alternative therapist looking for help? SL wasn't a criminologist then. They were complete strangers apparently. Didn't CM have friends and family to turn to? The woman who ran the local disco Luke attended told a newspaper that Luke had support and that she herself supported Luke so why the note to a complete stranger? As I've said, it's only my opinion but I don't believe it. I don't expect anyone else to agree with me.
No one was listening to SF. He did that 2006 BECAUSE no one had taken any notice of his actions / statement in 2005. Kind of confirms what he is saying doesn't it.
-
Jodi was in school all afternoon. The pathology report stated up to two hours before death. So not from lunchtime. Not a scrap of evidence to suggest she smoked before stepping on that school bus with her friends. Highly unlikely to have went home stoned! whilst being on a punishment for smoking. Equally unlikely that she smoked in the house. Or had the means to have on that short walk to meeting with Luke.
Not unlikely to have smoked in the house. Her brother had asked his mum to cancel an appointment I believe at the doctors so he could smoke dope in his bedroom with JF. Perhaps Jodi asked for a fly drag or two?
You accept every lie he told and excuse it - that is entirely up to you. You again ignore the point of the manipulation by Lean, again entirely up to you. I firmly believe that it was with Mitchell, that they shared that joint just before he murdered her.
He was not home, again if you believe that concocted story of a dinner tale squeezed into less than 15mins - Then you are going to believe every single lie you are told. - Does that seem fair to assume?
-
I
I was careful to state it's only my opinion.
My reply was for Parky!
-
The problem with everything is we don’t know anything
It’s said she would not smoke in her home, her brother was apparently smoking in his room that afternoon, how do we know she didn’t sneak some of his when he was out the room, or smoke it with him, we don’t.
How do we know Jodi was going to meet Luke there and then, she left the house saying she was meeting Luke but maybe she was going somewhere first, like maybe her friend Yvonnes as it is where they were alleged to smoke from time to time. We don’t know.
How do we know she didn’t bump into the boys on the bike on the path and have a smoke with them in behind the wall? We don’t.
How do we know she was killed at 5.15 behind the wall, because some boy heard a noise, come on! Again we don’t know.
Just because nobody came forward does not mean she didn’t meet someone else before she was killed. Just because someone hear a noise at a certain time does not mean that’s when [Name removed] was killed, also does not mean it was not Luke, what if she met someone first had a smoke, then met Luke just after 6, he could have killed her then, plenty time.
Also it could have been Luke she had a smoke with behind the wall at 515, then he killed her, but we don’t know that, you may believe it but that doesn’t mean it is true.
This whole case is based on what we believe. How we interpret the information to hand. Unfortunately there is no smoking gun, no hard fact evidence and over time the information on the case has been twisted and distorted to fit whatever each side want you to believe.
I’ve been reading about this case for over 10 years and I’m still not sure either way. There are a couple of things that would convince me, for example evidence of Luke having a parka before the murder, I read Luke’s ex gf had photos to prove this but I’ve never heard of that being used in court so can only assume is misinformation??
Dna retested and Luke’s dna confirmed
Luke’s brother, if he doesn’t support Luke that would certainly make me rethink, again I’ve heard both he and the dad fully support Luke and always have and also the other side saying sm will tell anyone who asks that Luke is the killer. I would only believe a statement from the family which is not going to happen any time soon.
Unless there is a full review we will never be any closer to know for sure and I really can’t see that happening!
-
The problem with everything is we don’t know anything
It’s said she would not smoke in her home, her brother was apparently smoking in his room that afternoon, how do we know she didn’t sneak some of his when he was out the room, or smoke it with him, we don’t.
How do we know Jodi was going to meet Luke there and then, she left the house saying she was meeting Luke but maybe she was going somewhere first, like maybe her friend Yvonnes as it is where they were alleged to smoke from time to time. We don’t know.
How do we know she didn’t bump into the boys on the bike on the path and have a smoke with them in behind the wall? We don’t.
How do we know she was killed at 5.15 behind the wall, because some boy heard a noise, come on! Again we don’t know.
Just because nobody came forward does not mean she didn’t meet someone else before she was killed. Just because someone hear a noise at a certain time does not mean that’s when [Name removed] was killed, also does not mean it was not Luke, what if she met someone first had a smoke, then met Luke just after 6, he could have killed her then, plenty time.
Also it could have been Luke she had a smoke with behind the wall at 515, then he killed her, but we don’t know that, you may believe it but that doesn’t mean it is true.
This whole case is based on what we believe. How we interpret the information to hand. Unfortunately there is no smoking gun, no hard fact evidence and over time the information on the case has been twisted and distorted to fit whatever each side want you to believe.
I’ve been reading about this case for over 10 years and I’m still not sure either way. There are a couple of things that would convince me, for example evidence of Luke having a parka before the murder, I read Luke’s ex gf had photos to prove this but I’ve never heard of that being used in court so can only assume is misinformation??
Dna retested and Luke’s dna confirmed
Luke’s brother, if he doesn’t support Luke that would certainly make me rethink, again I’ve heard both he and the dad fully support Luke and always have and also the other side saying sm will tell anyone who asks that Luke is the killer. I would only believe a statement from the family which is not going to happen any time soon.
Unless there is a full review we will never be any closer to know for sure and I really can’t see that happening!
With all these questions still unanswered do you really think that Luke should have been convicted when the legal standard is beyond reasonable doubt?
-
I’ve been reading about this case for over 10 years and I’m still not sure either way. There are a couple of things that would convince me, for example evidence of Luke having a parka before the murder, I read Luke’s ex gf had photos to prove this but I’ve never heard of that being used in court so can only assume is misinformation??
Dna retested and Luke’s dna confirmed
Luke’s brother, if he doesn’t support Luke that would certainly make me rethink, again I’ve heard both he and the dad fully support Luke and always have and also the other side saying sm will tell anyone who asks that Luke is the killer. I would only believe a statement from the family which is not going to happen any time soon.
Unless there is a full review we will never be any closer to know for sure and I really can’t see that happening!
Sorry to burst your bubble, bullseye. But this case is closed.
There is no damming new evidence, there will be no re-testing of anything, there will be no reviews. You will not be hearing from Mitchell's brother & father, they won't be at Corrine funeral. You won't be getting to see any new pictures of anything. You won't be getting to see any statements in full. There is no new lawyers. There is nothing, but internet drama & bitching between people that want to score internet points.
This case is closed...
-
You need to read the book, Nicholas!!! Sandra tells of how she became involved.
Sandra Lean has referred to the local people ‘gossiping’ at various times during her chats and videos - so what’s in her book about this?
And does she mention anything about her youngest daughter and killer Luke Mitchell and how they knew each other?
-
With all these questions still unanswered do you really think that Luke should have been convicted when the legal standard is beyond reasonable doubt?
When a case goes to court a person is presumed innocent and their guilt has to be proven. Imo Luke’s case was different, at the time the people of Edinburgh had been reading papers and it looks as though Luke was guilty. I for one had made my mind up, it looked like the bf did it. How many other’s thought the same. I think in Luke’s case he went into that trial guilty until proven innocent, and that’s a whole different ball game, and that’s been the issue from the start. For me now looking at it as I should have from the start, innocent until proven guilty instead of guilty until proven innocent i would not have been able to convict him. If any of that makes any sense lol.
-
Sorry to burst your bubble, bullseye. But this case is closed.
There is no damming new evidence, there will be no re-testing of anything, there will be no reviews. You will not be hearing from Mitchell's brother & father, they won't be at Corrine funeral. You won't be getting to see any new pictures of anything. You won't be getting to see any statements in full. There is no new lawyers. There is nothing, but internet drama & bitching between people that want to score internet points.
This case is closed...
No bubble burst, I agree with you I don’t think anything will happen now, Luke is in jail and I don’t see him going anywhere but does not change the question for me, if he should be there or not I just don’t know.
-
Quite so. There is nothing new to bring to the table. To want now after all other avenues have been exhausted. For one clear purpose which is absolutely ridiculous to use - So It may show others if Ms Lean is correct or not? Which spirals back around that revolving door of feigned importance.
That’s some ego right there ⬇️ 🙄
Sandra Lean
‘The reason I put the book out is if I were forced to give up so if anything happened to me I don’t think there’s anybody else in Scotland got the level of knowledge of the case that I’ve got and the idea was put everything in there and then if anybody else wants to come along and take over the informations there
The above can be listened to here ⬇️ after the 47:00 minute mark
https://youtu.be/fqQ7lnucUMI
It of course has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘knowledge’ or ‘knowledge of the case’
More like Sandra Lean is the only person in Scotland who can spin a yarn like she has in relation to the killer of [Name removed]’s
What she’s chosen to do is awful !
-
This case is closed...
8((()*/
-
It's really bad to involve other people in questions isn't it &^^&*
Let's see where someone had actually asked a serious question about anyone's qualifications on here other than demand more and more proof about SL
I wouldn't dream of asking anyone a serious question about their qualifications on here. Not only do I not care...how could some have time? Being here is a 24/7 job.
The dedication shines but doesn't leave time for much else does it?
Ps in case you missed it no one asked anyone for their qualifications as was stated at the time. It answers itself
Posting comments on behalf of someone who is under attack interrupts the flow. Yes how awful is that?
People can make up anything and then say oh well they aren't in the forum blah blah so it doesn't matter
You keep mentioning SF and his Twitter. You were encouraged to ask him if you doubt what he says. You didn't so that's another excuse to berate and not believe him
I have never asked for proof about SL. You have the wrong person.
-
When a case goes to court a person is presumed innocent and their guilt has to be proven. Imo Luke’s case was different, at the time the people of Edinburgh had been reading papers and it looks as though Luke was guilty. I for one had made my mind up, it looked like the bf did it. How many other’s thought the same. I think in Luke’s case he went into that trial guilty until proven innocent, and that’s a whole different ball game, and that’s been the issue from the start. For me now looking at it as I should have from the start, innocent until proven guilty instead of guilty until proven innocent i would not have been able to convict him. If any of that makes any sense lol.
It does and thank you for your honesty.
-
Sandra Lean has referred to the local people ‘gossiping’ at various times during her chats and videos - so what’s in her book about this?
And does she mention anything about her youngest daughter and killer Luke Mitchell and how they knew each other?
Not heard about that.
-
I have never asked for proof about SL. You have the wrong person.
I see all the other nonsense has been deleted to save your blushes, no apology though? I didnt have the WRONG person because I never actually mentioned a person.
So this post makes NO sense. Shock horror
why is it still here?
-
When a case goes to court a person is presumed innocent and their guilt has to be proven. Imo Luke’s case was different, at the time the people of Edinburgh had been reading papers and it looks as though Luke was guilty. I for one had made my mind up, it looked like the bf did it. How many other’s thought the same. I think in Luke’s case he went into that trial guilty until proven innocent, and that’s a whole different ball game, and that’s been the issue from the start. For me now looking at it as I should have from the start, innocent until proven guilty instead of guilty until proven innocent i would not have been able to convict him. If any of that makes any sense lol.
Jury members are instructed to ignore anything they hear or read outside of the court.
If I had been on the jury, I couldn't have voted guilty.
However, the majority of the jury felt otherwise, and they were there - I wasn't there.
LM had a fair trial, and there have been many appeals.
-
There is no new lawyers.
You sure about that, Rusty?
-
Jury members are instructed to ignore anything they hear or read outside of the court.
If I had been on the jury, I couldn't have voted guilty.
However, the majority of the jury felt otherwise, and they were there - I wasn't there.
LM had a fair trial, and there have been many appeals.
It’s a sad fact but most convictions that are quashed have been before the Appeal Court several times so Luke’s case is no different in that respect.
Can I ask why you wouldn’t have voted guilty? What aspect of the case didn’t convince you ?
-
The problem with everything is we don’t know anything
It’s said she would not smoke in her home, her brother was apparently smoking in his room that afternoon, how do we know she didn’t sneak some of his when he was out the room, or smoke it with him, we don’t.
How do we know Jodi was going to meet Luke there and then, she left the house saying she was meeting Luke but maybe she was going somewhere first, like maybe her friend Yvonnes as it is where they were alleged to smoke from time to time. We don’t know.
How do we know she didn’t bump into the boys on the bike on the path and have a smoke with them in behind the wall? We don’t.
How do we know she was killed at 5.15 behind the wall, because some boy heard a noise, come on! Again we don’t know.
Just because nobody came forward does not mean she didn’t meet someone else before she was killed. Just because someone hear a noise at a certain time does not mean that’s when [Name removed] was killed, also does not mean it was not Luke, what if she met someone first had a smoke, then met Luke just after 6, he could have killed her then, plenty time.
Also it could have been Luke she had a smoke with behind the wall at 515, then he killed her, but we don’t know that, you may believe it but that doesn’t mean it is true.
This whole case is based on what we believe. How we interpret the information to hand. Unfortunately there is no smoking gun, no hard fact evidence and over time the information on the case has been twisted and distorted to fit whatever each side want you to believe.
I’ve been reading about this case for over 10 years and I’m still not sure either way. There are a couple of things that would convince me, for example evidence of Luke having a parka before the murder, I read Luke’s ex gf had photos to prove this but I’ve never heard of that being used in court so can only assume is misinformation??
Dna retested and Luke’s dna confirmed
Luke’s brother, if he doesn’t support Luke that would certainly make me rethink, again I’ve heard both he and the dad fully support Luke and always have and also the other side saying sm will tell anyone who asks that Luke is the killer. I would only believe a statement from the family which is not going to happen any time soon.
Unless there is a full review we will never be any closer to know for sure and I really can’t see that happening!
Well not shit? - "we don't know" "No smoking gun" - so anyone and everyone could be lying. That appears to be something you are pretty much sure of?
You lost me completely when you make claim to damning Mitchell, GUILTY! Before the lad even set foot in a courtroom. That classic 'Trial by media'. - Now you want a "full" review to prove Lean right or wrong? For you did say this before, did you not? Failing that review a nice statement from his brother/father will do? So if Shane steps forward and says I'm with Luke all the way, that will be enough for you to be sure of innocence? As at present you only think he is?
If you, yourself before, were guilty of not caring a Jot about actual evidence, hung someone out to dry on the basis of what was in the rags - It is hardly surprising how much ones mind has easily been twisted and fed with any old nonsense? Over the past ten years. You may claim to be sitting on the fence but you are not, are you? For if SM were to say he does not support his brother then you would have to "rethink"
Thankfully it would appear the majority of those claiming? to be sitting on the fence are the same, trial by media and now trial by Lean. - Which means for the time being, the conviction of Luke Mitchell is safe. For the very evidence, not "information" that brought about his conviction still stands. Leans clear distortions, her questions mean naff all in law. For the majority of people who actually do look at the evidence, not "information" trust in it. For they see that most of the actual evidence came directly from the Mitchells not the police, the Crown and so forth.
You put down some boy who heard noises, it was a grown man. A friend Yvonne, it was her cousin. I am however interested in the tittle tattle, just a little, of the ex g/f? For is this pic you talk of, actually her wearing it and not LM? The DNA confirmed to be LM's upon the zip of the trousers? When tested by the SCCRC - who did a "full" review. - Because Ms Lean may claim there is buried evidence, it does not mean there is. Ms Leans thoughts/opinions are irrelevant to being satisfied one way or the other. "Curiosity killed the cat" did it not? - So perhaps a review would not be such a bad idea after all, for there appears to be a hell of a lot of cats about? Myself included, I would love to see that pic of his ex wearing that jacket?
What really stands out for me in all of this, always has, are the lies. - Where we can see clearly the abundance of lies being told by the Mitchells and on behalf of them. You don't see the lies, which is fine. But I have equally scoured, and read over everything in an attempt to be shown where others have lied? There is none except where JF is concerned, and even if he was lying around this 4.30 on the path stuff, it was all rather foolish for he was half of a pair, the other telling the correct time.
I rabbit on a lot over Lean her methods. Trust and how far it can be thrown come to mind! But when it comes to talking about the actual events of that evening, I tend to, for the most part - stick to what the Mitchells actually said and those timings. Things that can not be distorted or changed, and it is in this the lies are clear. And still, no one has actually given Just cause for these lies, for there are none to give. If people lie continuously it is because they fear the truth, and the question is why? - And the answer is, for most who understand lies - is they were covering up the murder of this young girl.
-
You are implying that SL and the Mitchells tell lies, while you tell the truth-------I haven't yet seen any reason why I should believe you rather than them . That is not saying that Luke told no lies (he obviously WAS familiar with the woods, for example), or that Sandra gets some things wrong. It may also be the case that Luke is as guilty as sin------but I certainly don't have your confidence! How do you know, for sure, that he wasn't at home? How do you know for sure that he didn't cook dinner? How do you know for sure that he met up with Jodi that evening?
For the most part it is not about believing me? - I have said this before, it is the Crowns case and the evidence given by the Mitchells themselves?!
The dinner saga. Again not about me but those ever changing times around it. The lies can not be any clearer? You are in effect saying that it does not matter? Accepting the only version that had to fit into less than 15mins? Which was not possible. Time for CM to get in the door, for that dinner to be finished cooking, to sit and eat and for SM to leave before 5.30 and Luke by 5.30pm. When you do not even know what kind of Prawns had to be cooked or all else?
Can you even begin to understand and explain why you feel that dinner tale was not concocted? We have already had Faith explain a friend told her it is possible to eat a dinner in 10mins. The reality is it had nothing to do with the time to eat, it all had to fit in.
So we just ignore the rest? the cooking, the getting home at 5.05pm SM after being coerced by his mother actually said he physically spoke with her, at 5.05pm. Of him not seeing his brother whilst leaving the estate? Of Luke leaving to tie his story in with meeting with Jodi at 6pm? Thus why he claimed to leave around 5.45pm. You said you liked to look out the box?/
Here is out the box - The time for after dinner was 6pm in the Mitchell house. This was the norm. it was the norm as CM cooked when she got home, usually around five past five. The time it took to cook, dish up and eat and over with. They were sticking with the norm! But tying LM into it in detail. The brandishing the broccoli, the mashing the tatties, the going in front of the TV, the going out the back to speak with his mother, the pleasantries and all else. And do we also just ignore the weather, That drizzly rain, it being overcast and somewhat cool for the time of year. That CM was enjoying the summer sunshine in her garden, eating out on the patio? Also out the box is the claim of being cooped up at work all day, for the family business involved a lot of outdoor work? Do we not have here, that placing of herself in the back garden? Where those fires were to take place?
So this dinner tale, that you appear to be sure of, that LM cooked the dinner - How did SM manage to speak with his mother at five past five? To go upstairs and return ten mins later to collect dinner, to return upstairs, eat and be out the door pre 5.30pm. This change of story which was impossible. But he did not know this at the time, neither did CM - for it was before they had got access to that CCTV footage - they listened and they let the Mitchells put one foot after the other in it. Not the police fabricating anything, the fabrication came directly from the Mitchells?
As with the search party, only that briefest of information, a dog standing up at wall mattered - Every other lie that came out of Mitchells mouth was acceptable - and you do not find it odd? That one is attempting to bring LM back to the V, to tie in with the truth of the search trio?? That it had to have been clear differences in those accounts that made the police suspicious. There would have been no suspicion if every account were the same. That simply stands to reason. That stark reality of Ms Lean not producing direct accounts from those statements, fully in sequence, for they do not exist.
Admit to believing he lied about the woods - He lied about most everything. - Why?
So no, it is not about me, or believing me - It is if one chooses to believe the evidence, they the Mitchells gave. The clear lies in all of this. Of the further evidence by the Crown - the sightings.
Why do you feel they gave this relaxed dinner tale that had to fit around those 40mins to be anywhere near feasible. That SM changed his story to exactly match those times - For those times to vanish? For that first call at 5.32 had connected. CM had been seen on CCTV. And the search trio, It was LM who was found out to be lying, to the point of even drawing a diagram - his lies could not have been any clearer - Why?
And I, as with the defence and all else - have found nothing that shows Jodi's family lied. There have been feeble attempts made, there is nothing. And it does stand to reason, that for LM to have been telling the truth they had to be lying? That the clear lies we do see, straight from the Mitchells, nothing to do with the police, tell us, which of these two sides, that Ms Lean has created - were not complicit in this girls death.
To use nonsense such as "we will never know" - is BS.
-
For the most part it is not about believing me? - I have said this before, it is the Crowns case and the evidence given by the Mitchells themselves?!
The dinner saga. Again not about me but those every changing times around it. The lies can not be any clearer? You are in effect saying that it does not matter? Accepting the only version that had to fit into less than 15mins? Time for CM to get in the door, for that dinner to be finished cooking, to sit and eat and for SM to leave before 5.30 and Luke by 5.30pm. When you do not even know what kind of Prawns had to be cooked or all else?
Both Luke and Corrine said in witness statements that Luke may have left the house around 5.40, Shane slightly before. That’s 25 minutes to finish cooking dinner, which, lest we forget, was almost cooked. How long do you think it takes two boys, both eager to go out, to wolf down their dinner? Further, did the prawns need to be cooked? Before I became vegan I often bought cooked, chilled prawns and eat them cold with whatever else was cooked for dinner.
So it is not and never was around believing if LM had cooked any dinner, as with the search party evidence. it centres around everything. You can not simply just take a small part and make that tiny fragment of truth wipe all else out? Are you saying the only thing relevant here is eating?? For that is all there was time for, from 5.15pm onwards. For both boys to be ready and out the door. No convo with his mother nothing. We know the t-shirt in detail he claimed he was wearing, not the same one at school - that shirt all those witnesses saw? So he had changed.
What witnesses saw the t-shirt? Certainly not AB as she didn’t mention a t-shirt…only a ‘non-parka’. One of the duo who saw a youth standing at the gate certainly described one of Luke’s t-shirt but not until Luke’s picture, wearing it, had been spread over the front covers of all the tabloids. That may be what passes for convincing evidence for you but I’m afraid not for me.
So we just ignore the rest? the cooking, the getting home at 5.05pm SM after being coerced by his mother actually said he physically spoke with her, at 5.05pm. Of him not seeing his brother whilst leaving the estate? Of Luke leaving to tie his story in with meeting with Jodi at 6pm? Thus why he claimed to leave around 5.45pm. You said you liked to look out the box?/
Here is out the box - The time for after dinner was 6pm in the Mitchell house. This was the norm. it was the norm as CM cooked when she got home, usually around five past five. The time it took to cook, dish up and eat and over with. They were sticking with the norm! But tying LM into it in detail. The brandishing the broccoli, the mashing the tatties, the going in front of the TV, the going out the back to speak with his mother, the pleasantries and all else. And do we also just ignore the weather, That drizzly rain, it being overcast and somewhat cool for the time of year. That CM was enjoying the summer sunshine in her garden, eating out on the patio?
How do you know what time the Mitchells ate usually? Corrine said Luke often cooked. We have absolutely no reason to disbelieve that.
So this dinner tale, that you appear to be sure of, that LM cooked the dinner - How did SM manage to speak with his mother at five past five? To go upstairs and return ten mins later to collect dinner, to return upstairs, eat and be out the door pre 5.30pm. This change of story which was impossible. But he did not know this at the time, neither did CM - for it was before they had got access to that CCTV footage - they listened and they let the Mitchells put one foot after the other in it.
It is interesting that this 10 minute discrepancy looms s large in your narrative whereas the 45 minute one in AB’s, if her first statement is to be disbelieved, is ignored. How do you square that circle? Corrine usually got in from work at 5.05 so that was the time that it was assumed she had got home on the 30th. No effort to deceive just a lapse of memory. AB was a whole hour out in her first statement if it is to be believed that she saw Luke and Jodi. How do you explain that? That is of course ignoring all the other evidence that points to it not being the teenagers…the fact ( emphasised be AB in court) that the male youth was not wearing a parka, the female had no Deftones logo on her hoodie etc, etc, etc. Anyone who still thinks AB’s sighting was of Luke and Jodi really does need their bumps felt.
As with the search party, only that briefest of information, a dog standing up at wall mattered - Every other lie that came out of Mitchells mouth was acceptable - and you do not find it odd? That one is attempting to bring LM back to the V, to tie in with the truth of the search trio??
The search trio lied on oath, that is beyond question. Why?
Admit to believing he lied about the woods - He lied about most everything. - Why?
So no, it is not about me, or believing me - It is is you choose to believe the evidence, they the Mitchells gave. The clear lies in all of this. Of the further evidence by the Crown - the sightings.
Still clinging to those like a drowning man clinging to the rapidly disintegrating hull of his boat.
Why do you feel they gave this relaxed dinner tale that had to fit around those 40mins to be anywhere near feasible. That SM changed his story to exactly match those times - For those times to vanish? For that first call at 5.32 had connected. CM had been seen on CCTV. And the search trio, It was LM who was found out to be lying, for goodness sake he even drew a bloody diagram - his lies could not have been any clearer - Why?
A relaxed meal? Classic misdirection. Not one of the family ever said that it was a relaxed meal. It was a pit stop to refuel before a night pursuing other interests….and the diagram, do you think that he would have drawn it if it implicated him, what with him being the cunning manipulator you make him out to be?
-
You will need to re- do your deciphering. I had added some alterations.
It matters not one jot if it was 5.40/45pm - He had to leave home by 5.30 and Shane before this. It changes not one lie told. Of Shane talking to his mother at five past five. Of waiting around 10min until those fresh to eat prawns were plated? In your imagination. Lies? You are yet again only adding to the lies not clarifying them - thank you.
There you do that class act of nonsense yet again - it was not 10mins it was around 25mins. from five past five until around 5.45 which was the first times given. 10mins onto CM and 15mins from 5.30pm And of LM estimating his call around that qtr to mark. He was still blinded to that first call just connecting thus logged at 5.32pm. So those 20-25mins were very much needed for every lie to fit into to. The real time was after 5.15pm until Shane having to leave by 5.29pm and Luke 5.30pm. That baw hair between them? - which of course was made up anyway. So have another think, phone another friend. And work that dinner from around 5.16pm until 5.29 no later. 13mins at a push. Don't forget the pleasantries and all else. Nowhere near that first given time of around 40-45mins for all to happen. Perhaps some basic sums here, 40.45mins cut to around 13mins. There was no leaving home any later than 5.30pm.
Not one other person matters where this is concerned - completely irrelevant to anything that AB may have been doing or any other person. It may wash with the gullible, those swift attempts to pass some imaginary buck. It has absolutely naff all to do with what was happening with the Mitchells - ZERO.
No imaginary double standards, it changes nothing. But on the subject of AB, her account of whatever she was doing with her children, shopping etc when home - could not be disproved. The lady had plenty of time to do her tasks - No lies found. Plenty to be added though with this almost 50mins to view a house - it is those type of blatant lies that have to be told, in line with the rest of the craws! .
So one can defend liars until the cows come home - It makes no difference, it changes nothing. Certainly does not alter or excuse each and every lie told by the Mitchells and added to by the likes of yourself. - tsk tsk.
-
To use nonsense such as "we will never know" - is BS.
And for me typical language of someone on the con
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382961.html#msg382961
-
and the diagram, do you think that he would have drawn it if it implicated him, what with him being the cunning manipulator you make him out to be?
That’s exactly what killers do - Simon Hall did similar
-
Shane gave his first statement on the 3rd of July, three clear days after the murder. If a narrative was going to be concocted between the Mitchells don’t you think it’s then that it would have happened? That all the kinks would have been ironed out before they gave their statements? Corrine may not have known about the CCTV but she certainly knew that there was the possibility that the shopkeeper who served her in the shop would be questioned. Shane would have made sure that the fact that his brother was in the house was forcibly hammered home. Why concoct a narrative that would be questioned? Why not just say that the boys had had their dinner before their mother got home? There was no one to disprove it.
Of course we know why….because it was the truth, every single disputed word of it.
-
Not one of the family ever said that it was a relaxed meal
And it appears ‘not one of the family ever’ mentioned Corinne Mitchell’s prawns until she spoke to James English ?
Where did the prawns magically appear from?
I only ever recall mention of the alleged frozen pies from the freezer ?
Nothing about prawns ?
And of course they couldn’t have been fresh because Corinne didn’t do her weekly shop apparently until Tuesdays - which would have been the following day
By the way
Did Corinne still do her weekly food shop the following day and what did the family all eat on Tuesday ?
-
Further, did the prawns need to be cooked? Before I became vegan I often bought cooked, chilled prawns and eat them cold with whatever else was cooked for dinner.
What did killer Luke and Corinne Mitchell’s witness statements say about these alleged prawns?
Were they fresh or frozen?
And if fresh on what day did she buy them?
Surely not on the Tuesday of the week before?
Apparently both cooked and raw prawns can be kept in your refrigerator for up to 3 days
When were they purchased?
What was the name of the shop?
And did the till receipts confirm Corinne had purchased any?
-
Of Shane talking to his mother at five past five
If killer Luke Mitchell allegedly usually cooked the dinner why did Shane phone Corinne and not Luke?
-
And it appears ‘not one of the family ever’ mentioned Corinne Mitchell’s prawns until she spoke to James English ?
Where did the prawns magically appear from?
I only ever recall mention of the alleged frozen pies from the freezer ?
Nothing about prawns ?
And of course they couldn’t have been fresh because Corinne didn’t do her weekly shop apparently until Tuesdays - which would have been the following day
By the way
Did Corinne still do her weekly food shop the following day and what did the family all eat on Tuesday ?
I have my weekly shop delivered on Saturday but pop into the supermarket during the week too. I’m sure Corrine did the same.
-
Corrine may not have known about the CCTV but she certainly knew that there was the possibility that the shopkeeper who served her in the shop would be questioned.
And ?
If the shopkeeper had said a different time to Corinne she would have claimed he was wrong
-
And ?
If the shopkeeper had said a different time to Corinne she would have claimed he was wrong
But it would by a discrepancy. Why take the chance…unless she had genuinely forgotten.
-
I have my weekly shop delivered on Saturday but pop into the supermarket during the week too. I’m sure Corrine did the same.
So tell me more about these alleged prawns
When were they purchased
Were they fresh or frozen
How did Luke allegedly defrost them if frozen
Oh and what was in the alleged pie - chicken or steak?
-
But it would by a discrepancy. Why take the chance…unless she had genuinely forgotten.
What time did Corinne usually finish work
and what time did she usually get home from work?
Did she regularly stop off at the shop for alcohol/cigarettes after a day in the office before returning home for the day?
-
I see all the other nonsense has been deleted to save your blushes, no apology though? I didnt have the WRONG person because I never actually mentioned a person.
So this post makes NO sense. Shock horror
why is it still here?
I have never asked you for proof of qualifications or anything other than proof of the claims you have made under someone else's name. You still haven't provided any answers. You've certainly dodged those bullets. Throwing out comments about riddles when all I have done is ask you straight questions. Nothing about qualifications of your's of SF's. Just proof that you even know him. You put yourself into the conversation then only answer some questions. I asked you before, does SF even know you're talking for him here? Can I expect a yes or no?
-
I have never asked you for proof of qualifications or anything other than proof of the claims you have made under someone else's name. You still haven't provided any answers. You've certainly dodged those bullets. Throwing out comments about riddles when all I have done is ask you straight questions. Nothing about qualifications of your's of SF's. Just proof that you even know him. You put yourself into the conversation then only answer some questions. I asked you before, does SF even know you're talking for him here? Can I expect a yes or no?
Did you not embarrass yourself enough last night. Taken 24 hours almost for a come back.
-
I have never asked you for proof of qualifications or anything other than proof of the claims you have made under someone else's name. You still haven't provided any answers. You've certainly dodged those bullets. Throwing out comments about riddles when all I have done is ask you straight questions. Nothing about qualifications of your's of SF's. Just proof that you even know him. You put yourself into the conversation then only answer some questions. I asked you before, does SF even know you're talking for him here? Can I expect a yes or no?
This isn't what you said last night. No wonder all your waffle was deleted. After your disgusting comments and errors last night you dont deserve any kind of answer.
-
Well not shit? - "we don't know" "No smoking gun" - so anyone and everyone could be lying. That appears to be something you are pretty much sure of?
That anyone could be lying? Yes its possible but I don’t think everyone is lying, it only takes one.
You lost me completely when you make claim to damning Mitchell, GUILTY! Before the lad even set foot in a courtroom. That classic 'Trial by media'. - Now you want a "full" review to prove Lean right or wrong? For you did say this before, did you not?
I don’t want a full review to prove Sandra right or wrong, I think that’s might be you, I want a full review to be sure the right person is in Jail even if it’s never going to happen , Sandra has nothing to do with it, why does it always come back to her???
Failing that review a nice statement from his brother/father will do? So if Shane steps forward and says I'm with Luke all the way, that will be enough for you to be sure of innocence? As at present you only think he is?
If you, yourself before, were guilty of not caring a Jot about actual evidence, hung someone out to dry on the basis of what was in the rags - It is hardly surprising how much ones mind has easily been twisted and fed with any old nonsense? Over the past ten years. You may claim to be sitting on the fence but you are not, are you? For if SM were to say he does not support his brother then you would have to "rethink"
You do like to twist words, really helping to make my point of how people like to put their own spin on things, if hard evidence like the parka or dna was released than would convince me of his guilt, hard evidence tends to do that. But if his brother or family released a statement or any other information came to light then of course it would cause me to rethink everything, I’m not sure why you think me rethinking stuff means I had made my mind up one way or the other?
Thankfully it would appear the majority of those claiming? to be sitting on the fence are the same, trial by media and now trial by Lean. - Which means for the time being, the conviction of Luke Mitchell is safe. For the very evidence, not "information" that brought about his conviction still stands. Leans clear distortions, her questions mean naff all in law. For the majority of people who actually do look at the evidence, not "information" trust in it. For they see that most of the actual evidence came directly from the Mitchells not the police, the Crown and so forth.
You put down some boy who heard noises, it was a grown man. A friend Yvonne, it was her cousin. I am however interested in the tittle tattle, just a little, of the ex g/f? For is this pic you talk of, actually her wearing it and not LM? The DNA confirmed to be LM's upon the zip of the trousers? When tested by the SCCRC - who did a "full" review. - Because Ms Lean may claim there is buried evidence, it does not mean there is. Ms Leans thoughts/opinions are irrelevant to being satisfied one way or the other. "Curiosity killed the cat" did it not? - So perhaps a review would not be such a bad idea after all, for there appears to be a hell of a lot of cats about? Myself included, I would love to see that pic of his ex wearing that jacket?
a boy, a man whoever it was I’m not disputing the the person heard something but that does not mean this the time of death, it could have been anything he heard is all I was saying. Whoever Yvonne is does not really matter I was making the point Jodi could have gone somewhere and had a smoke before going to meet Luke. I’ve no idea what this photo is or if it exists like I said I assume it’s not true else it would have been used at the trial but if it does I too would love to see it, I’m sure we all would.
Luke’s dna on the zip of the trousers? is this Jodi trousers, I’ve not read anything about a full dna of Luke being found on Jodi or at the crime scene, if that’s what you are saying? Can you clarify please?
With regards to me thinking Luke was guilty, I was young and naive at the time and going by what the papers were saying it looked like Luke did it, and I had an opinion like many others. I assumed he was found guilty with hard evidence and didn’t give it another thought until I was a bit older and less naive ( I’m sure you would disagree lol) I think it was when he was appealing, I read there was no dna or hard evidence so wondered what it was that found him guilty and started reading up on it. Like many others have now looked into the case a bit more than what the papers decided to report on and now I’m not so sure. I didn’t see all the evidence that was shown in court like the jury did, maybe if I did I would be more sure it was Luke, all I can go on is what facts are out there for all to read and the stories each side tell, which have been so twisted over time I just don’t know for sure. Maybe if Luke’s new representative was to release all the info in full, unedited and untainted it might be a little clearer, who knows?
-
This isn't what you said last night. No wonder all your waffle was deleted. After your disgusting comments and errors last night you dont deserve any kind of answer.
I'm just looking for proof of whether or not you even know SF. If you don't, why would anyone pay attention to you?
-
You make some very good clear points.
-
Ah Bullseye - I mentioned Lean, ref yourself at the same time to do with saying previously, a review would settle it once and for all if Lean was correct? If this was not you, then you simply had to say it was not.
Just a little confused around your stance. You come across as someone on the fence, then not, then back on it again. That is how I see it, no twisting required, merely an opinion. No offence intended.
Where the cousin/friend is concerned along with the cyclist who heard noises - I picked up on this as you said you had been reading up on the case for 10yrs? - I simply thought you were more clued up, accurate? There is quite a difference, If it had merely been a boy and not a fully grown man one's perceptions can be different. Where YW is concerned, she has been discussed a lot in this case - especially where the gloves/condom and of Jodi being there on another occasion with Luke, out late. Of her being Jodi's cousin. So again it just surprises me, that after paying so much attention to this case, to the point of requesting a review, that you do not know these things?
Perhaps doing a little bit more research and study may clarify things more - you may not have the need for a review?
Where the media is concerned - If you are putting it down to age, then all good? That explains it perfectly.
I can neve quite understand this, "I believed everything I read in the papers, and found him guilty" - To then say "I always thought there was hard evidence?" - Therefore people were not really reading the papers in totality, for they made it clear the case was of a circumstantial nature.
-
Ah Bullseye - I mentioned Lean, ref yourself at the same time to do with saying previously, a review would settle it once and for all if Lean was correct? If this was not you, then you simply had to say it was not.
Just a little confused around your stance. You come across as someone on the fence, then not, then back on it again. That is how I see it, no twisting required, merely an opinion. No offence intended.
Where the cousin/friend is concerned along with the cyclist who heard noises - I picked up on this as you said you had been reading up on the case for 10yrs? - I simply thought you were more clued up, accurate? There is quite a difference, If it had merely been a boy and not a fully grown man one's perceptions can be different. Where YW is concerned, she has been discussed a lot in this case - especially where the gloves/condom and of Jodi being there on another occasion with Luke, out late. Of her being Jodi's cousin. So again it just surprises me, that after paying so much attention to this case, to the point of requesting a review, that you do not know these things?
Perhaps doing a little bit more research and study may clarify things more - you may not have the need for a review?
And you are stating that you were but a nipper at the time, pre trial. That you read the papers faithfully and had it down as the b/f who did it. Guilty until proved innocent. So I am still a little confused here? Do you mean that young, naive people, used your method of pinning it on the b/f due to reading the rags. For that actually does make perfect sense. I had thought you were an adult. My mistake. So where the above is concerned you were not really speaking for the people of Edinburgh, nor asking them - you simply meant, young naive people?
Sorry for any confusion it’s just the way I speak , when I said boy I did not mean a young boy I just meant a guy on a bike, I have no idea what age he was. But to be fair it doesn’t matter the age, it’s the point the police used this to help with tod, not the most reliable way.
I was young as in I was 20. Not a nipper but still stupid enough to believe what I read in the papers. I can’t speak for anyone else that may have doubts in the case, if they were naive or not, that’s for them to decide.
Yw I thought was a cousin but was not sure so didn’t put it and didn’t bother to look it up as I didn’t think it was important to the point I was making. Which it’s not, but I’m sure the point I was trying to make is clear, jodi could have went somewhere first.
You are right I am on the fence, I have never said Luke is innocent or guilt as I really couldn’t say. Back to the reasonable doubt, like I said maybe if I was as court to hear everything I might think differently.
I’d love for someone to convince me one way or the other.
I’m sure there is lots more I need to learn about the case, that’s why I’m here. I think the problem now is working the truth from the misinformation, but in 10 years I’ve still to hear something that pushes me either side of that fence.
-
Sorry for any confusion it’s just the way I speak , when I said boy I did not mean a young boy I just meant a guy on a bike, I have no idea what age he was. But to be fair it doesn’t matter the age, it’s the point the police used this to help with tod, not the most reliable way.
I was young as in I was 20. Not a nipper but still stupid enough to believe what I read in the papers. I can’t speak for anyone else that may have doubts in the case, if they were naive or not, that’s for them to decide.
Yw I thought was a cousin but was not sure so didn’t put it and didn’t bother to look it up as I didn’t think it was important to the point I was making. Which it’s not, but I’m sure the point I was trying to make is clear, jodi could have went somewhere first.
You are right I am on the fence, I have never said Luke is innocent or guilt as I really couldn’t say. Back to the reasonable doubt, like I said maybe if I was as court to hear everything I might think differently.
I’d love for someone to convince me one way or the other.
I’m sure there is lots more I need to learn about the case, that’s why I’m here. I think the problem now is working the truth from the misinformation, but in 10 years I’ve still to hear something that pushes me either side of that fence.
Thank you Bullseye. Apologies again if I caused any offence. All good.
-
Thank you Bullseye. Apologies again if I caused any offence. All good.
No offence taken, thanks. I will try to be clearer in my posts, it’s all confusing enough lol
You might have missed my question on Luke’s dna on the zip of a pair of trousers you mentioned, can you clarify what trousers these were and if it was a full dna of Luke.
-
No offence taken, thanks. I will try to be clearer in my posts, it’s all confusing enough lol
You might have missed my question on Luke’s dna on the zip of a pair of trousers you mentioned, can you clarify what trousers these were and if it was a full dna of Luke.
I had misread what you had posted thus the ? - I read it as dna retested and confirmed as Lukes. As in it had happened, you had heard it and was not sure if true, as with the pic of the parka and ex g/f. I knew there had been further testing done by the SCCRC. Further DNA found upon the zip. I was unsure if it was this you were referring to. What we can safely assume is that it was not stranger DNA, neither one of these 'others' - It's donor would have been getting shouted loud and clear. Luke's DNA however would very much be getting kept quiet.
It has been mentioned as being his, but that has not been confirmed. Thus why I thought you were referring to it.
-
I had misread what you had posted thus the ? - I read it as dna retested and confirmed as Lukes. As in it had happened, you had heard it and was not sure if true, as with the pic of the parka and ex g/f. I knew there had been further testing done by the SCCRC. Further DNA found upon the zip. I was unsure if it was this you were referring to. What we can safely assume is that it was not stranger DNA, neither one of these 'others' - It's donor would have been getting shouted loud and clear. Luke's DNA however would very much be getting kept quiet.
It has been mentioned as being his, but that has not been confirmed. Thus why I thought you were referring to it.
Thanks for clarifying
-
What we can safely assume is that it was not stranger DNA, neither one of these 'others' - It's donor would have been getting shouted loud and clear. Luke's DNA however would very much be getting kept quiet.
So with the further DNA testing, which you posted took place, it would be fair to assume that it resulted in no full profile and certainly no profile linked to Luke or we would definitely have heard about it in the Daily Record.
-
So with the further DNA testing, which you posted took place, it would be fair to assume that it resulted in no full profile and certainly no profile linked to Luke or we would definitely have heard about it in the Daily Record.
How so?
-
Killer Luke Mitchell appears to have sat on the results of the SCCRC’s tests ⬇️
‘The SCCRC move is believed to be the first time they have ever commissioned fresh DNA tests.
They will ask the Crown Office for access to several items, which will be sent to an independent lab for analysis.
Mitchell’s lawyers believe they will focus on Jodi’s trousers, which were taken off and used to bind her hands.
Male DNA was found in the knot in the right leg of Jodi’s trousers. There was also DNA on the fly button and zip of the jeans, but none of the samples yielded profiles.
The tests are also likely to look at her T-shirt, underwear and shoes.
Forensic scientist Dr Sue Pope said: “The systems used in 2003 required larger samples than we need now to come back with a profile.
“I would say there is a benefit in retesting samples for DNA in a case where investigators were unable to obtain a profile in the past.”
The SCCRC wrote to Mitchell, now 25, in Shotts Prison to say their committee had ordered the forensic tests.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-murder-convicted-killer-2261291
-
Did you not embarrass yourself enough last night. Taken 24 hours almost for a come back.
I don't like rude so I apologise.
-
Killer Luke Mitchell appears to have sat on the results of the SCCRC’s tests ⬇️
‘The SCCRC move is believed to be the first time they have ever commissioned fresh DNA tests.
They will ask the Crown Office for access to several items, which will be sent to an independent lab for analysis.
Mitchell’s lawyers believe they will focus on Jodi’s trousers, which were taken off and used to bind her hands.
Male DNA was found in the knot in the right leg of Jodi’s trousers. There was also DNA on the fly button and zip of the jeans, but none of the samples yielded profiles.
The tests are also likely to look at her T-shirt, underwear and shoes.
Forensic scientist Dr Sue Pope said: “The systems used in 2003 required larger samples than we need now to come back with a profile.
“I would say there is a benefit in retesting samples for DNA in a case where investigators were unable to obtain a profile in the past.”
The SCCRC wrote to Mitchell, now 25, in Shotts Prison to say their committee had ordered the forensic tests.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-murder-convicted-killer-2261291
Do you know if Jodi's shoes yielded results when they were first tested please? Even if they were inconclusive?
-
Killer Luke Mitchell appears to have sat on the results of the SCCRC’s tests ⬇️
‘The SCCRC move is believed to be the first time they have ever commissioned fresh DNA tests.
They will ask the Crown Office for access to several items, which will be sent to an independent lab for analysis.
Mitchell’s lawyers believe they will focus on Jodi’s trousers, which were taken off and used to bind her hands.
Male DNA was found in the knot in the right leg of Jodi’s trousers. There was also DNA on the fly button and zip of the jeans, but none of the samples yielded profiles.
The tests are also likely to look at her T-shirt, underwear and shoes.
Forensic scientist Dr Sue Pope said: “The systems used in 2003 required larger samples than we need now to come back with a profile.
“I would say there is a benefit in retesting samples for DNA in a case where investigators were unable to obtain a profile in the past.”
The SCCRC wrote to Mitchell, now 25, in Shotts Prison to say their committee had ordered the forensic tests.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/jodi-jones-murder-convicted-killer-2261291
I have seen a couple of posts online from people saying that enough is enough. One woman claims to have a photograph of her sibling, another kid and LM who is wearing a parka. She says she can prove it was before poor Jodi's murder because the negatives of the photos and the receipt are still in the bag. I realise the internet attracts all sorts but what if she's telling the truth? Apparently the court already saw the photo at the time of the trial. Just, what if? It's interesting.
-
I have seen a couple of posts online from people saying that enough is enough. One woman claims to have a photograph of her sibling, another kid and LM who is wearing a parka. She says she can prove it was before poor Jodi's murder because the negatives of the photos and the receipt are still in the bag. I realise the internet attracts all sorts but what if she's telling the truth? Apparently the court already saw the photo at the time of the trial. Just, what if? It's interesting.
Yet nothing from the media on this though?
-
I have seen a couple of posts online from people saying that enough is enough. One woman claims to have a photograph of her sibling, another kid and LM who is wearing a parka. She says she can prove it was before poor Jodi's murder because the negatives of the photos and the receipt are still in the bag. I realise the internet attracts all sorts but what if she's telling the truth? Apparently the court already saw the photo at the time of the trial. Just, what if? It's interesting.
And still nothing from the media on this ?
-
And still nothing from the media on this ?
I've looked back and she's deleted. Her username couldn't have been her real name so I guess I'll just have to forget about that.
-
I don't like rude so I apologise.
8((()*/
-
8((()*/
Let's start again?!
-
Let's start again?!
Go on then...
-
Yet nothing from the media on this though?
Have you watched the Sandra Lean/Shaun Attwood podcast yet? I've had a text saying it's awful but I don't know. I'm going to work so won't be able to see it till tomorrow. I don't know but I'm told yesterday was a better day before anyone saw it. I'll see it soon enough.
-
Have you watched the Sandra Lean/Shaun Attwood podcast yet? I've had a text saying it's awful but I don't know. I'm going to work so won't be able to see it till tomorrow. I don't know but I'm told yesterday was a better day before anyone saw it. I'll see it soon enough.
I saw it this evening---a bit too long, but I didn't think it was awful!!
-
Have you watched the Sandra Lean/Shaun Attwood podcast yet? I've had a text saying it's awful but I don't know. I'm going to work so won't be able to see it till tomorrow. I don't know but I'm told yesterday was a better day before anyone saw it. I'll see it soon enough.
Two snakes together. I'd not give that Attwood the traffic.
-
Two snakes together. I'd not give that Attwood the traffic.
You have such a wonderful way with words.
-
I saw it this evening---a bit too long, but I didn't think it was awful!!
Definitely a bit too long.
-
Bit long but got lots more info on this one. Good job I think.
-
Bit long but got lots more info on this one. Good job I think.
I thought so too, but no doubt the "anti Sandra" brigade will hate it!
-
Two snakes together. I'd not give that Attwood the traffic.
Perfect match
-
I have watched bits of the Shaun Attwood podcast.
Dr Lean speaks again of the search party changing their statements at the end of July. Saying it changed to the dog not reacting and LM did not walk beyond the V break.
I have read before about the change in statements about the dogs reaction. But I had not realised the search party had also said in their earlier statements that LM had walked beyond the break. Is this right or have I misinterpreted what has been said?
-
I have watched bits of the Shaun Attwood
In this podcast https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba2HYa-1T30
he talks of “seeing stars” 🙄 before/after/during allegedly being knocked unconscious ?
Shaun Attwood was ‘seeing stars’ like they do in cartoons @)(++(*
-
I have watched bits of the Shaun Attwood podcast.
Dr Lean speaks again of the search party changing their statements at the end of July. Saying it changed to the dog not reacting and LM did not walk beyond the V break.
I have read before about the change in statements about the dogs reaction. But I had not realised the search party had also said in their earlier statements that LM had walked beyond the break. Is this right or have I misinterpreted what has been said?
Just the same twisting. - The implication being as always, that they agreed with Luke then changed their mind to him going straight to the V. She is talking about at the actual V. From the dog pulling at it, to Luke leading the dog to do this. LM was on that path far longer than he should have been. Was he egging the dog to something he had left, or simply a dog doing what they do. Yet again it was his clear lies that trapped him. Much like the alibi saga. Over egging the pudding. All this "air sniffing", nose pointing and alerting nonsense. To the ultimate over egging. That drawing the map, to show the police exactly where he meant. Directly parallel to where Jodi lay in the woods. By also omitting his scaling of the wall at the Gino spot. There were plenty contradictions to the tale Mitchell told.
Don't forget those times, there was simply no time for anything of what Mitchell had been claiming. And of course, those OTT long winded roads to try and tie these accounts together. The very reason those clear sentences, in sequence from statements are not shown. Nothing to do with disclosure - Lean has done it with other areas. Pulling out those rabbits. Of Kelly and the dogs head being level with the V - Should be enough to tell people Luke Mitchell was at the V with his dog, not some distance past it, at any time. - Nonsense. Absolutely no need to fill pages of a book with utter tripe. - Well there is, for nothing else is going to fill them.
Does any of it really matter? - For LM was smoking all night, according to Lean now, everything was distorted? The times, his whole recall. - What a mess. The one thing she has tried so hard to draw away from, to attempt to show that Jodi could not have smoked with him that evening. To now using it as a means to get him out of other holes? - And the gullible are just soaking all this up?
Refreshing to have one clear area of truth in all though. of Luke, to this day being that "calm, steady guy" - cold and calculated.
The ID of the stocky man. To it being a possible ID now, of someone watching the funeral and picking someone out, who "may" have been him. I wonder if the funeral directors got onto her? Not happy for being ID as the stocky man carrying this girls coffin.
To the condom, and yet again more coffee being spat out! - SA, 'seems strange, if he had been involved surely he would have taken it away with him' - Lean, 'maybe he did go to put it in his pocket and dropped it?' .Of course he did Ms Lean, can't have some sensible reasons here now, can we - Got to keep auld Cotter in the mix.
But the discrediting of honest witness testimony, of that I am glad my coffee was finished. Of using CM as an example?! - The honest staff of the tattoo parlour. Who could not possibly have known the name of the family friend. Of his altered ID that they used that day. Recorded in the book. For CM to hammer some nails in her sons coffin. By denying point blank that they had produced any fake ID. So not as simple as lying to get a tattoo. It happens, no big deal, Maybe just a little more of a deal, when your mother is with you producing the fake ID. But to then lie, to attempt to discredit the honesty of the staff, as compulsive liars do, she lied on oath repeatedly. - I await the perjury stuff?
And it is not surprising in the slightest that the ego's use this trial by media nonsense. That total contradiction of stating they read and believed everything in the rags. To then say I always believed he was convicted upon solid, hard evidence - that level of intellect, should have used a dictionary for the meaning of circumstantial? - To soak up every piece of this nonsense, readily and easily. When the whole lot is just one contradiction after the other? From JF given a time to take him away from the TOD, to then saying "I believe the TOD was later?"
Review? - Psychiatric one perhaps?
-
In this podcast https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba2HYa-1T30
he talks of “seeing stars” 🙄 before/after/during allegedly being knocked unconscious ?
Shaun Attwood was ‘seeing stars’ like they do in cartoons @)(++(*
I'm going to listen to it now. I haven't seen many positive comments about it.
-
Just the same twisting. - The implication being as always, that they agreed with Luke then changed their mind to him going straight to the V. She is talking about at the actual V. From the dog pulling at it, to Luke leading the dog to do this. LM was on that path far longer than he should have been. Was he egging the dog to something he had left, or simply a dog doing what they do. Yet again it was his clear lies that trapped him. Much like the alibi saga. Over egging the pudding. All this "air sniffing", nose pointing and alerting nonsense. To the ultimate over egging. That drawing the map, to show the police exactly where he meant. Directly parallel to where Jodi lay in the woods. By also omitting his scaling of the wall at the Gino spot. There were plenty contradictions to the tale Mitchell told.
Don't forget those times, there was simply no time for anything of what Mitchell had been claiming. And of course, those OTT long winded roads to try and tie these accounts together. The very reason those clear sentences, in sequence from statements are not shown. Nothing to do with disclosure - Lean has done it with other areas. Pulling out those rabbits. Of Kelly and the dogs head being level with the V - Should be enough to tell people Luke Mitchell was at the V with his dog, not some distance past it, at any time. - Nonsense. Absolutely no need to fill pages of a book with utter tripe. - Well there is, for nothing else is going to fill them.
Does any of it really matter? - For LM was smoking all night, according to Lean now, everything was distorted? The times, his whole recall. - What a mess. The one thing she has tried so hard to draw away from, to attempt to show that Jodi could not have smoked with him that evening. To now using it as a means to get him out of other holes? - And the gullible are just soaking all this up?
Refreshing to have one clear area of truth in all though. of Luke, to this day being that "calm, steady guy" - cold and calculated.
The ID of the stocky man. To it being a possible ID now, of someone watching the funeral and picking someone out, who "may" have been him. I wonder if the funeral directors got onto her? Not happy for being ID as the stocky man carrying this girls coffin.
To the condom, and yet again more coffee being spat out! - SA, 'seems strange, if he had been involved surely he would have taken it away with him' - Lean, 'maybe he did go to put it in his pocket and dropped it?' .Of course he did Ms Lean, can't have some sensible reasons here now, can we - Got to keep auld Cotter in the mix.
But the discrediting of honest witness testimony, of that I am glad my coffee was finished. Of using CM as an example?! - The honest staff of the tattoo parlour. Who could not possibly have known the name of the family friend. Of his altered ID that they used that day. Recorded in the book. For CM to hammer some nails in her sons coffin. By denying point blank that they had produced any fake ID. So not as simple as lying to get a tattoo. It happens, no big deal, Maybe just a little more of a deal, when your mother is with you producing the fake ID. But to then lie, to attempt to discredit the honesty of the staff, as compulsive liars do, she lied on oath repeatedly. - I await the perjury stuff?
And it is not surprising in the slightest that the ego's use this trial by media nonsense. That total contradiction of stating they read and believed everything in the rags. To then say I always believed he was convicted upon solid, hard evidence - that level of intellect, should have used a dictionary for the meaning of circumstantial? - To soak up every piece of this nonsense, readily and easily. When the whole lot is just one contradiction after the other? From JF given a time to take him away from the TOD, to then saying "I believe the TOD was later?"
Review? - Psychiatric one perhaps?
If Dr Lean had constantly told the public that I’d lied under oath I’d certainly be contacting lawyers yet not a word. In fact the BBC accused the search trio of the same thing and no retraction was sought and none made. That really does speak volumes.
The TOD was placed at 5.15 because of the ‘strangling’ sound Kelly heard. Interesting that Kelly never talked of a ‘strangling’ sound until pressure was applied, so bang goes the rationale for TOD.
-
The TOD was placed at 5.15 because of the ‘strangling’ sound Kelly heard. Interesting that Kelly never talked of a ‘strangling’ sound until pressure was applied, so bang goes the rationale for TOD.
There would have been much taken into consideration re Tod
What was found in [Name removed]’s stomach?
-
If Dr Lean had constantly told the public that I’d lied under oath I’d certainly be contacting lawyers yet not a word. In fact the BBC accused the search trio of the same thing and no retraction was sought and none made. That really does speak volumes.
The TOD was placed at 5.15 because of the ‘strangling’ sound Kelly heard. Interesting that Kelly never talked of a ‘strangling’ sound until pressure was applied, so bang goes the rationale for TOD.
I wouldn't. Not if my child wouldn't have wanted that. I would respect her wishes before I took up any fight. My child first and foremost. Family first always.
-
There would have been much taken into consideration re Tod
What was found in [Name removed]’s stomach?
Indeed there would have been. I doubt very much that Leonard Kelly's testimony was the crux of the case.
-
I wouldn't. Not if my child wouldn't have wanted that. I would respect her wishes before I took up any fight. My child first and foremost. Family first always.
Janine’s a grown woman and Steven Kelly a grown man, in fact they were when the BBC broadcast it to the nation that they had lied on the stand. They could have demanded a retraction if it wasn’t true.
We hear so much about Shane not speaking up but very little about the search trio. Janine or Steven putting it on the record that they didn’t lie on oath would certainly clarify things.
-
Indeed there would have been. I doubt very much that Leonard Kelly's testimony was the crux of the case.
So what other information do you think they used?
-
So what other information do you think they used?
The environment, the weather, the blood on the surrounding branches, still there. Couldn't have rained too heavily. What time did it rain? How heavily did it rain? When did it rain? The footprints? According to SL, it had rained all over poor Jodi, washing away evidence. Wouldn't that also have washed away the footprints? But isn't it strange that it rained so heavily (no tent) that the crime scene was ruined? Google the weather that night.
-
So what other information do you think they used?
I have a new baby to take care of here so, tomorrow? I would hope I could manage the dignified silence that JuJ has and do what my child would want. I hope I would be strong enough to ignore your baiting and, shame on you, faithlilly for everything you have said to demean Jodi and her family. I have to assume you have some connection to SL.
-
I have a new baby to take care of here so, tomorrow? I would hope I could manage the dignified silence that JuJ has and do what my child would want. I hope I would be strong enough to ignore your baiting and, shame on you, faithlilly for everything you have said to demean Jodi and her family. I have to assume you have some connection to SL.
As I have already said, my post was not about Jodi’s mum but the search trio who it is beyond doubt lied under oath, I can post a link to the Frontline Scotland programme if that will help clarify my point? My heart goes out to all Jodi’s family for their loss and while I understand how easy their emotions must have been to manipulate at the time there is no excuse for lying under oath when an individual’s liberty is at stake.
I have said nothing to demean Jodi but please post my words if you feel I have. You do yourself and not me a discredit when using that tragic girl as a tactic to unjustly smear me.
-
As I have already said, my post was not about Jodi’s mum but the search trio who it is beyond doubt lied under oath, I can post a link to the Frontline Scotland programme if that will help clarify my point? My heart goes out to all Jodi’s family for their loss and while I understand how easy their emotions must have been to manipulate at the time there is no excuse for lying under oath when an individual’s liberty is at stake.
I have said nothing to demean Jodi but please post my words if you feel I have. You do yourself and not me a discredit when using that tragic girl as a tactic to unjustly smear me. Perhaps the next time you chose to showboat in front of your raggle, taggle collection of comrades you might consider how inappropriate it is to use a murder victim to score points?
As I said..... And not just based on tonight's conversation but on all of our conversations. Shame on you.
-
As I said..... And not just based on tonight's conversation but on all of our conversations. Shame on you.
Then it should be easy to find examples of where I’ve demeaned Jodi. Please post them.
-
Then it should be easy to find examples of where I’ve demeaned Jodi. Please post them.
By targeting Jodi's family, you demean poor Jodi, by implying the guilt of others without proof, you demean Jodi.
-
By targeting Jodi's family, you demean poor Jodi, by implying the guilt of others without proof, you demean Jodi. Always so angry, faithlilly. As I said, if you have no connection to SL.
Anyhooo back to the question originally asked.
You said that Leonard Kelly wasn’t the only evidence the prosecution must have had for TOD and I asked what other information was there?
Jodi wasn’t seen for over six and a half hours and could have been killed anytime in between. Even if temperatures were taken at the scene it could not have afforded the investigators such a precise time. So, IYO what other information could they have used for TOD?
And here’s the link to the Frontline Scotland video regarding the change of stories. You’ll find the relevant part around 21 minutes.
https://youtu.be/-m-zHEUOFR0
As I said if the BBC had implied that I had been dishonest I’d certainly have taken action,
-
Please-------let's not make personal remarks about each other. Not nice!
Thank you.
-
By targeting Jodi's family, you demean poor Jodi, by implying the guilt of others without proof, you demean Jodi.
I don't see that anyone on this forum is targeting Jodi's family (You Tube is a different matter, and I find some of the comments on there quite appalling).
If one questions Luke's conviction, one is obviously going to consider who else might have done it. It is wrong (and libellous) to accuse somebody without proof, but it isn't wrong to wonder----IMO.
We don't live in a perfect world, I'm afraid, and victims' families are not always whiter than white-------no, I am not accusing any family in particular, just stating a general fact. We read some dreadful things in the news.
-
I saw it this evening---a bit too long, but I didn't think it was awful!!
I watched it too. Still nothing new and far too long. IMO
-
The frontline documentary points out the change in statements about the dogs reaction. Excerpts are read out by actors of statements by JaJ and SK where they say this happened at the V break and that LM had said the same about the dog “although he said after the V” Part of LM statement is then read and stated “just passed the V cut in the wall”
So the search party did not in the original statements say LM had walked beyond the V break?
And has it not been said that LM would have to have been some distance beyond this break to match his diagram of being parallel?
-
The frontline documentary points out the change in statements about the dogs reaction. Excerpts are read out by actors of statements by JaJ and SK where they say this happened at the V break and that LM had said the same about the dog “although he said after the V” Part of LM statement is then read and stated “just passed the V cut in the wall”
So the search party did not in the original statements say LM had walked beyond the V break?
And has it not been said that LM would have to have been some distance beyond this break to match his diagram of being parallel?
I would like to see the statements themselves rather than rely on the documentary. I imagine that someone could suggest pretty much anything to people who had just found their dead family member though. Especially if they had no reason to doubt at the time.
-
I would like to see the statements themselves rather than rely on the documentary. I imagine that someone could suggest pretty much anything to people who had just found their dead family member though. Especially if they had no reason to doubt at the time.
To a certain point I agree but SK was not a family member and gave the same description. Three witnesses whose statements were taken and the three witnesses gave the very same account of the finding of the body. Surely even you most appreciate that that is beyond coincidence?
-
To a certain point I agree but SK was not a family member and gave the same description. Three witnesses whose statements were taken and the three witnesses gave the very same account of the finding of the body. Surely even you most appreciate that that is beyond coincidence?
I believe it would have been easy to suggest anything to all three given the circumstances. No coincidences if the same story had been suggested to the other members of the search party by LM. Maybe it wasn't until later they remembered what really happened. Just a suggestion.
-
As I have already said, my post was not about Jodi’s mum but the search trio who it is beyond doubt lied under oath, I can post a link to the Frontline Scotland programme if that will help clarify my point? My heart goes out to all Jodi’s family for their loss and while I understand how easy their emotions must have been to manipulate at the time there is no excuse for lying under oath when an individual’s liberty is at stake.
I have said nothing to demean Jodi but please post my words if you feel I have. You do yourself and not me a discredit when using that tragic girl as a tactic to unjustly smear me.
If Dr Lean had constantly told the public that I’d lied under oath I’d certainly be contacting lawyers yet not a word. In fact the BBC accused the search trio of the same thing and no retraction was sought and none made. That really does speak volumes.
What a lot of tosh. You are the one who is saying the search trio lied. That manipulation of half truths that Lean has always used. By using the dog as a smokescreen. To draw away from the evidence that LM himself gave. So for once, instead of spouting the usual, meaningless nonsense and trying to pass the buck to FS, away from Lean. Of which the programme was based upon. You are yet again kickstarting the dogsbodies work, for those with very little in the way of much upstairs. The point you were trying to make, was that Lean onto FS were saying Jodi's family lied. They are your words, the dogsbodies words. For the most part here, Leans alter ego. That using something from their statement at the end of July, infers they were lying on Oath? - Your are doing that, Leans intention in her case, is hoping the brainless will also do that - state they were lying. And the mugs just keep on giving, spouting the liable for her. That clear passing the buck, putting the onus of blame onto others. They had, as LM had, clarified their statements.
And only highlighting yet again the evidence that convicted LM. Of his special knowledge. The dog had absolutely nothing to do with Jodi being found. So instead of making this same predictive bleat - Put up the areas of those statements. In proper sequence with full sentences. Where anyone, who is actually looking at LM V HMA instead of Lean V Others. Can see exactly what was said. I will refresh for you, yet again. Some torture that you love so much.
LM led the search party to RDP. There can be no doubt he was prepped and ready, that is no doubt. For Judith had barely lifted that phone to call the police and LM was all but on RDP. In less that 9mins. There was no getting ready, he was already suited and booted. And again that is due to special knowledge. He had lied about being home, he only arrived home, pretty much bang on 10pm, Jodi's curfew time. He was waiting on the call, he knew that Jodi would be known to be missing any moment. And he knew he would be that first port of call, for he knew her parents believed she had been with him that evening. And that is exactly what happened. They contacted him, telling their daughter to get home. (Judith)
Jodi was reported missing at 10.50, LM was on RDP pre 11pm. He was still on this path at 11.20pm. He made it clear to her mother that he was on the path, to claim to have a look before going to Jodi's house. He stayed on that path, drawing the members of Jodi's family there. And we are not interested in every other smoke screen in Lean V others. We are interested in LM V HMA. The nonsense of searching caravan parks and goodness knows what else. For again, those with just a fragment of intelligence, realise clearly there was not time for anything else, other than what was fed to them. Of Luke telling them that Jodi had not turned up in Newbattle, that he was going look on the path, that he stayed on this path. That he was actually on this path before the search trio had even left Mayfield.
That when they did meet, he had asked if they had brought anything of Jodi's with them, for he had asked them to bring something. They did not get a chance, as he was still on the path. - The dog and the smokescreen. LM, at the first opportunity, where the wall is broken along it's length, scaled it, and looked into the woodland with his torch. At the very next opportunity, where the wall was broken horizontally LM entered the woodland. - This is what the search trio always said. They did not change it. From the first they stated those two things, of the Gino spot, and of the V break. Upon arriving at both. They did mention the dog, of it pulling to the undergrowth of the wall, of it standing up at the V. Of pulling Luke. Of LM going into the woods, of turning to his left. Of Kelly and Janine then walking past the V, that they had barely walked ten feet when Mitchell shouted.
LM, never mentioned the Gino spot? LM then stated that "they" had walked past this break in the wall, some distance, not even 20yards when his dog alerted him to something. That the dog was standing up at the wall, air sniffing. That "he" backtracked to the V, where it was easy to climb over. That he had given the lead to AW to hold. Where he used words such as dog leading him to Jodi, dog finding Jodi. - Only him.
To then clarify further, same as with the search trio. But LM went one step better, he drew a map to show the police exactly where "they" were. Parallel to where Jodi lay in the woods. LM did this as he needed to explain why he knew exactly where to go when he went into the woods. But he also lied here, for LM claimed to have shone his torch around everywhere when he entered the woods. He attempted to show that the ground was unfamiliar. LM was a compulsive liar. For he was seen, and it was stated in those first accounts, as both JaJ and AW had saw LM go over and turn to his left, immediately to his left. Where JaJ mentions him looking around in the woods, is exactly what he was doing whilst they continued those 10steps or so. He was, as it appeared, searching in the woods when they continued their walk. Barely ten ft and he shouted.
So those clear contrasts, Luke - No Gino, no JaJ and SK being at the V also when Mitchell went over. And the police saw those stark contrasts. For they knew that SK could not have seen the dogs head level with the V, that JaJ could not have seen the dog pulling to the V, that she could not have seen LM in the woods and turning left. If they had been and done what Mitchell claimed. That is those first accounts. Of using a handful of words and omitting the rest - the whole context is missing. It means absolutely nothing on it's own. When LM said past the V he was asked how far past and he gave how far past.
Four people and only one similarity - the dog standing up on the wall. One account was the dog some 40ft (not even 20yrds) past this V, the other directly at the V. Pulling. One account some 40ft past, the other to the V (break) on approaching it from the East end of the path. The clarifications were - that it was LM leading his dog on approaching the V. Luke's was that the dog, the search party were all passed the V, parallel to where Jodi lay.
And the time factors. 10.38pm text telling Jodi to get home. 10.49, Mitchells offer to go to Jodi's to look on the path. 10.50pm call to the police. 10.59pm LM tells Judith he is on/at the path. 11.18pm search trio coming out complex. Police in attendance at Jodi's house. 11.34pm first call to the emergency services.
And it is here, when you actually know the context, of what was said in reality in those first accounts, the clear reason why the dog is used as a smokescreen. For to actually show you those statements, one would see clearly why the police were suspicious. It is and has always been desperation in the case of Lean V Others. To draw away from the clear events of that evening. To attempt to cast dispersion upon the search trio, to draw away from Mitchell, of that clear specialist knowledge that only the killer knew. The killer being LM.
And he just kept on lying to Lean, sucking her right in when first relating all this to her. Of that clear confirmation bias when she started learning those accounts he gave in those statements, of air brushing them over. Of scouring over everything to do with the search trio, scraping for anything to use, to distract away from Mitchell. Those smokescreens. The dog, the searching "up here" and the blatant lies. Of walking past YW's, going backwards to add time. Of coming from the top of Mayfield, to add time. Of an ancient arthritic gran, to add time. In this Lean V Others. For in LM V HMA it could not be clearer, that only the killer of Jodi Jones could have did what Mitchell did - for he was. And Lean has tried her damnedest to fit Mitchells version around those others. They do not fit, for there was no time for any of what Mitchell claimed, And that is why there is that desperation, in attempting to add time onto the search trio.
And more of Lean V Others. The police. To draw away again from Mitchell. LM was NOT segregated immediately from others. He was asked to show the police where, he then joined the others near the high school. He was with them for ages. Sitting with his mobile phone and cadging fags. When he was eventually taken to Dalkeith police station, it was for easy access for his mother. She had been drinking and could not drive. The police were not in possession of his phone when she was attempting to get hold of him. LM was ignoring his mother. He still had his phone on him, fiddling about with it in the back of the police car. In his hand when the car stopped to speak with his mother. Who asked the police "is he under arrest?". CM arrived at Dalkeith police station just minutes behind her son. The station was only a few minutes walk from her house. Luke Mitchell had fed Leans head full of nonsense in that calm before the storm period of time, that seven months before his arrest. - And she soaked every single word up. Did Lean end up feeling the proverbial fool? Perhaps this also, has that need, that drive. To get others to think the same, so it can't just be her he made a complete tit of ?
These are only a fraction of the clear factors in LM V HMA - that have been drowned in the new version of Lean V Others. For the gullible who readily soak it up?
-
LM led the search party to RDP.
We’ve still not seen his police witness statements/transcripts of his police interviews in full
Nor the transcripts of what he said to the 999 operator
Did killer Luke Mitchell specifically tell the operator they were on Roans dyke path (RDP) and mention the V in the wall he’d climbed over?
-
The dog had absolutely nothing to do with Jodi being found.
Did the police ask killer Luke Mitchell during any of his interviews whether or not he had revisited the crime scene when he was with Mia the dog when he took her out for a walk to allegedly ‘save his mums legs’ ?
-
And if you listen to Sandra Leans live from just the week before - she said she wouldn’t be stepping down *&^^&
Hi. Do you know if the Shaun Attwood video was live or pre recorded?
-
Hi. Do you know if the Shaun Attwood video was live or pre recorded?
I’ve no idea. Possibly pre recorded and edited?
I’ve not yet listened to it in full.
I’ve only managed a few minutes here and there
-
I’ve no idea
I’ve not yet listened to it in full.
I’ve only managed a few minutes here and there
I listened to it yesterday. It's longer than the other videos though so if you're going to watch it you're going to have to give yourself a couple of hours if I remember correctly.
-
And the time factors. 10.38pm text telling Jodi to get home.
10.49, Mitchells offer to go to Jodi's to look on the path.
9:00-9:10
Killer Luke Mitchell allegedly arrived home early ?
10:00pm
Luke Mitchell seen walking past the neighbours house
What was he doing and where was he going ?
10:38pm - text from JuJ
Where specifically was killer Luke Mitchell when he received this text message?
We know he wasn’t in his house as Corinne Mitchell said something like ‘he came back in’
So where was he coming back in from exactly?
And at what time was he supposed to be in his bedroom watching TV or whatever?
-
I listened to it yesterday. It's longer than the other videos though so if you're going to watch it you're going to have to give yourself a couple of hours if I remember correctly.
2 hours?
@)(++(*
-
2 hours?
@)(++(*
More than. After 2hours 9 minutes in, Shaun Attwood says that if drugs were legalised Jodi may still be alive. That's the standard. You're not missing anything.
-
More than. After 2hours 9 minutes in, Shaun Attwood says that if drugs were legalised Jodi may still be alive. That's the standard. You're not missing anything.
Shaun Attwood is renowned for making things up
I’m not at all surprised someone like Sandra Lean would want to couple up with him
-
.
That he was actually on this path before the search trio had even left Mayfield.
We still haven’t been told what the excuse was for Shane or Corinne Mitchell to have not accompanied this 14 - going on 15 year old boy ?
Why did neither of them go with him to search for Jodi?
-
And again that is due to special knowledge. He had lied about being home, he only arrived home, pretty much bang on 10pm, Jodi's curfew time. He was waiting on the call, he knew that Jodi would be known to be missing any moment. And he knew he would be that first port of call, for he knew her parents believed she had been with him that evening. And that is exactly what happened. They contacted him, telling their daughter to get home. (Judith)
So had Corinne Mitchell !
“Gosh you’re early” 🙄 (CM to JE 6:08 approx here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4)
-
So had Corinne Mitchell !
“Gosh you’re early” 🙄 (CM to JE 6:08 approx here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t6ysPeri0O4)
And if we are to go by Corinne Mitchell’s chat with JE
Killer Luke Mitchell allegedly took Mia the dog out for a walk at 10:37/38
He was gone “2 seconds” 🙄
Why didn’t Luke Mitchell have a torch with him when he allegedly took Mia out for a walk to ‘save his mums legs’? It would have been dark out by 10:30pm - according to Sandra Lean
-
More than. After 2hours 9 minutes in, Shaun Attwood says that if drugs were legalised Jodi may still be alive. That's the standard. You're not missing anything.
Does Shaun Atwood ask Sandra Lean about Corinne Mitchell’s alleged prawns?
And is it established what was in those alleged pies?
Chicken or steak?
-
And the time factors. 10.38pm text telling Jodi to get home. 10.49, Mitchells offer to go to Jodi's to look on the path.en drowned in the new version of Lean V Others. For the gullible who readily soak it up?
If killer Luke Mitchell receives the text from JuJ at 10:38pm when he’s out allegedly walking Mia
10.49, Mitchells offer to go to Jodi's to look on the path.
Why is it 11 minutes before he allegedly goes out searching ?
10.59pm LM tells Judith he is on/at the path.
Was he on RDP when he received JuJ’s text message/s?
And did Corinne Mitchell ever communicate with JuJ’s that night?
-
What a lot of tosh. You are the one who is saying the search trio lied. That manipulation of half truths that Lean has always used. By using the dog as a smokescreen. To draw away from the evidence that LM himself gave. So for once, instead of spouting the usual, meaningless nonsense and trying to pass the buck to FS, away from Lean. Of which the programme was based upon. You are yet again kickstarting the dogsbodies work, for those with very little in the way of much upstairs. The point you were trying to make, was that Lean onto FS were saying Jodi's family lied. They are your words, the dogsbodies words. For the most part here, Leans alter ego. That using something from their statement at the end of July, infers they were lying on Oath? - Your are doing that, Leans intention in her case, is hoping the brainless will also do that - state they were lying. And the mugs just keep on giving, spouting the liable for her. That clear passing the buck, putting the onus of blame onto others. They had, as LM had, clarified their statements.
And only highlighting yet again the evidence that convicted LM. Of his special knowledge. The dog had absolutely nothing to do with Jodi being found. So instead of making this same predictive bleat - Put up the areas of those statements. In proper sequence with full sentences. Where anyone, who is actually looking at LM V HMA instead of Lean V Others. Can see exactly what was said. I will refresh for you, yet again. Some torture that you love so much.
LM led the search party to RDP. There can be no doubt he was prepped and ready, that is no doubt. For Judith had barely lifted that phone to call the police and LM was all but on RDP. In less that 9mins. There was no getting ready, he was already suited and booted. And again that is due to special knowledge. He had lied about being home, he only arrived home, pretty much bang on 10pm, Jodi's curfew time. He was waiting on the call, he knew that Jodi would be known to be missing any moment. And he knew he would be that first port of call, for he knew her parents believed she had been with him that evening. And that is exactly what happened. They contacted him, telling their daughter to get home. (Judith)
Jodi was reported missing at 10.50, LM was on RDP pre 11pm. He was still on this path at 11.20pm. He made it clear to her mother that he was on the path, to claim to have a look before going to Jodi's house. He stayed on that path, drawing the members of Jodi's family there. And we are not interested in every other smoke screen in Lean V others. We are interested in LM V HMA. The nonsense of searching caravan parks and goodness knows what else. For again, those with just a fragment of intelligence, realise clearly there was not time for anything else, other than what was fed to them. Of Luke telling them that Jodi had not turned up in Newbattle, that he was going look on the path, that he stayed on this path. That he was actually on this path before the search trio had even left Mayfield.
That when they did meet, he had asked if they had brought anything of Jodi's with them, for he had asked them to bring something. They did not get a chance, as he was still on the path. - The dog and the smokescreen. LM, at the first opportunity, where the wall is broken along it's length, scaled it, and looked into the woodland with his torch. At the very next opportunity, where the wall was broken horizontally LM entered the woodland. - This is what the search trio always said. They did not change it. From the first they stated those two things, of the Gino spot, and of the V break. Upon arriving at both. They did mention the dog, of it pulling to the undergrowth of the wall, of it standing up at the V. Of pulling Luke. Of LM going into the woods, of turning to his left. Of Kelly and Janine then walking past the V, that they had barely walked ten feet when Mitchell shouted.
LM, never mentioned the Gino spot? LM then stated that "they" had walked past this break in the wall, some distance, not even 20yards when his dog alerted him to something. That the dog was standing up at the wall, air sniffing. That "he" backtracked to the V, where it was easy to climb over. That he had given the lead to AW to hold. Where he used words such as dog leading him to Jodi, dog finding Jodi. - Only him.
To then clarify further, same as with the search trio. But LM went one step better, he drew a map to show the police exactly where "they" were. Parallel to where Jodi lay in the woods. LM did this as he needed to explain why he knew exactly where to go when he went into the woods. But he also lied here, for LM claimed to have shone his torch around everywhere when he entered the woods. He attempted to show that the ground was unfamiliar. LM was a compulsive liar. For he was seen, and it was stated in those first accounts, as both JaJ and AW had saw LM go over and turn to his left, immediately to his left. Where JaJ mentions him looking around in the woods, is exactly what he was doing whilst they continued those 10steps or so. He was, as it appeared, searching in the woods when they continued their walk. Barely ten ft and he shouted.
So those clear contrasts, Luke - No Gino, no JaJ and SK being at the V also when Mitchell went over. And the police saw those stark contrasts. For they knew that SK could not have seen the dogs head level with the V, that JaJ could not have seen the dog pulling to the V, that she could not have seen LM in the woods and turning left. If they had been and done what Mitchell claimed. That is those first accounts. Of using a handful of words and omitting the rest - the whole context is missing. It means absolutely nothing on it's own. When LM said past the V he was asked how far past and he gave how far past.
Four people and only one similarity - the dog standing up on the wall. One account was the dog some 40ft (not even 20yrds) past this V, the other directly at the V. Pulling. One account some 40ft past, the other to the V (break) on approaching it from the East end of the path. The clarifications were - that it was LM leading his dog on approaching the V. Luke's was that the dog, the search party were all passed the V, parallel to where Jodi lay.
And the time factors. 10.38pm text telling Jodi to get home. 10.49, Mitchells offer to go to Jodi's to look on the path. 10.50pm call to the police. 10.59pm LM tells Judith he is on/at the path. 11.18pm search trio coming out complex. Police in attendance at Jodi's house. 11.34pm first call to the emergency services.
And it is here, when you actually know the context, of what was said in reality in those first accounts, the clear reason why the dog is used as a smokescreen. For to actually show you those statements, one would see clearly why the police were suspicious. It is and has always been desperation in the case of Lean V Others. To draw away from the clear events of that evening. To attempt to cast dispersion upon the search trio, to draw away from Mitchell, of that clear specialist knowledge that only the killer knew. The killer being LM.
And he just kept on lying to Lean, sucking her right in when first relating all this to her. Of that clear confirmation bias when she started learning those accounts he gave in those statements, of air brushing them over. Of scouring over everything to do with the search trio, scraping for anything to use, to distract away from Mitchell. Those smokescreens. The dog, the searching "up here" and the blatant lies. Of walking past YW's, going backwards to add time. Of coming from the top of Mayfield, to add time. Of an ancient arthritic gran, to add time. In this Lean V Others. For in LM V HMA it could not be clearer, that only the killer of Jodi Jones could have did what Mitchell did - for he was. And Lean has tried her damnedest to fit Mitchells version around those others. They do not fit, for there was no time for any of what Mitchell claimed, And that is why there is that desperation, in attempting to add time onto the search trio.
And more of Lean V Others. The police. To draw away again from Mitchell. LM was NOT segregated immediately from others. He was asked to show the police where, he then joined the others near the high school. He was with them for ages. Sitting with his mobile phone and cadging fags. When he was eventually taken to Dalkeith police station, it was for easy access for his mother. She had been drinking and could not drive. The police were not in possession of his phone when she was attempting to get hold of him. LM was ignoring his mother. He still had his phone on him, fiddling about with it in the back of the police car. In his hand when the car stopped to speak with his mother. Who asked the police "is he under arrest?". CM arrived at Dalkeith police station just minutes behind her son. The station was only a few minutes walk from her house. Luke Mitchell had fed Leans head full of nonsense in that calm before the storm period of time, that seven months before his arrest. - And she soaked every single word up. Did Lean end up feeling the proverbial fool? Perhaps this also, has that need, that drive. To get others to think the same, so it can't just be her he made a complete tit of ?
These are only a fraction of the clear factors in LM V HMA - that have been drowned in the new version of Lean V Others. For the gullible who readily soak it up?
All that effort and for what, to try to take Janine Jones and Steven Kelly’s words, the words that are in their very first statements, the words that mirrored Luke’s and make them unsay them. It didn’t work in court when Janine was tied in knots by DP and it won’t work now. 40 yards beyond, 20ft, parallel…no one cares. The Crown’s case was that Luke went over the wall spontaneously with nothing to lead him to that spot. From their first statements the three youths described the dog alerting. That’s all that really matters…so type away furiously….it’s your time that you are wasting, but it won’t change that from the very start the Crown had a huge hole right in the middle of their case and nothing that came afterwards was ever able to fill that.
‘ Mr Turnbull told the jury that the family's account was consistent with Luke knowing about the body and that if they were right then it meant that he was the killer.’
But the family’s account wasn’t consistent. It wasn’t then and it certainly isn’t now.
-
And more of Lean V Others. The police. To draw away again from Mitchell. LM was NOT segregated immediately from others. He was asked to show the police where, he then joined the others near the high school. He was with them for ages. Sitting with his mobile phone and cadging fags. When he was eventually taken to Dalkeith police station, it was for easy access for his mother. She had been drinking and could not drive. The police were not in possession of his phone when she was attempting to get hold of him. LM was ignoring his mother. He still had his phone on him, fiddling about with it in the back of the police car. In his hand when the car stopped to speak with his mother. Who asked the police "is he under arrest?". CM arrived at Dalkeith police station just minutes behind her son. The station was only a few minutes walk from her house.
Was Corinne Mitchell also stoned that night?
And did the police note any other observations or her other than her comment ‘is he under arrest’?
-
And more of Lean V Others. The police. To draw away again from Mitchell. LM was NOT segregated immediately from others. He was asked to show the police where, he then joined the others near the high school. He was with them for ages. Sitting with his mobile phone and cadging fags. When he was eventually taken to Dalkeith police station, it was for easy access for his mother. She had been drinking and could not drive. The police were not in possession of his phone when she was attempting to get hold of him. LM was ignoring his mother. He still had his phone on him, fiddling about with it in the back of the police car. In his hand when the car stopped to speak with his mother. Who asked the police "is he under arrest?".
It most certainly appears he was
-
And more of Lean V Others. The police. To draw away again from Mitchell. LM was NOT segregated immediately from others. He was asked to show the police where, he then joined the others near the high school. He was with them for ages. Sitting with his mobile phone and cadging fags.
He most certainly was not Parky !
-
Luke Mitchell had fed Leans head full of nonsense in that calm before the storm period of time, that seven months before his arrest. - And she soaked every single word up. Did Lean end up feeling the proverbial fool? Perhaps this also, has that need, that drive. To get others to think the same, so it can't just be her he made a complete tit of ?
She knew when she first met him face to face he was innocent apparently
“But to establish the facts of the case it meant carrying out her own investigation of the case - interviewing key people, tracing and timing the route Mitchell was alleged to have taken and scanning hundreds of pages of evidence, statements and transcripts.
She even walked, then ran the path, crawled through rough land beyond the wall where Jodi died and attempted to figure out how Mitchell could have committed the crime in the time it was suggested, only to find it wasn't possible. She did it not to upset Jodi's family, but to ensure the police had the right man.
“But my girls used a path to walk to Newbattle High School - not the path where Jodi died, but one not unlike it. I wanted to know that they were safe," she explains. "The more I looked, the more pieces didn't fit."
https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/claiming-killer-innocent-part-search-truth-2453025
Were both of Sandra Leans girls living in the area at the time?
And was the first time she met Luke Mitchell in prison ? ⬇️
’THE heavy doors clanged shut behind Sandra Lean as she made her way inside a notorious young offenders' institution to meet one of Scotland's most infamous prisoners.
With piles of legal papers, transcripts, notes and scribbled questions in her arms, she sat down to look into convicted killer Luke Mitchell's face - and was troubled by what saw.
"I thought: 'Oh, he's just a bairn, he's just a laddie'," she recalls. "He looked so much younger, people have forgotten how young. But he is a strong lad with a brilliant sense of humour. One who still believes this is just one huge cock-up, that it's just a matter of time before it gets sorted out.
-
Anyhooo back to the question originally asked.
You said that Leonard Kelly wasn’t the only evidence the prosecution must have had for TOD and I asked what other information was there?
Jodi wasn’t seen for over six and a half hours and could have been killed anytime in between. Even if temperatures were taken at the scene it could not have afforded the investigators such a precise time. So, IYO what other information could they have used for TOD?
And here’s the link to the Frontline Scotland video regarding the change of stories. You’ll find the relevant part around 21 minutes.
https://youtu.be/-m-zHEUOFR0
As I said if the BBC had implied that I had been dishonest I’d certainly have taken action,
I don't believe there is ever a precise TOD unless there's a reliable witness. A doctor, for example. I believe there is always just a window.
-
I don't see that anyone on this forum is targeting Jodi's family (You Tube is a different matter, and I find some of the comments on there quite appalling).
If one questions Luke's conviction, one is obviously going to consider who else might have done it. It is wrong (and libellous) to accuse somebody without proof, but it isn't wrong to wonder----IMO.
We don't live in a perfect world, I'm afraid, and victims' families are not always whiter than white-------no, I am not accusing any family in particular, just stating a general fact. We read some dreadful things in the news.
This has nothing to do with YouTube, mrswah. This is about here. We read some dreadful things here. Please don't become snobbish about YouTube. At least, on YouTube, where there are no moderators it's easy to pick out the decent people who don't need moderation.
-
I don't believe there is ever a precise TOD unless there's a reliable witness. A doctor, for example. I believe there is always just a window.
I concur but 5.15, according to the police, is Jodi’s TOD so were did they come by such a precise time? Certainly not from LK as he admitted in court to changing his statement to a strangling sound to get the police off of his back.
-
I concur but 5.15, according to the police, is Jodi’s TOD so were did they come by such a precise time? Certainly not from LK as he admitted in court to changing his statement to a strangling sound to get the police off of his back.
This is what I believe. I believe Jodi left to meet Luke and met him around 5.05pm. I believe he walked her to her death scene. I believe he murdered Jodi. I believe he was wearing his parka at that time. I don't believe he was at home when his mum and brother initially said he was. I believe he murdered poor Jodi and then I believe he had help. I believe that help came from his brother and mother. I believe that someone swapped jackets with Luke. I believe someone gave him the green bomber jacket and took the parka. I believe this was arranged by phone, hence the deletion of almost everything. I believe that's why RW and Fleming witnessed LM in a parka and why the positive identification by the school boys identified Mitchell in a bomber jacket. I believe someone swapped him jackets in the interim. I also believe this is why SM, wants a quiet life. Where was LM from the back of six till half seven? He had far more time than you can account for. I believe LM murdered his girlfriend and I believe he mutilated her body post mortem. I believe he did it alone. IMO
-
This is what I believe. I believe Jodi left to meet Luke and met him around 5.05pm. I believe he walked her to her death scene. I believe he murdered Jodi. I believe he was wearing his parka at that time. I don't believe he was at home when his mum and brother initially said he was. I believe he murdered poor Jodi and then I believe he had help. I believe that help came from his brother and mother. I believe that someone swapped jackets with Luke. I believe someone gave him the green bomber jacket and took the parka. I believe this was arranged by phone, hence the deletion of almost everything. I believe that's why RW and Fleming witnessed LM in a parka and why the positive identification by the school boys identified Mitchell in a bomber jacket. I believe someone swapped him jackets in the interim. I also believe this is why SM, wants a quiet life. Where was LM from the back of six till half seven? He had far more time than you can account for. I believe LM murdered his girlfriend and I believe he mutilated her body post mortem. I believe he did it alone. IMO
But AB made it abundantly clear in court that the jacket Luke was wearing was not a parka but of the jackets she was shown a photograph of, the parka was the nearest. So how did Luke get the parka in order to kill Jodi in it and when? Did Shane bring it to him? Why did Luke say he needed it?
So Luke when seen by AB was not wearing a parka but a green fishing style jacket with a pocket on the sleeve. Somehow after being seen by AB he obtains a parka in which to kill Jodi and then, again somehow, convinces his brother, who until that moment knew nothing about the murder, to bring him another jacket and take the now, I assume, blood soaked parka home. Does that really sound feasible to you?
-
But AB made it abundantly clear in court that the jacket Luke was wearing was not a parka but of the jackets she was shown a photograph of, the parka was the nearest. So how did Luke get the parka in order to kill Jodi in it and when? Did Shane bring it to him? Why did Luke say he needed it?
So Luke when seen by AB was not wearing a parka but a green fishing style jacket with a pocket on the sleeve. Somehow after being seen by AB he obtains a parka in which to kill Jodi and then, again somehow, convinces his brother, who until that moment knew nothing about the murder, to bring him another jacket and take the now, I assume, blood soaked parka home. Does that really sound feasible to you?
What is your take on a hip lengh fishing jacket?
-
What is your take on a hip lengh fishing jacket?
Who mentioned AB, faithlilly?
-
What is your take on a hip lengh fishing jacket?
I've already given you my honest take. What else do you want? I've told you over and over that I believe Luke Mitchell murdered and mutilated Jodi Jones.
-
What is your take on a hip lengh fishing jacket?
I have no need to have a ‘take’ as AB expressly stated that the jacket the youth was wearing that she saw was not a parka.
-
Who mentioned AB, faithlilly?
So you don’t think that AB is integral to the whole case?
-
But AB made it abundantly clear in court that the jacket Luke was wearing was not a parka but of the jackets she was shown a photograph of, the parka was the nearest. So how did Luke get the parka in order to kill Jodi in it and when? Did Shane bring it to him? Why did Luke say he needed it?
So Luke when seen by AB was not wearing a parka but a green fishing style jacket with a pocket on the sleeve. Somehow after being seen by AB he obtains a parka in which to kill Jodi and then, again somehow, convinces his brother, who until that moment knew nothing about the murder, to bring him another jacket and take the now, I assume, blood soaked parka home. Does that really sound feasible to you?
Please tell me the I'd of jacket AB described.
-
Please tell me the I'd of jacket AB described.
Nah. Hip length jacket? Not bomber jacket then? Let's rewind if you will please. Back to the bit where Luke had help. The swapping of jackets IMO.
-
I've already given you my honest take. What else do you want? I've told you over and over that I believe Luke Mitchell murdered and mutilated Jodi Jones.
You have indeed but your hypothesis is built, it would appear, on nothing but wishful speculation. However if that’s good enough to convince you then so be it. For me, if a young boy’s freedom is at stake, then wishful speculation simply won’t do.
-
I have no need to have a ‘take’ as AB expressly stated that the jacket the youth was wearing that she saw was not a parka.
Did Andrina Bryson ever state, "It was not a parka?"
-
You have indeed but your hypothesis is built, it would appear, on nothing but wishful speculation. However if that’s good enough to convince you then so be it. For me, if a young boy’s freedom is at stake, then wishful speculation simply won’t do.
Whatever, faithlilly, please be good enough to answer the next question. Cheers!
-
Nah. Hip length jacket? Not bomber jacket then? Let's rewind if you will please. Back to the bit where Luke had help. The swapping of jackets IMO.
IYO absolutely but there’s absolutely no evidence to back it up. You can speculate as long as you wish but don’t expect the rest of us to give it any credence.
-
There is as much to back up my speculation as there is, yours
-
I always said, IMO.
-
Did Andrina Bryson ever state, "It was not a parka?"
Yes she did, in court under oath, during her cross examination by DF. She said she had expressly told the police that out of the photographs of the jackets she was shown she had picked the parka because “ it was most like the jacket she’d seen but that the jacket she had seen was not a parka’.
-
There is as much to back up my speculation as there is, yours
I don’t speculate. I find facts much more helpful.
-
Yes she did, in court under oath, during her cross examination by DF. She said she had expressly told the police that out of the photographs of the jackets she was shown she had picked the parka because “ it was most like the jacket she’d seen but that the jacket she had seen was not a parka’.
So, now you are defending Andrrina Bryson? Way fo go!! AB saw a male.in a green, hip length jacket with a bulging pocket. How many jackets were green and hip length and worn by teenagers back in the day??
-
I don’t speculate. I find facts much more helpful.
What about the green, hip length jacket Fleming saw the boy wearing?
-
What about the green, hip length jacket Fleming saw the boy wearing?
Oh no, faithlilly. Back up what you have said please. Your pretence if having no idea what I can possibly be talking about is, embarrassing.
-
So, now you are defending Andrrina Bryson? Way fo go!! AB saw a male.in a green, hip length jacket with a bulging pocket. How many jackets were green and hip length and worn by teenagers back in the day??
Look back on my posts re: Andrina Bryson. From her first two statements you can see that she was an honest witness simply reporting what she saw…a couple at the Easthouses entrance to RD path at 5.45. The later discrepancy in her bank statement obviously caused doubt but the fact that she would not identify Luke in court speaks volumes about her honesty, even when pressured to follow the narrative.
As to AB’s description of the jacket worn by the youth, she described it as waist length not hip length. I believe RW, a witness totally discredited during her court testimony, described the jacket her sighting was wearing as ‘ hip length’.
-
What about the green, hip length jacket Fleming saw the boy wearing?
Fleming in her first statement claimed that she and RW had left the house to go shopping at 6pm. At 6pm Luke was seen by witnesses who knew him standing further up the Newbattle Road wearing exactly what he claimed to have been wearing.
-
Oh no, faithlilly. Back up what you have said please. Your pretence if having no idea what I can possibly be talking about is, embarrassing. Stop acting stupid, please
I have already answered this. Please see above.
-
If nobody cares about LM statements about how far beyond the v break he had gone and all that matters is that the search trios first statements made reference to the dogs reaction then why has Dr Lean felt it necessary to embellish and lie?
Why make out the search trio statements matched LM in every way if it did not matter?
-
If nobody cares about LM statements about how far beyond the v break he had gone and all that matters is that the search trios first statements made reference to the dogs reaction then why has Dr Lean felt it necessary to embellish and lie?
Why make out the search trio statements matched LM in every way if it did not matter?
I think the more important question is why did the search trio lie under oath, don’t you?
-
I think the more important question is why did the search trio lie under oath, don’t you?
So a change in a statement automatically constitutes a lie?
-
If nobody cares about LM statements about how far beyond the v break he had gone and all that matters is that the search trios first statements made reference to the dogs reaction then why has Dr Lean felt it necessary to embellish and lie?
Why make out the search trio statements matched LM in every way if it did not matter?
Exactly. One had and needs to ignore every lie Mitchell told to tie in with the truth of this search trio. That clear consistency in their statements, that LM had went to straight to this V with his dog. That desperation to wipe out all his words, to scrape away at the pit of that barrel. To bring LM back to even a MM to the left of this V break.
That this implication pushed out that they told the truth then lied. No they told the truth and clarified that truth. This cherry picking nonsense, at least that is consistent. For they not only disregard massive parts of Mitchells testimony, alter and add to it. They do the same with everyone's, in that clear attempt to rewrite this case, to make is Lean V Others.
Where we can see, without a shadow of a doubt, those changes in statements from those clearly lying. As we had with Mitchells mother. Of coercing her other son to tell the same lies she told. To the point he had himself in the kitchen talking with his mother, at a time she was in Morning, Noon and Night.
-
All that effort and for what, to try to take Janine Jones and Steven Kelly’s words, the words that are in their very first statements, the words that mirrored Luke’s and make them unsay them. It didn’t work in court when Janine was tied in knots by DP and it won’t work now. 40 yards beyond, 20ft, parallel…no one cares. The Crown’s case was that Luke went over the wall spontaneously with nothing to lead him to that spot. From their first statements the three youths described the dog alerting. That’s all that really matters…so type away furiously….it’s your time that you are wasting, but it won’t change that from the very start the Crown had a huge hole right in the middle of their case and nothing that came afterwards was ever able to fill that.
‘ Mr Turnbull told the jury that the family's account was consistent with Luke knowing about the body and that if they were right then it meant that he was the killer.’
But the family’s account wasn’t consistent. It wasn’t then and it certainly isn’t now.
Excellent - top of the class for confirming LM was talking nonsense. It does not get any plainer when one is being told that no one is interested in what Mitchell claimed. That it does not matter what any witness said, other than dog, pull and wall. Where there couldn't be a clearer case of dog whisperer. I'm surprised you haven't got a translated statement from Mia herself. It is hardly surprising that this Jigsaw can not be completed. Almost like a puzzle for the dyslexic amongst us. Trying to force those mis-shaping pieces into place.
Let us yet again run through Mitchells lies, and how that dog did have to be where he claimed. For approaching this V, going to this V with his dog on the way down this path - only confirms Mitchells other lies more clearly. That he knew that strip of woodland like that back of his hand, he knew exactly where Jodi lay, he had left her there after murdering her. We already know to this point that Mitchell had been prepped and ready, on that path in a flash. That he had already introduced the notion of the woodland into the search at the Gino spot. That upon reaching that second break in the wall, exactly as the search trio said in that first statement. Mitchell physically entered the woodland. So it's not a case of no one cares about Mitchells lies, it's about no one caring what the dog was doing at this V break. Led or not by it's master. A dog, scenting other dogs, wildlife, obeying it's master. Who would have thought, eh? More so when we had Mitchell on this path for around 20mins prior to the search trio arriving. Where people very much cared about his lies, of the lives no doubt saved, due to caring.
And do we take the interpretation of witness statements, of their wrongful inference - when we have someone who interprets "I know where you stay" into "I am going to kill you".
Do we just ignore these vital witnesses, being taken back to RDP, when that fog had lifted a little. In the dark, re living that awful night. Clarifying that Mitchell had not walked past the V, clarifying that at all times Mitchell was leading his dog, firmly on that leash. That both him and his dog had went straight to this V, as they had always said. And that clear clarity brought by Mitchell himself, when being asked about turning directly left. Of his dog being almost parallel to where Jodi lay in the wood, as reason as to why he knew exactly where to go. That he stepped into that woodland, with complete ease, familiarity, no trepidation - Mitchell had been over that V many times before, as recent as 5pm that evening that we know of. Possibly other times over the course of the night.
So scrape away at interpreting those statements to suit, by changing Mitchells to tie in with the search trio. Of those blatant attempts to pull away from him, to the condemning evidence, he himself gave. By implying that the search trio lied, for it can only ever be, to imply. By asking the gullible to ignore every single blatant lie Mitchell told, frantically scraping at the pit of that barrel, in the hope one day there just might be something there.
-
So a change in a statement automatically constitutes a lie?
When three people change their statements in the same way then yes.
-
That logic doesn't necessarily follow.
-
That logic doesn't necessarily follow.
How so?
-
Was I overly tired rambling? I'm sorry. Send me formula milk and disposable nappies please. Sorry, nonetheless. Where were we?
-
Was I overly tired rambling? I'm sorry. Send me formula milk and disposable nappies please. Sorry, nonetheless. Where were we?
The jacket! I remember now. The hip length, fishing style jacket that LM never owned apparently.
-
The jacket! I remember now. The hip length, fishing style jacket that LM never owned apparently.
But I believe he had a parka. And I believe the reason that nothing is ever in the public domain is because it would be damning to SL to have everything in the public domain.
-
When three people change their statements in the same way then yes.
I believe that if there were statement changes then the newer statements were the accurate statements. Not the other way around.
-
I believe that if there were statement changes then the newer statements were the accurate statements. Not the other way around.
Why do you think that?
-
Why do you think that?
Because I think LM murdered and mutilated Jodi Jones. He knew exactly where she was and I believe he implied/inferred what happened when she was found to the rest of the search party but I believe that when emotions weren't so high and f****d up that the other three realised that LM had fann**d them. I think the police knew from the beginning. I believe that if there was a change in statements it was to amend them to be accurate.
-
I believe that if there were statement changes then the newer statements were the accurate statements. Not the other way around.
That’s not what the experts say.
-
That’s not what the experts say.
The documentary experts? I've heard what they say and I have the audacity to disagree.
-
Because I think LM murdered and mutilated Jodi Jones. He knew exactly where she was and I believe he implied/inferred what happened when she was found to the rest of the search party but I believe that when emotions weren't so high and f****d up that the other three realised that LM had fann**d them. I think the police knew from the beginning. I believe that if there was a change in statements it was to amend them to be accurate.
Explain to me how Steven Kelly describes Mia pulling Luke to the wall and alerting to the other side then suddenly forgets all about it? Amnesia, early onset dementia ?
-
Explain to me how Steven Kelly describes Mia pulling Luke to the wall and alerting to the other side then suddenly forgets all about it? Amnesia, early onset dementia ?
I agree. It's most likely their first accounts would be more accurate before time and the words of others changes their recall
-
The documentary experts? I've heard what they say and I have the audacity to disagree.
And that’s your prerogative but you are not an expert, .so forgive me if I listen to those who are.
-
I agree. It's most likely their first accounts would be more accurate before time and the words of others changes their recall
Exactly and it wasn’t simply their first statements but several in the first month.
-
Explain to me how Steven Kelly describes Mia pulling Luke to the wall and alerting to the other side then suddenly forgets all about it? Amnesia, early onset dementia ?
I've already said that I believe anything implied to people in shock (If that's even the word) could explain their first statements but then, I believe they remembered for themselves. No implications, no inferring, just remembering for what it really was. If their statements did change then I believe they were amended to what really happened.
-
And that’s your prerogative but you are not an expert….in anything it seems….so forgive me if I listen to those who are.
Well, you don't know that, do you? I have to assume you're not an expert.
-
I've already said that I believe anything implied to people in shock (If that's even the word) could explain their first statements but then, I believe they remembered for themselves. No implications, no inferring, just remembering for what it really was. If their statements did change then I believe they were amended to what really happened.
Explain to me how shock makes three people imagine that they saw something that didn’t happen?
-
Well, you don't know that, do you? I have to assume you're not an expert.
I don’t know what? That the experts described as experts are actually experts? Are you suggesting Frontline Scotland tried to deceive their viewers with fake experts?
-
???
How do you know about statements that aren't in the public domain? How do you know about changes in statements, as in, what were the changes and what the statements state?
-
I don’t know what? That the experts described as experts are actually experts? Are you suggesting Frontline Scotland tried to deceive their viewers with fake experts?
Frontline Scotland wouldn't have been possible without Scott Forbes. Sandra Lean's words.
-
I'm not going to stoop to personal. Are you from now on?
Good to hear.
-
Good to hear.
Thank you and now, I see a window for sleep. Speak later
-
I don't want to be here anyway. Why would I? It's worse than YouTube because no one's pretending to be fair on YouTube. Faithlilly, I believe I'm already going to be banned for life so you're still a delusional, horrible bitch. Night night folks.
Totally out of order. If you dont want to be here why do you spend so much time here
-
Please refrain from personal remarks and rudeness.
Thank you.
-
I am not totally out of order. She is. She started the ridiculous slagging as she always does. Pull her up! Look back. We were having an adult conversation that she couldn't maintain. She is ridiculous.
Best ignored. Leave them too it, add up that post count on this two bit forum (not my words BTW) Best not fall into the trap, of the goading tactics. It is all they have left. They have been exposed as the frauds they are, this is what they are left with, trolling forums. They have been at it for years. The only groundbreaking thing they can ever come up with, to support their cause from now on in, if they can get SM onside & speak publicly about it. But we all know, that will never happen. Remember, this is the son, his own mother was willing to feed to the wolves to save her other son. No wonder he let her rot in a shed. No wonder he keeps his kids away from his mother. The rest of the stuff is irrelevant, because it is quite simple, this case is closed.
-
Best ignored. Leave them too it, add up that post count on this two bit forum (not my words BTW) Best not fall into the trap, of the goading tactics. It is all they have left. They have been exposed as the frauds they are, this is what they are left with, trolling forums. They have been at it for years. The only groundbreaking thing they can ever come up with, to support their cause from now on in, if they can get SM onside & speak publicly about it. But we all know, that will never happen. Remember, this is the son, his own mother was willing to feed to the wolves to save her other son. No wonder he let her rot in a shed. No wonder he keeps his kids away from his mother. The rest of the stuff is irrelevant, because it is quite simple, this case is closed.
👍
-
Best ignored. Leave them too it, add up that post count on this two bit forum (not my words BTW) Best not fall into the trap, of the goading tactics. It is all they have left. They have been exposed as the frauds they are, this is what they are left with, trolling forums. They have been at it for years. The only groundbreaking thing they can ever come up with, to support their cause from now on in, if they can get SM onside & speak publicly about it. But we all know, that will never happen. Remember, this is the son, his own mother was willing to feed to the wolves to save her other son. No wonder he let her rot in a shed. No wonder he keeps his kids away from his mother. The rest of the stuff is irrelevant, because it is quite simple, this case is closed.
-
Shane, poor lad. So much for the golden child.
-
Shane, poor lad. So much for the golden child.
LUKE Mitchell's brother recoiled in horror yesterday as he was shown gruesome pictures of Jodi Jones's naked and mutilated body.
Shane Mitchell, 23, was confronted with the shocking images in court.
He turned away after being shown the first photo and immediately asked for a break.
Shane sat in the witness box sipping a glass of water and wiping tears from his eyes before he had to look at another four photos.
He then admitted that, when he returned home on the day that Jodi died, he watched porn on his computer because he thought he was alone in the house.
Luke Mitchell, now 16, denies murdering Jodi, and maintains he was in the house when she died.
Shane told the High Court in Edinburgh that, on June 30, 2003, he arrived home at Newbattle Abbey Crescent, Dalkeith, Midlothian, at 4.50pm.
He said he went upstairs to his bedroom and watched porn on the internet.
Advocate depute Alan Turnbull, QC, told Shane he had no desire to humiliate or embarrass him but he wanted to know if he did anything else at that time.
When Shane said he wasn't, Mr Turnbull asked him to look at photos of Jodi's body where it was found near the town's wooded Roan's Dyke path.
As he glanced at the first photo, Mr Turnbull stated: 'I am not surprised to see your reaction. You looked a bit horrified and looked away, didn't you?
Shane replied: 'Yes.' Mr Turnbull added: 'These are not pleasant.The reason I asked you to look at these is so you can appreciate what we are dealing with. Do you understand now?
'Do you appreciate I can't let embarrassment stand in the way of getting to the bottom of this?'
Again, Shane replied: 'Yes.' The witness then admitted he had been engaged in a sex act while watching porn.
He agreed with the prosecutor that he wouldn't have done that if he thought anyone else had been home.
Mr Turnbull asked him: 'On that evening,about4.55pm,who did you think was in the house?'
Shane told him: 'No one at that time.' The advocate depute then asked: 'Did you see Luke when you went down after the internet session?'
The witness told the court:'I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother. He could have been there.'
Shane said his mum arrived home about 5.15pm and he joined her downstairs.
Mr Turnbull read out a police statement from Luke Mitchell in which he said he had tea with his mum before leaving the house at about 5.30pm to wait for Jodi.
His mother was present at the interview and, when police asked if he had eaten with Shane, his brother had asked her: 'Shane wasn't there, was he?'
His mum had intervened: 'No.' Luke had then added: 'Shane was not in when I left.'
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+PICS+HORROR+OF+MITCHELL%27S+BROTHER%3B+Tears+at+death+trial.-a0126987509
-
LUKE Mitchell's brother recoiled in horror yesterday as he was shown gruesome pictures of Jodi Jones's naked and mutilated body.
Shane Mitchell, 23, was confronted with the shocking images in court.
He turned away after being shown the first photo and immediately asked for a break.
Shane sat in the witness box sipping a glass of water and wiping tears from his eyes before he had to look at another four photos.
He then admitted that, when he returned home on the day that Jodi died, he watched porn on his computer because he thought he was alone in the house.
Luke Mitchell, now 16, denies murdering Jodi, and maintains he was in the house when she died.
Shane told the High Court in Edinburgh that, on June 30, 2003, he arrived home at Newbattle Abbey Crescent, Dalkeith, Midlothian, at 4.50pm.
He said he went upstairs to his bedroom and watched porn on the internet.
Advocate depute Alan Turnbull, QC, told Shane he had no desire to humiliate or embarrass him but he wanted to know if he did anything else at that time.
When Shane said he wasn't, Mr Turnbull asked him to look at photos of Jodi's body where it was found near the town's wooded Roan's Dyke path.
As he glanced at the first photo, Mr Turnbull stated: 'I am not surprised to see your reaction. You looked a bit horrified and looked away, didn't you?
Shane replied: 'Yes.' Mr Turnbull added: 'These are not pleasant.The reason I asked you to look at these is so you can appreciate what we are dealing with. Do you understand now?
'Do you appreciate I can't let embarrassment stand in the way of getting to the bottom of this?'
Again, Shane replied: 'Yes.' The witness then admitted he had been engaged in a sex act while watching porn.
He agreed with the prosecutor that he wouldn't have done that if he thought anyone else had been home.
Mr Turnbull asked him: 'On that evening,about4.55pm,who did you think was in the house?'
Shane told him: 'No one at that time.' The advocate depute then asked: 'Did you see Luke when you went down after the internet session?'
The witness told the court:'I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother. He could have been there.'
Shane said his mum arrived home about 5.15pm and he joined her downstairs.
Mr Turnbull read out a police statement from Luke Mitchell in which he said he had tea with his mum before leaving the house at about 5.30pm to wait for Jodi.
His mother was present at the interview and, when police asked if he had eaten with Shane, his brother had asked her: 'Shane wasn't there, was he?'
His mum had intervened: 'No.' Luke had then added: 'Shane was not in when I left.'
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/JODI+PICS+HORROR+OF+MITCHELL%27S+BROTHER%3B+Tears+at+death+trial.-a0126987509
Poor lad. He left her in a hut? No, her irresponsibility left her in a hut. She left him in a far worse place.
-
Shaun Attwood is renowned for making things up
I’m not at all surprised someone like Sandra Lean would want to couple up with him
I don't know much about this bloke, just his criminal past.
What things has he made up? I am interested to hear more about this chap.
-
I've already said that I believe anything implied to people in shock (If that's even the word) could explain their first statements but then, I believe they remembered for themselves. No implications, no inferring, just remembering for what it really was. If their statements did change then I believe they were amended to what really happened.
LM. His visit to RDP to go over his map. Showing the police just how far past he claimed they had all went. That difficulty. For Luke Mitchell had not mentioned anything around that dog, having to wade it's way through. Shrubs, tall grass, nettles. Even trees. Where the wall is barely visible. Those several feet to cross between the path and the wall. That abundance of other smells. Every sort of excretion from the many dogs there before. Of other animals. Along the edge and into the overgrowth. For what LM had described was that clearing. That direct access to the wall. Where the ground in that narrow path, that had been trampled over time, with feet accessing the woodland via the V. - And there was no doubt in the police's mind, that the search trio had been telling the truth, from that very first account. That LM and his dog, had went directly to the V break, over that clearing. Not a foot past it.
So we had Mitchell, that alibi in place, that dog up at the wall. And those arms and legs, striving to show the police that he had been far enough past that V, to even make it sound plausible in the slightest, that the dog had miraculously picked up some scent. Through the abundance of all those other smells. To pick up what exactly? That contradiction from Lean of believing Jodi had been murdered elsewhere? That he had nothing to scent with of Jodi's, and by Leans reckoning very little in the way of blood. Which we know is nonsense. Due to rainfall, pore space of soil and so forth. That space between the path and the wall, that overgrowth and all else. The more he tried to clarify, to make it seem plausible the bigger the hole he dug. - For he had not been a foot past that V break. Straight to it. And those 20 mins on the path prior to the search trio arriving, of any other scents left by Mitchell and his dog on the way up. Of what was to transpire, that even here, Mitchell had led his dog to the wall at the V break, by his own description of the wall.
Those clear clarifications - of three people maintaining as they always stated, that Michell and his dog went to the V. Of Mitchells clarification, of striving to make his tale believable. Of his dog being almost at the same spot to where Jodi lay in the woods. Across that overgrowth, over that wall . - Caught in his own lies. Nothing in the slightest to do with the search trio. They did not make Mitchell in his clarification, lie even more.
And this prepped and ready. Waiting anxiously on that call/text from Jodi's parents. Now we know already Lean has fed people Mitchells lies. But I wanted to pick up on this claimed call to the emergency services. Of Jodi being reported missing before she was known to be missing? It is hard to work fact from fiction with Lean. Where most is based upon half truths and misinformation. But of no phone number? And of Mitchell and his PAYG sims. Of impatiently waiting since 10pm. Like the scarp yard theories, of SM, one has to seriously consider here. Did LM call the emergency services? For I firmly believe, all these notions stem from the Mitchells, of truth closer to home. Of SM and cars. Does anyone know if he worked for a scrap merchants back in 2003? For his finish time most days was to be home by 3.30. Too early for garages/mechanics but not for scrap merchants? That the only person we know to be prepped and ready, to know that Jodi would be missing, was Mitchell. That if any call had been made, then it was Mitchell who made it. That any details in this call, must have been extremely vague. For the only call that the police responded to, was the one made by Jodi's mother at 10.50pm.
So, yes rulesapply. I firmly believe these statements were clarified to Mitchell leading the dog. Not once had they agreed with Mitchell, this nonsense, inference of alerting to Jodi, of leading "them" to Jodi. These were Mitchells claims, his words. And he described, as they did. Of the dog with him, going straight across that trampled ground. Directly to the V. That if people in their blindness, are naive enough to claim they were all inferring the same as Mitchell - more fool them. By simply accepting the assumption of a person, who's bias stemmed from that collusion, between a murderer, his mother and herself. Who has been caught time and again, of manipulating evidence so far to the extreme it becomes almost intangible. Where it could not be any plainer, that she uses people, as pawns, smokescreens to divert away from the lies, the evidence the Mitchells gave.
That those claims of being able to back everything up, should be enough and are for the most part, to make the sensible amongst us know - only a fool puts faith in the unknown. That outwith legalities of not having those files (not supposed to), there has in reality, been nothing other than back up, to clearly show, those half truths, misinformation and downright lies. - And no, a further investigation should not be done on this basis, to appease anyone into seeing if Leans assumptions, her narrative hold any water. Chinese whispers and tittle tattle and any old nonsense misinformation, is not evidence - It does not, in the slightest change the evidence that convicted Luke Mitchell.
-
.
Those clear clarifications - of three people maintaining as they always stated, that Michell and his dog went to the V. Of Mitchells clarification, of striving to make his tale believable. Of his dog being almost at the same spot to where Jodi lay in the woods. Across that overgrowth, over that wall . - Caught in his own lies. Nothing in the slightest to do with the search trio. They did not make Mitchell in his clarification, lie even more.
In his first statement SK describes Luke’s dog pulling him to the v in the wall. You can’t be ‘pulled’ anywhere if you are already there. Janine verifying that it was the dog carrying on that made Luke focus on the v. A lie told often enough becomes the truth….not here.
-
I don't know much about this bloke, just his criminal past.
What things has he made up? I am interested to hear more about this chap.
He’s a fraudster and most of what comes out of his mouth is made up
https://www.publicpolicerecord.com/arizona/doc-prisoner/SHAUN_ATTWOOD/187160
Shaun Attwood is renowned for making things up
I’m not at all surprised someone like Sandra Lean would want to couple up with him
I’ve listened to some snippets of his chat with Sandra Lean (it’s far too long & the pair of them are so full of bs its unlikely I’ll listen to the entire thing) and at some point Sandra mentions the police and their noses
In a chat with Jon Wedger ➡️ https://trollexposure.wordpress.com/2021/06/19/what-you-can-find-under-rocks/
Shaun Attwood can be found in the above ⬆️ blog too btw 🙄
Wedger refers to his policeman’s nose 🙄 which wasn’t the phrase he used but it’s here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qWqYWCwblLo (If anyone wants to listen to a couple of ‘money grabbing’ morons together talking utter nonsense)
-
LM. His visit to RDP to go over his map. Showing the police just how far past he claimed they had all went. That difficulty. For Luke Mitchell had not mentioned anything around that dog, having to wade it's way through. Shrubs, tall grass, nettles. Even trees. Where the wall is barely visible. Those several feet to cross between the path and the wall. That abundance of other smells. Every sort of excretion from the many dogs there before. Of other animals. Along the edge and into the overgrowth. For what LM had described was that clearing. That direct access to the wall. Where the ground in that narrow path, that had been trampled over time, with feet accessing the woodland via the V. - And there was no doubt in the police's mind, that the search trio had been telling the truth, from that very first account. That LM and his dog, had went directly to the V break, over that clearing. Not a foot past it.
So we had Mitchell, that alibi in place, that dog up at the wall. And those arms and legs, striving to show the police that he had been far enough past that V, to even make it sound plausible in the slightest, that the dog had miraculously picked up some scent. Through the abundance of all those other smells. To pick up what exactly? That contradiction from Lean of believing Jodi had been murdered elsewhere? That he had nothing to scent with of Jodi's, and by Leans reckoning very little in the way of blood. Which we know is nonsense. Due to rainfall, pore space of soil and so forth. That space between the path and the wall, that overgrowth and all else. The more he tried to clarify, to make it seem plausible the bigger the hole he dug. - For he had not been a foot past that V break. Straight to it. And those 20 mins on the path prior to the search trio arriving, of any other scents left by Mitchell and his dog on the way up. Of what was to transpire, that even here, Mitchell had led his dog to the wall at the V break, by his own description of the wall.
Those clear clarifications - of three people maintaining as they always stated, that Michell and his dog went to the V. Of Mitchells clarification, of striving to make his tale believable. Of his dog being almost at the same spot to where Jodi lay in the woods. Across that overgrowth, over that wall . - Caught in his own lies. Nothing in the slightest to do with the search trio. They did not make Mitchell in his clarification, lie even more.
And this prepped and ready. Waiting anxiously on that call/text from Jodi's parents. Now we know already Lean has fed people Mitchells lies. But I wanted to pick up on this claimed call to the emergency services. Of Jodi being reported missing before she was known to be missing? It is hard to work fact from fiction with Lean. Where most is based upon half truths and misinformation. But of no phone number? And of Mitchell and his PAYG sims. Of impatiently waiting since 10pm. Like the scarp yard theories, of SM, one has to seriously consider here. Did LM call the emergency services? For I firmly believe, all these notions stem from the Mitchells, of truth closer to home. Of SM and cars. Does anyone know if he worked for a scrap merchants back in 2003? For his finish time most days was to be home by 3.30. Too early for garages/mechanics but not for scrap merchants? That the only person we know to be prepped and ready, to know that Jodi would be missing, was Mitchell. That if any call had been made, then it was Mitchell who made it. That any details in this call, must have been extremely vague. For the only call that the police responded to, was the one made by Jodi's mother at 10.50pm.
So, yes rulesapply. I firmly believe these statements were clarified to Mitchell leading the dog. Not once had they agreed with Mitchell, this nonsense, inference of alerting to Jodi, of leading "them" to Jodi. These were Mitchells claims, his words. And he described, as they did. Of the dog with him, going straight across that trampled ground. Directly to the V. That if people in their blindness, are naive enough to claim they were all inferring the same as Mitchell - more fool them. By simply accepting the assumption of a person, who's bias stemmed from that collusion, between a murderer, his mother and herself. Who has been caught time and again, of manipulating evidence so far to the extreme it becomes almost intangible. Where it could not be any plainer, that she uses people, as pawns, smokescreens to divert away from the lies, the evidence the Mitchells gave.
That those claims of being able to back everything up, should be enough and are for the most part, to make the sensible amongst us know - only a fool puts faith in the unknown. That outwith legalities of not having those files (not supposed to), there has in reality, been nothing other than back up, to clearly show, those half truths, misinformation and downright lies. - And no, a further investigation should not be done on this basis, to appease anyone into seeing if Leans assumptions, her narrative hold any water. Chinese whispers and tittle tattle and any old nonsense misinformation, is not evidence - It does not, in the slightest change the evidence that convicted Luke Mitchell.
Exactly. Why would I believe anything that isn't in the public domain? I'm not the kind of girl to fall into a cult and I'm not religious so why would I put blind faith in a mere human being who refuses to show me and others their supposed proof? I won't because I'm perfectly capable of thinking for myself. They don't think for me.
-
He’s a fraudster and most of what comes out of his mouth is made up
https://www.publicpolicerecord.com/arizona/doc-prisoner/SHAUN_ATTWOOD/187160
I’ve listened to some snippets of his chat with Sandra Lean (it’s far too long & the pair of them are so full of bs its unlikely I’ll listen to the entire thing) and at some point Sandra mentions the police and their noses
In a chat with Jon Wedger ➡️ https://trollexposure.wordpress.com/2021/06/19/what-you-can-find-under-rocks/
Shaun Attwood can be found in the above ⬆️ blog too btw 🙄
Wedger refers to his policeman’s nose 🙄 which wasn’t the phrase he used but it’s here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qWqYWCwblLo (If anyone wants to listen to a couple of ‘money grabbing’ morons together talking utter nonsense)
All I have learned about him so far is he was incarcerated in an American jail, for running an ecstasy ring in Arizona. The same time that Sammy the Bull was also running one. Shaun Attwood was featured in an episode of Banged up Abroad.
-
LM. His visit to RDP to go over his map. Showing the police just how far past he claimed they had all went. That difficulty. For Luke Mitchell had not mentioned anything around that dog, having to wade it's way through. Shrubs, tall grass, nettles. Even trees. Where the wall is barely visible. Those several feet to cross between the path and the wall. That abundance of other smells. Every sort of excretion from the many dogs there before. Of other animals. Along the edge and into the overgrowth. For what LM had described was that clearing. That direct access to the wall. Where the ground in that narrow path, that had been trampled over time, with feet accessing the woodland via the V. - And there was no doubt in the police's mind, that the search trio had been telling the truth, from that very first account. That LM and his dog, had went directly to the V break, over that clearing. Not a foot past it.
So we had Mitchell, that alibi in place, that dog up at the wall. And those arms and legs, striving to show the police that he had been far enough past that V, to even make it sound plausible in the slightest, that the dog had miraculously picked up some scent. Through the abundance of all those other smells. To pick up what exactly? That contradiction from Lean of believing Jodi had been murdered elsewhere? That he had nothing to scent with of Jodi's, and by Leans reckoning very little in the way of blood. Which we know is nonsense. Due to rainfall, pore space of soil and so forth. That space between the path and the wall, that overgrowth and all else. The more he tried to clarify, to make it seem plausible the bigger the hole he dug. - For he had not been a foot past that V break. Straight to it. And those 20 mins on the path prior to the search trio arriving, of any other scents left by Mitchell and his dog on the way up. Of what was to transpire, that even here, Mitchell had led his dog to the wall at the V break, by his own description of the wall.
Those clear clarifications - of three people maintaining as they always stated, that Michell and his dog went to the V. Of Mitchells clarification, of striving to make his tale believable. Of his dog being almost at the same spot to where Jodi lay in the woods. Across that overgrowth, over that wall . - Caught in his own lies. Nothing in the slightest to do with the search trio. They did not make Mitchell in his clarification, lie even more.
And this prepped and ready. Waiting anxiously on that call/text from Jodi's parents. Now we know already Lean has fed people Mitchells lies. But I wanted to pick up on this claimed call to the emergency services. Of Jodi being reported missing before she was known to be missing? It is hard to work fact from fiction with Lean. Where most is based upon half truths and misinformation. But of no phone number? And of Mitchell and his PAYG sims. Of impatiently waiting since 10pm. Like the scarp yard theories, of SM, one has to seriously consider here. Did LM call the emergency services? For I firmly believe, all these notions stem from the Mitchells, of truth closer to home. Of SM and cars. Does anyone know if he worked for a scrap merchants back in 2003? For his finish time most days was to be home by 3.30. Too early for garages/mechanics but not for scrap merchants? That the only person we know to be prepped and ready, to know that Jodi would be missing, was Mitchell. That if any call had been made, then it was Mitchell who made it. That any details in this call, must have been extremely vague. For the only call that the police responded to, was the one made by Jodi's mother at 10.50pm.
So, yes rulesapply. I firmly believe these statements were clarified to Mitchell leading the dog. Not once had they agreed with Mitchell, this nonsense, inference of alerting to Jodi, of leading "them" to Jodi. These were Mitchells claims, his words. And he described, as they did. Of the dog with him, going straight across that trampled ground. Directly to the V. That if people in their blindness, are naive enough to claim they were all inferring the same as Mitchell - more fool them. By simply accepting the assumption of a person, who's bias stemmed from that collusion, between a murderer, his mother and herself. Who has been caught time and again, of manipulating evidence so far to the extreme it becomes almost intangible. Where it could not be any plainer, that she uses people, as pawns, smokescreens to divert away from the lies, the evidence the Mitchells gave.
That those claims of being able to back everything up, should be enough and are for the most part, to make the sensible amongst us know - only a fool puts faith in the unknown. That outwith legalities of not having those files (not supposed to), there has in reality, been nothing other than back up, to clearly show, those half truths, misinformation and downright lies. - And no, a further investigation should not be done on this basis, to appease anyone into seeing if Leans assumptions, her narrative hold any water. Chinese whispers and tittle tattle and any old nonsense misinformation, is not evidence - It does not, in the slightest change the evidence that convicted Luke Mitchell.
Your line of thought is well considered. However it's wrong. If you have a 1000 piece jigsaw and 50 pieces are missing, you'll never create the whole picture. That's the problem for anyone trying to decipher this. Information is completely missing. The search party statements were changed why? [Name removed] shaved all his hair off why? The moped disappeared why? The answer to those questions is obvious. The moped was melted down in a local metal works plant. It was turned into a can of Heinz Beans. The location of WHERE it was melted down is no secret, but it can't be proved 18 years later obviously.
Mitchell was not the person who did this. No trace of DNA, hair, blood nothing at the scene or on his clothes or in his house??? It's not possible. Even more so as he would have to have got rid of every trace in 45 minutes. Impossible.
-
I learned how a clock worked in nursery. Seems like as an adult, you are struggling a wee bit with that.
Here I will be a gentleman and have provided you a link to understand how time works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF-qz124XEQ
I think WW’s timing is on the generous side. Jodi’s TOD, according to the police, was 5.15. Luke was seen standing on the Newbattle Road at around 5.50-5.55 ( not RW’s sighting ) so he could have had as little as 35 minutes to get ‘cleaned up’.
-
I think WW’s timing is on the generous side. Jodi’s TOD, according to the police, was 5.15. Luke was seen standing on the Newbattle Road at around 5.50-5.55 ( not RW’s sighting ) so he could have had as little as 35 minutes to get ‘cleaned up’.
I don't. How long does it take to knock someone either unconscious or semi conscious and kill them? The clean up? I reckon LM had help. He must have had help. I believe LM is guilty. The bit I don't get is Sandra Lean's defence of LM for 18 years. Sandra Lean is no fool. Never once have I taken SL for a fool. So, if she's not a fool, why do you think she's put everything on the back burner for a stranger? A stranger she can't get out of prison?
-
I don't. How long does it take to knock someone either unconscious or semi conscious and kill them? The clean up? I reckon LM had help. He must have had help. I believe LM is guilty. The bit I don't get is Sandra Lean's defence of LM for 18 years. Sandra Lean is no fool. Never once have I taken SL for a fool. So, if she's not a fool, why do you think she's put everything on the back burner for a stranger? A stranger she can't get out of prison?
I doubt she has put everything else on the back burner!
I agree she's not a fool. She is standing up for what she believes in, ie that Luke Mitchell did not murder Jodi Jones. Now, she might be wrong, but she is willing to take that risk, and all the abuse that goes with it.
I wouldn't be as brave!
-
I doubt she has put everything else on the back burner!
I agree she's not a fool. She is standing up for what she believes in, ie that Luke Mitchell did not murder Jodi Jones. Now, she might be wrong, but she is willing to take that risk, and all the abuse that goes with it.
I wouldn't be as brave!
Is it courage, or is it a way of making a name and career for oneself? I wonder….
-
Is it courage, or is it a way of making a name and career for oneself? I wonder….
There have to be easier ways of making a name and a career for oneself, IMO.!
-
I doubt she has put everything else on the back burner!
I agree she's not a fool. She is standing up for what she believes in, ie that Luke Mitchell did not murder Jodi Jones. Now, she might be wrong, but she is willing to take that risk, and all the abuse that goes with it.
I wouldn't be as brave!
The abuse is a two way street. Thanks for replying. I can almost always guarantee that you have replied to me before I log in. Even if you have hardly commented at all.
-
Any way you look at it, SL & SF have made a name for themselves on the back of this case.
-
Any way you look at it, SL & SF have made a name for themselves on the back of this case.
Agreed. Don't know about you but I had heard of neither, in a professional capacity, until recently..
-
Is it courage, or is it a way of making a name and career for oneself? I wonder….
All down to perception. Where exactly has Ms Lean been brave? Ms Lean has not spent years, tirelessly campaigning away for Mitchell. She has spent most of those years as a student. Goal? To become a budding criminologist/author. This two way street of give and take. This high profile case of using controversary to gain attention. Of trying to push out that Mitchell could be innocent. Attempting to show that a MOJ may have taken place, in any format. Right down to a technical error. Where she has attempted to tick every single box. Based upon half truths, misinformation and downright lies. All done on the back of pretence, of pushing out some sense of false worth.
Devious and deceitful - very brave components. are they not? This latest debacle yet again, of Ovens. Of myself stating several weeks ago of Ovens being a witness at court in response to WW. I spend no time tirelessly at points sourcing, as one of the main points I try to enforce, is that Lean does not do this. I have no interest in whether people choose to believe the Crowns case, or of other information that has come to light over these years through many discussions. Of what I myself gained in knowledge whilst studying. To show to people, that whilst Lean may claim to have this knowledge, of pulling those rabbits out of a hat, by way of this 5% verbatim. She is proving nothing, no context. That her assumptions and narrative are not the missing context. That lying by omission only works for those foolish enough to put blind faith in something, the unknown.
Another area I have tried to highlight is this fallacy of Ms Lean holding everything in her hands. Nonsense. Which had been getting touted out before "No Smoke" was written, of those blatant half truths in the book. Of "careful examination of witness statements" - The half truth, that Ms Lean had witnessed hearing, parts of witness testimony. Which morphed itself into that false premise, of actually having those statements. And one can work themselves right up to IB. Through every discussion, every claim made prior to this. That fallacy again. That in her hands she held everything upon this case. When all she has ever had is DF's hand me downs along with any media reports, and whatever has been fed direct by the Mitchells. Fed to her at a time, they, the murderer, his mother and self, believed there would be no arrest. Where she has built upon those shaky foundations borne of lies, and added to them. By using this imaginary power tool, to fool people, to gain support, support for the half truths, misinformation and downright lies.
That complete false premise that the book is "The true story of the murder of Jodi Jones" where by way of deceit, Ms Lean has done nothing more than tarnish the memory of this girl. By way of that misinformation, half truths and lies. Where those foolish enough believe every word on the basis of that lie. That she has held everything on this case, thus accept every wrongful claim about the police, the Jones family, other witnesses and on it goes. Over LM. Using this case, in it's notoriety has she not, to pave the way for her own goals. To become some criminologist/author. To be recognised. For is is certainly not the truth that she seeks, nor speaks.
Areas I have highlighted, just a couple. Going to start with Ovens here. Of what I have always said. That what Ms Lean has always had is limited. She did not attend the trial, and she does not have the full trial transcripts. To only now, bring to light, after it being pushed in her face (yet again) by way of getting directly asked. That she is claiming to have been unaware that Ovens had been a witness at trial. That she had not found anything herself through "MSM" or the trial transcripts. And onto Mr Kelly's statement of alibi. Onto those phone logs, and onto the elimination of people in the investigation. Where on the latter she uses JF as way of her half truth. That due to it being in a statement, of him making this claim. Not the police, not any direct information and knowledge of the actual investigation. She has applied this notion across the board. As she has done with most everything. And it is all hogwash.
She has never had near enough of anything, to be making any claims that she does. It is all founded upon lies. Directly from the Mitchells in that calm before the storm period in time. Where she has built from this, seeking only to prove her self. For gain in this two way street, based from that clear collusion of bias between those three people. A liar, plus another liar and onto the third. - You could not get a better combination of craws together. Where it could not be clearer to those not readily fooled, that they have become mere puppets for these people. Spreading those lies, spreading that hate upon Jodi's family, the police, these others, the system. Passing the blame from Mitchell upon it being Jodi's fault that day, from his mother for also blaming Jodi and onto Lean. Whom we know carries no responsibility, no blame. As we see yet again with Ovens. Where she knew fine well he had testified at court. She has let this all, as she does grown it's arms and legs. Until pushed to the point, of passing the buck.
-
All down to perception. Where exactly has Ms Lean been brave? Ms Lean has not spent years, tirelessly campaigning away for Mitchell. She has spent most of those years as a student. Goal? To become a budding criminologist/author. This two way street of give and take. This high profile case of using controversary to gain attention. Of trying to push out that Mitchell could be innocent. Attempting to show that a MOJ may have taken place, in any format. Right down to a technical error. Where she has attempted to tick every single box. Based upon half truths, misinformation and downright lies. All done on the back of pretence, of pushing out some sense of false worth.
Devious and deceitful - very brave components. are they not? This latest debacle yet again, of Ovens. Of myself stating several weeks ago of Ovens being a witness at court in response to WW. I spend no time tirelessly at points sourcing, as one of the main points I try to enforce, is that Lean does not do this. I have no interest in whether people choose to believe the Crowns case, or of other information that has come to light over these years through many discussions. Of what I myself gained in knowledge whilst studying. To show to people, that whilst Lean may claim to have this knowledge, of pulling those rabbits out of a hat, by way of this 5% verbatim. She is proving nothing, no context. That her assumptions and narrative are not the missing context. That lying by omission only works for those foolish enough to put blind faith in something, the unknown.
Another area I have tried to highlight is this fallacy of Ms Lean holding everything in her hands. Nonsense. Which had been getting touted out before "No Smoke" was written, of those blatant half truths in the book. Of "careful examination of witness statements" - The half truth, that Ms Lean had witnessed hearing, parts of witness testimony. Which morphed itself into that false premise, of actually having those statements. And one can work themselves right up to IB. Through every discussion, every claim made prior to this. That fallacy again. That in her hands she held everything upon this case. When all she has ever had is DF's hand me downs along with any media reports, and whatever has been fed direct by the Mitchells. Fed to her at a time, they, the murderer, his mother and self, believed there would be no arrest. Where she has built upon those shaky foundations borne of lies, and added to them. By using this imaginary power tool, to fool people, to gain support, support for the half truths, misinformation and downright lies.
That complete false premise that the book is "The true story of the murder of Jodi Jones" where by way of deceit, Ms Lean has done nothing more than tarnish the memory of this girl. By way of that misinformation, half truths and lies. Where those foolish enough believe every word on the basis of that lie. That she has held everything on this case, thus accept every wrongful claim about the police, the Jones family, other witnesses and on it goes. Over LM. Using this case, in it's notoriety has she not, to pave the way for her own goals. To become some criminologist/author. To be recognised. For is is certainly not the truth that she seeks, nor speaks.
Areas I have highlighted, just a couple. Going to start with Ovens here. Of what I have always said. That what Ms Lean has always had is limited. She did not attend the trial, and she does not have the full trial transcripts. To only now, bring to light, after it being pushed in her face (yet again) by way of getting directly asked. That she is claiming to have been unaware that Ovens had been a witness at trial. That she had not found anything herself through "MSM" or the trial transcripts. And onto Mr Kelly's statement of alibi. Onto those phone logs, and onto the elimination of people in the investigation. Where on the latter she uses JF as way of her half truth. That due to it being in a statement, of him making this claim. Not the police, not any direct information and knowledge of the actual investigation. She has applied this notion across the board. As she has done with most everything. And it is all hogwash.
She has never had near enough of anything, to be making any claims that she does. It is all founded upon lies. Directly from the Mitchells in that calm before the storm period in time. Where she has built from this, seeking only to prove her self. For gain in this two way street, based from that clear collusion of bias between those three people. A liar, plus another liar and onto the third. - You could not get a better combination of craws together. Where it could not be clearer to those not readily fooled, that they have become mere puppets for these people. Spreading those lies, spreading that hate upon Jodi's family, the police, these others, the system. Passing the blame from Mitchell upon it being Jodi's fault that day, from his mother for also blaming Jodi and onto Lean. Whom we know carries no responsibility, no blame. As we see yet again with Ovens. Where she knew fine well he had testified at court. She has let this all, as she does grown it's arms and legs. Until pushed to the point, of passing the buck.
And NONE of the appeals based on Luke Mitchell's innocence.
-
There have to be easier ways of making a name and a career for oneself, IMO.!
I disagree. I think attaching yourself to a high profile case and making yourself the spokesperson for a famous murderer is a pretty quick route to notoriety. So she gets online abuse? Who doesn’t frankly? Is every footballer, popstar, reality tv star and member of the Royal Family also brave in your view?
-
I doubt she has put everything else on the back burner!
I agree she's not a fool. She is standing up for what she believes in, ie that Luke Mitchell did not murder Jodi Jones. Now, she might be wrong, but she is willing to take that risk, and all the abuse that goes with it.
I wouldn't be as brave!
Brave? Judy Jones is brave.
-
Brave? Judy Jones is brave.
I don't think I could be anything like as brave as Judy Jones, either!
-
I disagree. I think attaching yourself to a high profile case and making yourself the spokesperson for a famous murderer is a pretty quick route to notoriety. So she gets online abuse? Who doesn’t frankly? Is every footballer, popstar, reality tv star and member of the Royal Family also brave in your view?
I believe she has had "in person" abuse too.
Yes, I think she is brave. I don't agree with the majority of people on this forum who denigrate her efforts, but that's ok. I believe what I believe, until I see incontrovertable proof that everything she says is lies.
-
I believe she has had "in person" abuse too.
Yes, I think she is brave. I don't agree with the majority of people on this forum who denigrate her efforts, but that's ok. I believe what I believe, until I see incontrovertable proof that everything she says is lies.
I doubt anyone is claiming that everything she says is lies are they? That's a separate issue. The question was more about her motives I thought. She probably thinks she's doing good work. Most "do-gooders" do, but is it utterly selfless and brave of her, or does she get something out of it on a personal level which is nothing about justice and everything to do with enjoying the attention and carving out a career for herself in the process? I'm not accusing btw, only asking questions... ?{)(**
-
I don't. How long does it take to knock someone either unconscious or semi conscious and kill them? The clean up? I reckon LM had help. He must have had help.
Aye his mother.
-
I doubt anyone is claiming that everything she says is lies are they? That's a separate issue. The question was more about her motives I thought. She probably thinks she's doing good work. Most "do-gooders" do, but is it utterly selfless and brave of her, or does she get something out of it on a personal level which is nothing about justice and everything to do with enjoying the attention and carving out a career for herself in the process? I'm not accusing btw, only asking questions... ?{)(**
I expect she does get something out of it on a personal level, just as I did when I was teaching kids with special needs.
Who is totally selfless in this world? I don't expect her to be, but I would be extremely disappointed if I were to discover that she is the liar that some people say she is.
But, I don't believe she is!
-
Aye his mother.
And do you have evidence of this?
-
Any way you look at it, SL & SF have made a name for themselves on the back of this case.
If SL and SF made a name for themselves off the back of the case, what has JH done?
-
And do you have evidence of this?
Oh so now you want to reply and start making demands for evidence. But when the shoe is on the other foot, you suddenly go into lurker mode.
His mother helped or witnessed the burning of the jacket, she most certainly cleaned up the house and lied for him, proved in court. I don't need to provide evidence, I have what a lot of Mitchell apologists seems to be lacking, common sense.
-
Oh so now you want to reply and start making demands for evidence. But when the shoe is on the other foot, you suddenly go into lurker mode.
His mother helped or witnessed the burning of the jacket, she most certainly cleaned up the house and lied for him, proved in court. I don't need to provide evidence, I have what a lot of Mitchell apologists seems to be lacking, common sense.
Not true.
-
Oh so now you want to reply and start making demands for evidence. But when the shoe is on the other foot, you suddenly go into lurker mode.
His mother helped or witnessed the burning of the jacket, she most certainly cleaned up the house and lied for him, proved in court. I don't need to provide evidence, I have what a lot of Mitchell apologists seems to be lacking, common sense.
I have common sense too---at least, I hope so!
How do you know for certain what Corinne Mitchell did or didn't do? Where is the evidence that she burned a jacket? I don't think there is any !
Not saying that Luke didn't get rid of a jacket somehow. He might be guilty, and I might be wrong---I will always admit to this---but the evidence of a parka jacket being burned in a small woodburner just doesn't cut it for me.
-
I have common sense too---at least, I hope so!
How do you know for certain what Corinne Mitchell did or didn't do? Where is the evidence that she burned a jacket? I don't think there is any !
Not saying that Luke didn't get rid of a jacket somehow. He might be guilty, and I might be wrong---I will always admit to this---but the evidence of a parka jacket being burned in a small woodburner just doesn't cut it for me.
I agree about the parka. There is no evidence that one was burnt by Corrine or anyone else.
-
Oh so now you want to reply and start making demands for evidence. But when the shoe is on the other foot, you suddenly go into lurker mode.
His mother helped or witnessed the burning of the jacket, she most certainly cleaned up the house and lied for him, proved in court. I don't need to provide evidence, I have what a lot of Mitchell apologists seems to be lacking, common sense.
Oh, and yes, as a moderator, of course I'm going to "lurk" !!!
-
just doesn't cut it for me.
Ah well.
-
I agree about the parka. There is no evidence that one was burnt by Corrine or anyone else.
I agree with you too. I haven't seen evidence of this ever happening.
-
Why do people on these sites not use there real names. They give the impression they know so many facts about this case and everyone else who has an opinion is wrong. These same people seem to hide behind user names. They are all quick to name and shame others who have opinions, knowledge, history of the case. So many people slagged off for comments on facebook.
-
Why do people on these sites not use there real names. They give the impression they know so many facts about this case and everyone else who has an opinion is wrong. These same people seem to hide behind user names. They are all quick to name and shame others who have opinions, knowledge, history of the case. So many people slagged off for comments on facebook.
If you have any queries or vast claims regarding this closed case, then please feel free to express yourself.
-
Why do people on these sites not use there real names. They give the impression they know so many facts about this case and everyone else who has an opinion is wrong. These same people seem to hide behind user names. They are all quick to name and shame others who have opinions, knowledge, history of the case. So many people slagged off for comments on facebook.
Welcome to the forum, Lynn. Please would you introduce yourself on the new members' thread.
Many people use "user names" on this forum, including me, but some people do use their real names. The decision is up to them.
Some people know more than others regarding this case. I get the impression a number of posters are "locals", and, for all I know, may have known the families involved. Some might even have attended the trial. Some agree with Dr Sandra Lean's take on the case, while others don't.
I don't know about Facebook, but the moderators here will do their very best to remove rude and insulting posts, so don't be afraid to post your own opinions.
-
Thank you for the welcome. That makes sense regarding peoples names. I think I was having an off moment when I messaged last night
-
LM. His visit to RDP to go over his map. Showing the police just how far past he claimed they had all went. That difficulty. For Luke Mitchell had not mentioned anything around that dog, having to wade it's way through. Shrubs, tall grass, nettles. Even trees. Where the wall is barely visible. Those several feet to cross between the path and the wall. That abundance of other smells. Every sort of excretion from the many dogs there before. Of other animals. Along the edge and into the overgrowth. For what LM had described was that clearing. That direct access to the wall. Where the ground in that narrow path, that had been trampled over time, with feet accessing the woodland via the V. - And there was no doubt in the police's mind, that the search trio had been telling the truth, from that very first account. That LM and his dog, had went directly to the V break, over that clearing. Not a foot past it.
So we had Mitchell, that alibi in place, that dog up at the wall. And those arms and legs, striving to show the police that he had been far enough past that V, to even make it sound plausible in the slightest, that the dog had miraculously picked up some scent. Through the abundance of all those other smells. To pick up what exactly? That contradiction from Lean of believing Jodi had been murdered elsewhere? That he had nothing to scent with of Jodi's, and by Leans reckoning very little in the way of blood. Which we know is nonsense. Due to rainfall, pore space of soil and so forth. That space between the path and the wall, that overgrowth and all else. The more he tried to clarify, to make it seem plausible the bigger the hole he dug. - For he had not been a foot past that V break. Straight to it. And those 20 mins on the path prior to the search trio arriving, of any other scents left by Mitchell and his dog on the way up. Of what was to transpire, that even here, Mitchell had led his dog to the wall at the V break, by his own description of the wall.
Those clear clarifications - of three people maintaining as they always stated, that Michell and his dog went to the V. Of Mitchells clarification, of striving to make his tale believable. Of his dog being almost at the same spot to where Jodi lay in the woods. Across that overgrowth, over that wall . - Caught in his own lies. Nothing in the slightest to do with the search trio. They did not make Mitchell in his clarification, lie even more.
I haven't read the statements, Parky but I don't believe there was a conspiracy against Luke Mitchell. I think the police became suspicious of LM very early on because of LM's own actions and because he is guilty.
-
Thank you for the welcome. That makes sense regarding peoples names. I think I was having an off moment when I messaged last night
Hi. My first few attempts were much worse than yours ?{)(**
Even now......
-
I haven't read the statements, Parky but I don't believe there was a conspiracy against Luke Mitchell. I think the police became suspicious of LM very early on because of LM's own actions and because he is guilty.
Nothing to with the Police making many mistakes that should never have happened. Then looking the incompetents they were continued to rush in.
From the start Luke was marked as a suspect not because of his behaviour but because of theirs.
I would be really interested to know if Luke hadn't been convicted or either someone else had or no one then what would you say.
It's easy to sound sure because of his conviction not his guilt.
Which main points would have convinced you of his guilt without his conviction?
-
Nothing to with the Police making many mistakes that should never have happened. Then looking the incompetents they were continued to rush in.
From the start Luke was marked as a suspect not because of his behaviour but because of theirs.
I would be really interested to know if Luke hadn't been convicted or either someone else had or no one then what would you say.
It's easy to sound sure because of his conviction not his guilt.
Which main points would have convinced you of his guilt without his conviction?
How could I possibly know what I would say nearly two decades on if someone else had been convicted or if Luke hadn't?
The point is, he was found guilty by a jury who heard everything. Without that same information available no one has been able to convince me Luke Mitchell isn't guilty and I have always wondered why not a single appeal was ever been based on his innocence.
-
How could I possibly know what I would say nearly two decades on if someone else had been convicted or if Luke hadn't?
The point is, he was found guilty by a jury who heard everything. Without that same information available no one has been able to convince me Luke Mitchell isn't guilty and I have always wondered why not a single appeal was ever been based on his innocence.
Well time doesn't matter. Your posts keep assuming all that happened nearly 20 years ago including facts that aren't actual facts just your opinions. So this is a natural follow on question.
Anyone who thinks he is innocent have reasons based on facts so it just seems strange to me that those who believe him to be guilty can put forward weird and wonderful scenarios as they see fit. As long as it's pointed out imo etc etc.
The time spent on here telling us how guilty he is I would have thought there would have been quite a list 18 years on or not
-
Well time doesn't matter. Your posts keep assuming all that happened nearly 20 years ago including facts that aren't actual facts just your opinions. So this is a natural follow on question.
Anyone who thinks he is innocent have reasons based on facts so it just seems strange to me that those who believe him to be guilty can put forward weird and wonderful scenarios as they see fit. As long as it's pointed out imo etc etc.
The time spent on here telling us how guilty he is I would have thought there would have been quite a list 18 years on or not
What facts? No one's allowed to see any. Very little is in the public domain, according to SL.
-
Well time doesn't matter. Your posts keep assuming all that happened nearly 20 years ago including facts that aren't actual facts just your opinions. So this is a natural follow on question.
Anyone who thinks he is innocent have reasons based on facts so it just seems strange to me that those who believe him to be guilty can put forward weird and wonderful scenarios as they see fit. As long as it's pointed out imo etc etc.
The time spent on here telling us how guilty he is I would have thought there would have been quite a list 18 years on or not
If there is fact after fact to prove his innocence then why were none of Luke Mitchell's appeals based on his innocence?
-
Well time doesn't matter. Your posts keep assuming all that happened nearly 20 years ago including facts that aren't actual facts just your opinions. So this is a natural follow on question.
Anyone who thinks he is innocent have reasons based on facts so it just seems strange to me that those who believe him to be guilty can put forward weird and wonderful scenarios as they see fit. As long as it's pointed out imo etc etc.
The time spent on here telling us how guilty he is I would have thought there would have been quite a list 18 years on or not
What we should never tire of pointing out too is that the jury who sat through all the evidence failed to bring back a majority verdict. In fact the split could have been as close as 8/7. How anyone can say that they are convinced of Luke’s when even a proportion of the jury weren’t puzzles me.
-
What we should never tire of pointing out too is that the jury who sat through all the evidence failed to bring back a majority verdict. In fact the split could have been as close as 8/7. How anyone can say that they are convinced of Luke’s when even a proportion of the jury weren’t puzzles me.
Can't argue with that...
-
If there is fact after fact to prove his innocence then why were none of Luke Mitchell's appeals based on his innocence?
Do you have any idea how hard it is to overturn a conviction?
Even those those who have managed it most have multiple attempts. That is not confirmation of guilt it just highlights how hard it is.
When there is no evidence to convict or very little that doesnt leave much to be challenged.
-
What facts? No one's allowed to see any. Very little is in the public domain, according to SL.
According to the law not just SL.
-
What we should never tire of pointing out too is that the jury who sat through all the evidence failed to bring back a majority verdict. In fact the split could have been as close as 8/7. How anyone can say that they are convinced of Luke’s when even a proportion of the jury weren’t puzzles me.
The jury did indeed bring back a majority verdict! They failed to bring back a unanimous verdict. Which means it could have been as little as one juror failed to be convinced of his guilt. Should also never tire of pointing out that jury also had the option of not proven verdict !
-
Do you have any idea how hard it is to overturn a conviction?
Even those those who have managed it most have multiple attempts. That is not confirmation of guilt it just highlights how hard it is.
When there is no evidence to convict or very little that doesnt leave much to be challenged.
When trying to over turn this conviction, why was Luke Mitchell's innocence never the reason for any of his appeals?
-
The jury did indeed bring back a majority verdict! They failed to bring back a unanimous verdict. Which means it could have been as little as one juror failed to be convinced of his guilt. Should also never tire of pointing out that jury also had the option of not proven verdict !
The did indeed. That’s why I think a unanimous verdict should be the only accepted verdict. Anything else is not beyond reasonable doubt.
-
When trying to over turn this conviction, why was Luke Mitchell's innocence never the reason for any of his appeals?
Perhaps it may be useful for you to do a little reading into the appeal process.
-
When trying to over turn this conviction, why was Luke Mitchell's innocence never the reason for any of his appeals?
Have you not read the grounds of appeal or do you not understand them and the whole process?
-
Enough of the jurors were convinced of his guilt to convict, otherwise the not proven verdict was an option.
If his verdict was innocent or not proven by a majority would you still be insisting that only unanimous verdict is acceptable?
This question was for faithlilly. Apologies I never quoted your comment that you think only unanimous verdicts should be accepted
-
Perhaps it may be useful for you to do a little reading into the appeal process.
Yeah, ok. Doesn't change the fact though that now, nothing less than innocence will do. LM won't accept a technicality! Could that be because all technicalities are exhausted? I think so because a technicality was certainly good enough in the past. Until it wasn't.
-
Yeah, ok. Doesn't change the fact though that now, nothing less than innocence will do. LM won't accept a technicality! Could that be because all technicalities are exhausted? I think so because a technicality was certainly good enough in the past. Until it wasn't.
Sorry but that whole statement is just silly
-
Sorry but that whole statement is just silly
Ok but I think most people will be able to understand it.
-
Ok but I think most people will be able to understand it.
It's not about understanding or not
-
It's not about understanding or not
Clearly. However, LM was found guilty by a jury and no one has been able to show me any different. No proof, nothing in the public domain. Just faith please. I'd like something concrete before I give it any faith.
-
Clearly. However, LM was found guilty by a jury and no one has been able to show me any different. No proof, nothing in the public domain. Just faith please. I'd like something concrete before I give it any faith.
How long was it that you said you’d been following the case?
-
How long was it that you said you’d been following the case?
Probably, on line, since the end of February/March. At least, following the case seriously. How long have you been following the case?
-
How long was it that you said you’d been following the case?
Anyway, no one has shown me any proof of Luke Mitchell's innocence. Despite the campaign to forward his innocence and change minds, there is nothing in the public domain to change my mind.
-
Shaun Attwood is renowned for making things up
I’m not at all surprised someone like Sandra Lean would want to couple up with him
Good to see his nonsense You Tube channel has been closed down.
-
Good to see his nonsense You Tube channel has been closed down.
Thanks for that. Just read it.
-
Just because you demand answers and things to go your way doesn't mean people have to do it.
You don't believe Luke is innocent and I'm not really sure why you are here. Other than putting forward strange scenarios based on nothing much really just your own thoughts
maybe you need to stay on track. Just a thought.
I don't believe Luke is innocent and you don't believe why I'm here? Thought this is a forum for everyone?
-
I know but I'm sure you can post more relevant information give it a try.
Try to stay on topic. It saves all of us from being pulled up.
-
Good to see his nonsense You Tube channel has been closed down.
Good news. Should have been done after his creepy daddygate nonsense.
-
Good news. Should have been done after his creepy daddygate nonsense.
8)--))
-
Good news. Should have been done after his creepy daddygate nonsense.
I take the hint 👍
-
Let's just call it exactly what it is. Rubbish.
You’re a bit hard on yourself there.
-
You’re a bit hard on yourself there.
Are you assuming you know what I was talking about? Show me proof, any proof, that LM is innocent. That's what you're doing here, surely?
-
Have you been drinking?
Not enough…I’m still answering you.
-
Good to see his nonsense You Tube channel has been closed down.
Yes I saw that today 8((()*/
I listened to this ⬇️ recently re
‘Shaun Attwood Questioned & CHARGED by Child Protection Officers’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTO2mTHcTCk
-
Yes I saw that today 8((()*/
I listened to this ⬇️ recently re
‘Shaun Attwood Questioned & CHARGED by Child Protection Officers’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTO2mTHcTCk
Let me get this straight. Dr Lean was interviewed by Shawn Attwood. Shawn Attwood has been charged. And? Is Dr Lean supposed to be tainted by her interviewer’s behaviour? Was Princess Diana tainted by Martin Bashir’s nefarious activities?
-
Good news. Should have been done after his creepy daddygate nonsense.
He is a total creep
Re ‘daddy gate’ ⬇️
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=agJMQ0Elp5E
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3hJe4q8esuo
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XFgzNwtlYJM
And it would appear none of the above phases Sandra Lean
-
Let me get this straight. Dr Lean was interviewed by Shawn Attwood. Shawn Attwood has been charged. And? Is Dr Lean supposed to be tainted by her interviewer’s behaviour? Was Princess Diana tainted by Martin Bashir’s nefarious activities?
I assume that if anyone is going to be interviewed about such a serious case they would do proper research on who was interviewing them. So many red flags concerning Attwood that would make most people run a mile from an interview with him so as not to damage their campaign. Unless of course they're so desperate that anyone interviews them that Even a degenerate like Attwood will do!
-
Let me get this straight. Dr Lean was interviewed by Shawn Attwood. Shawn Attwood has been charged. And? Is Dr Lean supposed to be tainted by her interviewer’s behaviour? Was Princess Diana tainted by Martin Bashir’s nefarious activities?
Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that these men are, initially, the creeps. SL chooses to entertain men in her documentaries who are, notoriously, unreliable. I do.not believe that SL doesn't know the history of these men before the documentary is aired.
-
I assume that if anyone is going to be interviewed about such a serious case they would do proper research on who was interviewing them. So many red flags concerning Attwood that would make most people run a mile from an interview with him so as not to damage their campaign. Unless of course they're so desperate that anyone interviews them that Even a degenerate like Attwood will do!
If Dr Lean would sup with the devil to raise awareness of Luke’s plight I for one commend her sacrifice.
-
If Dr Lean would sup with the devil to raise awareness of Luke’s plight I for one commend her sacrifice.
I have no idea what the devil has to do with this. Ask LM or SL but don't get back to me till the morning.
-
You are a joker...you are so predictable it was obvious you were going to say that.
I don't post on here every day at all hours...now who does that demanding legal docs YOU have NO right to see. How strange
What are you talking about? SL has a history of dealing with unhinged men.
-
I assume that if anyone is going to be interviewed about such a serious case they would do proper research on who was interviewing them.
and Sandra Lean claims to be a ‘researcher’
-
What are you talking about? SL has a history of dealing with unhinged men.
Not sure what you think when you post but what has that got to do with me
-
What are you talking about? SL has a history of dealing with unhinged men.
If someone asks me to believe then I have every right to see. Why wouldn't I have that right?
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3hJe4q8esuo
And it would appear none of the above phases Sandra Lean
The content of some of the above video reminds me in some ways of Mr McCafferty & Sandra Leans go fund me’ for Corinne Mitchell
-
I'm a predictable joker? Really? Show me your proof or could it just be that someone else is calling you out for your astronomic BS??
Maybe if your posts make any sense you might get some answers. You reply to yourself then you reply to others when you clearly have the wrong person
-
I think you need to have a coffee or something. Your reply to my post makes no sense so you try again. Maybe slow down in the rush to be right.
Let's talk about this quest being more to do with a need SL has.
-
Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that these men are, initially, the creeps. SL chooses to entertain men in her documentaries who are, notoriously, unreliable. I do.not believe that SL doesn't know the history of these men before the documentary is aired.
Me neither
-
What are you talking about? SL has a history of dealing with unhinged men.
Dangerous and sadistic men
and dangerous & sadistic men who choose to commit murder
-
I think you need to have a coffee or something. Your reply to my post makes no sense so you try again. Maybe slow down in the rush to be right.
Pimms o’clock I presume.
-
I'll decide when I have coffee. Let's talk about this quest being more to do with a need SL has.
For me there appears to be a sadistic element to her behaviour
-
If Dr Lean would sup with the devil to raise awareness of Luke’s plight I for one commend her sacrifice.
Raise awareness of Mitchell's plight?! He's exactly where he should be for safety and protection of the public . SL supping with the devil or Attwood isn't going to change a thing . It does say a lot about SL that she's not disgusted with Attwoods conduct in many things especially Daddygate . Seems that she does indeed sup with the devil!
-
For me there appears to be a sadistic element to her behaviour
Masochistic don’t you mean?
-
Raise awareness of Mitchell's plight?! He's exactly where he should be for safety and protection of the public . SL supping with the devil or Attwood isn't going to change a thing . It does say a lot about SL that she's not disgusted with Attwoods conduct in many things especially Daddygate . Seems that she does indeed sup with the devil!
I know nothing about Shawn Attwood nor do I want to but am I’m sure most of the public watching the interview don’t either. BTW how many subscribers did he have?
-
I know nothing about Shawn Attwood nor do I want to but am I’m sure most of the public watching the interview don’t either. BTW how many subscribers did he have?
None now!
-
I know nothing about Shawn Attwood nor do I want to but am I’m sure most of the public watching the interview don’t either. BTW how many subscribers did he have?
none now. Regardless of many subscribes Attwood has it's not going to change a thing for Mitchell. He's not going anywhere anytime soon.
-
And yet, still no proof of anything. You don't have proof of anything, do you?? You're just blah, blah, blah. You're good at that but you're useless when it comes to the proof of anything important.
Not only do I consider there to be a sadistic element to Sandra Lean’s behaviour I also find her behaviour to be potentially extremely harmful to others - especially females
Sandra Lean
MS yes, indeed. A 14 year old boy with no previous history of violence, mental illness, etc. Even the 999 operator reported "the laddie's in a bit of a panic" - that's six hours later - but he's perfectly normal on the phone just minutes after the murder and all of the aftermath??? How is that suppose to work???
There were several allegations of violence towards females prior to when Luke Mitchell murdered [Name removed]
And Luke Mitchell has confirmed himself he made threats of suicide - which I strongly suspect were related to his coercive controlling nature
-
Yeah. Sandra Lean's exit. The real reasons. Title of the thread.t
-
Just another cringe excuse for your blame shifting. Anyway, what was the title of the thread again?
@)(++(*
-
none now. Regardless of many subscribes Attwood has it's not going to change a thing for Mitchell. He's not going anywhere anytime soon.
Possibly not soon. These things take time.
-
@)(++(*
What was that? Did you colour that in?
-
Yuk! Shane on both of you! If you have something to say to me, don't be snakes, hiding behind each other. Say it to me and stop embarrassing yourselves. Why are you allowed to do this? Where is the moderator? I know where. Nowhere. Because that's when horrible little cowards like you are able to exptess yourselves. Anyway, if you can concentrate for long enough, back to the thread? We seem to have lost our moderator.
I am not sure what difficulties you are struggling with tonight but once again you replied to the wrong person. The comments Nicholas made and you have quoted have nothing at all to do with your reply. What is going on?
-
Possibly not soon. These things take time.
No. Not soon. He'll be in prison way past his 20. Get back to me in 25.
-
If Dr Lean would sup with the devil to raise awareness of Luke’s plight I for one commend her sacrifice.
A very unfortunate choice of words imo.
-
Possibly not soon. These things take time.
Yes of course it takes time to finish his sentence and apply for parole . That's the procedure he will have to follow as he won't be released with his conviction quashed , assuming he's ever released it will be as a convicted child killer.
-
I am not sure what difficulties you are struggling with tonight but once again you replied to the wrong person. The comments Nicholas made and you have quoted have nothing at all to do with your reply. What is going on?
I made it mistake. Apologies.
-
I am not sure what difficulties you are struggling with tonight but once again you replied to the wrong person. The comments Nicholas made and you have quoted have nothing at all to do with your reply. What is going on?
Please be gracious enough to ignore my mistakes in the same way I ignore the mistakes you make and never know about.
-
Yes of course it takes time to finish his sentence and apply for parole . That's the procedure he will have to follow as he won't be released with his conviction quashed , assuming he's ever released it will be as a convicted child killer.
Best keep your fingers crossed.
-
Some of the latest posts are completely out of order.
Please can we stay on topic, and not insult other posters.
Thank you.
-
Best keep your fingers crossed.
There's no reason to keep finger's crossed. Justice is being served and the public is being protected from him and will continue to be protected as long as he's a danger to society.
-
Some of the latest posts are completely out of order.
Please can we stay on topic, and not insult other posters.
Thank you.
Even after this post the attacks keep on coming
-
What are you talking about? If you and your friend stop talking amongst yourselves about others so they can deliberately see, I'll be happy but what you have done is rude yet, you don't expect rude back? You are appalled at rude back at you? Someone should have put you straight.
Perhaps if you’re so sensitive this board may not be for you.
-
Perhaps if you’re so sensitive this board may not be for you.
Good night Dexter and nice try.
-
Good night Dexter and nice try.
Haha and you do it again. Not my comment but don't let that stop you.
-
Haha and you do it again. Not my comment but don't let that stop you.
Sorry about that, Dexter. I can't get your name out of my head.
-
Dr Lean was interviewed by Shawn Attwood
‘Shaun Attwood has been BANNED from YouTube’ ➡️ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HkD28g1VgzY
-
‘Shaun Attwood has been BANNED from YouTube’ ➡️ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HkD28g1VgzY
Just seen on his Insta that YouTube have backtracked and admitted they have made a mistake
-
Just seen on his Insta that YouTube have backtracked and admitted they have made a mistake
If you watched the video ⬇️
‘Shaun Attwood has been BANNED from YouTube’ ➡️ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HkD28g1VgzY
…. ‘Chancer’ (see here ➡️ https://odysee.com/@Weezy:a/24-a-conversation-with-chancer-!:b?) did suggest YouTube would reinstate it
But for how long ?
‘The many faces of Shaun Attwood’ https://odysee.com/the-many-faces-of-shaun-attwood:4
-
If you watched the video ⬇️
…. ‘Chancer’ did suggest YouTube would reinstate it
But for how long ?
‘The many faces of Shaun Attwood’
https://odysee.com/@Weezy:a/24-a-conversation-with-chancer-!:b?
I don't know that much about him and haven't watched the interview with Sandra Lean. Looks like he has lots of support.
-
I don't know that much about him
Re Shaun Attwood ➡️ https://odysee.com/@Weezy:a/Daddygate:1
-
I don't know that much about him and haven't watched the interview with Sandra Lean. Looks like he has lots of support.
He apparently has lots of sock puppets
-
He apparently has lots of sock puppets
After appearing on the True Geordie podcast, Attwood started his own 'True Crime' podcast and has a YouTube channel that reached 652,000 subscribers on 19 Jan 2021. ... On July 22nd 2021 Attwood's channel was terminated by YouTube, causing much nashing of teeth.
This is what my Google search yielded about Shaun Attwood's YouTube channel. I admit to not looking in depth but given that YouTube and Google are one in the same, I have to assume his YouTube channel is no more. At least, for now.
-
After appearing on the True Geordie podcast, Attwood started his own 'True Crime' podcast and has a YouTube channel that reached 652,000 subscribers on 19 Jan 2021. ... On July 22nd 2021 Attwood's channel was terminated by YouTube, causing much nashing of teeth.
This is what my Google search yielded about Shaun Attwood's YouTube channel. I admit to not looking in depth but given that YouTube and Google are one in the same, I have to assume his YouTube channel is no more. At least, for now.
No it's been reinstated as I said earlier.
-
No it's been reinstated as I said earlier.
Thank you.
-
No it's been reinstated as I said earlier.
It’s been removed again apparently
-
It’s been removed again apparently
It seems so. Thanks.
-
It seems so. Thanks.
YouTube have put it back on. Maybe this time it will stay...who knows.
-
YouTube have put it back on. Maybe this time it will stay...who knows.
YouTube did. It's all about the money.
-
Since the statement from Luke was released back in June by Lisa C Reynolds Peden, I’ve not heard any updates, was wondering if anyone else has. It seemed from the statement Luke wanted to take more control, Sandra was to release information withheld for years and all statements from Luke and Corinne would be made by Lisa C Reynolds Peden. Sandra then stepped back and was to hand over all documents to someone on 30th June. I believe from the statement edit Luke’s lawyer would then see what can legally be released and everything has since went silent. No updates and nothing from Lisa C Reynolds Peden, Luke or Corinne, did he thank the folk who protested for him in Edinburgh, or sent him Birthday wishes, is the lawyer still going through the boxes of paperwork, is anything going to be released ever or, like Sandra, does the lawyer not think the info can/should be released, does he even have a new lawyer?? So many questions but no updates.
Sandra had gained so much interest in the case with the documentary etc and was keeping people talking and asking questions during her weekly updates. I think a lot of people will soon lose interest, if they have not already, if there is nobody to take over her good work.
So far IMO Lisa C Reynolds Peden and Luke’s statement has not done any good for Luke in anyway.
-
Since the statement from Luke was released back in June by Lisa C Reynolds Peden, I’ve not heard any updates, was wondering if anyone else has. It seemed from the statement Luke wanted to take more control, Sandra was to release information withheld for years and all statements from Luke and Corinne would be made by Lisa C Reynolds Peden. Sandra then stepped back and was to hand over all documents to someone on 30th June. I believe from the statement edit Luke’s lawyer would then see what can legally be released and everything has since went silent. No updates and nothing from Lisa C Reynolds Peden, Luke or Corinne, did he thank the folk who protested for him in Edinburgh, or sent him Birthday wishes, is the lawyer still going through the boxes of paperwork, is anything going to be released ever or, like Sandra, does the lawyer not think the info can/should be released, does he even have a new lawyer?? So many questions but no updates.
Sandra had gained so much interest in the case with the documentary etc and was keeping people talking and asking questions during her weekly updates. I think a lot of people will soon lose interest, if they have not already, if there is nobody to take over her good work.
So far IMO Lisa C Reynolds Peden and Luke’s statement has not done any good for Luke in anyway.
very good and interesting questions Bullseye
-
Since the statement from Luke was released back in June by Lisa C Reynolds Peden, I’ve not heard any updates, was wondering if anyone else has. It seemed from the statement Luke wanted to take more control, Sandra was to release information withheld for years and all statements from Luke and Corinne would be made by Lisa C Reynolds Peden. Sandra then stepped back and was to hand over all documents to someone on 30th June. I believe from the statement edit Luke’s lawyer would then see what can legally be released and everything has since went silent. No updates and nothing from Lisa C Reynolds Peden, Luke or Corinne, did he thank the folk who protested for him in Edinburgh, or sent him Birthday wishes, is the lawyer still going through the boxes of paperwork, is anything going to be released ever or, like Sandra, does the lawyer not think the info can/should be released, does he even have a new lawyer?? So many questions but no updates.
Sandra had gained so much interest in the case with the documentary etc and was keeping people talking and asking questions during her weekly updates. I think a lot of people will soon lose interest, if they have not already, if there is nobody to take over her good work.
So far IMO Lisa C Reynolds Peden and Luke’s statement has not done any good for Luke in anyway.
Good work and getting put out in the cold? - Not at all, is it not merely the continuation of whatever feud happened after the SCCRC, when she was stripped of being POA? The book, already well under way, prior to MOJO? But the book could go nowhere without all three being involved. And again we have that collusion to benefit all three. They needed each other, plain and simple? - And one would be rather foolish, would they not, if they did not realise that Mitchells input, his say in the book had to meet a certain standard, or there simply would be no book. His case files not Ms Leans. Which in reality enters also into the realms of profit, does it not? What seemed apparent is that there was some dispute going on, over who was to hold the purse strings - that divide in two main support groups. The official and the one now claimed to be CM and Luke's.
And of lawyers, appeals, new evidence and the rest - still waiting on those same claims coming to pass from three years ago? When support was being needed, the promotion of the book. Monies asked for to pay the way for Ms Leans man hours. And to recently, where she made it clear, if she were going to be involved actively in campaigning - then her man hours needed to be paid for. The role was to be fronting an official charity group, again? That she would need to leave her employment. This same organisation that was promised three years ago?
Perhaps, what would be better for all concerned, that have actually been sucked in by the book and doc - is clarity, truth as to what has actually happened between the Mitchells and Ms Lean - truth however is not an easy thing to obtain? The official group, still putting one upon a pedestal. Promoting all she has done for the Mitchells? - One needs to, in reality realise one's own promotion first? That two way street of give and take. That if there had been any clear clarification from LM via Ms Lean, in clear favour of herself - she would be letting people know this, would she not?
Just my humble opinion, of course, as always.
-
Good work and getting put out in the cold? - Not at all, is it not merely the continuation of whatever feud happened after the SCCRC, when she was stripped of being POA? The book, already well under way, prior to MOJO? But the book could go nowhere without all three being involved. And again we have that collusion to benefit all three. They needed each other, plain and simple? - And one would be rather foolish, would they not, if they did not realise that Mitchells input, his say in the book had to meet a certain standard, or there simply would be no book. His case files not Ms Leans. Which in reality enters also into the realms of profit, does it not? What seemed apparent is that there was some dispute going on, over who was to hold the purse strings - that divide in two main support groups. The official and the one now claimed to be CM and Luke's.
And of lawyers, appeals, new evidence and the rest - still waiting on those same claims coming to pass from three years ago? When support was being needed, the promotion of the book. Monies asked for to pay the way for Ms Leans man hours. And to recently, where she made it clear, if she were going to be involved actively in campaigning - then her man hours needed to be paid for. The role was to be fronting an official charity group, again? That she would need to leave her employment. This same organisation that was promised three years ago?
Perhaps, what would be better for all concerned, that have actually been sucked in by the book and doc - is clarity, truth as to what has actually happened between the Mitchells and Ms Lean - truth however is not an easy thing to obtain? The official group, still putting one upon a pedestal. Promoting all she has done for the Mitchells? - One needs to, in reality realise one's own promotion first? That two way street of give and take. That if there had been any clear clarification from LM via Ms Lean, in clear favour of herself - she would be letting people know this, would she not?
Just my humble opinion, of course, as always.
Looking forward to your forthcoming book. Where will your profits be going? Surely not into your own pocket? Distasteful making money from the death of a young girl, is it not?
-
Looking forward to your forthcoming book. Where will your profits be going? Surely not into your own pocket? Distasteful making money from the death of a young girl, is it not?
Says the defender of the killer and mutilator of a child.
-
Says the defender of the killer and mutilator of a child.
It's a fair question considering what has been stated previously
-
It's a fair question considering what has been stated previously
Given that Parky hasn't promised anything, to my knowledge, I think it's no one else's business.
-
Given that Parky hasn't promised anything, to my knowledge, I think it's no one else's business.
Not sure what you mean. A book about this would be on the same terms as anyone writing about a crime . It's not about the reason for doing it is it? Faithlilly asked a question based on people's opinions about others doing the same thing.
-
Not sure what you mean. A book about this would be on the same terms as anyone writing about a crime . It's not about the reason for doing it is it? Faithlilly asked a question based on people's opinions about others doing the same thing.
Again, no one's business.
-
Again, no one's business.
I’m making it my business just as you do with every action of Dr Lean.
-
I’m making it my business just as you do with every action of Dr Lean.
Sandra Lean deliberately makes herself public property. She has to take what's expected with that. The price one pays for deliberate publicity. No?
-
Sandra Lean deliberately makes herself public property. She has to take what's expected with that. The price one pays for deliberate publicity. No?
And if Parky publishes a book then he/she will be doing the same.
-
And if Parky publishes a book then he/she will be doing the same. BTW is it really necessary to copy Parky’s posting style?
I'll post in the style of Oscar Wilde if I wish. What was your point anyway? I've forgotten.
-
And if Parky publishes a book then he/she will be doing the same. BTW is it really necessary to copy Parky’s posting style?
Of course he's not doing the same. When's the last time you saw Parky on YouTube declaring where his book earnings were going??
-
Please can we stop the bickering! Not nice.
-
Again, no one's business.
It always is when you speak about Sandra. Just the same doesn't apply to everyone else.
-
It always is when you speak about Sandra. Just the same doesn't apply to everyone else.
I agree with you. I can't understand why people are so interested in what Sandra does/doesn't do with the money she makes from her books.
-
I agree with you. I can't understand why people are so interested in what Sandra does/doesn't do with the money she makes from her books.
Very well said Mrswah.
-
I agree, whatever anyone does with the own honestly earned profits is there own business.
To my knowledge Parky hasn’t made any indication about publishing their research in debunking the misinformation as well lambasting the ridiculous innuendo in Sandra Lean’s 18yrs of work defending the 'Laird of Shotts HMP'
However if Parky were to do so they’d have a far more higher moral & ethical standing do whatever is deemed appropriate with the publication profits without any of the collateral damage the good doctor and her associates have managed to achieve in the pain & suffering of Jodi’s family & friends, Mark Kane’s family & friends and not to mention some of witnesses that gave honest account testimonies.
BTW Any idea when the ‘Long Road to Justice Organization’ will be operational?
-
I agree, whatever anyone does with the own honestly earned profits is there own business.
To my knowledge Parky hasn’t made any indication about publishing their research in debunking the misinformation as well lambasting the ridiculous innuendo in Sandra Lean’s 18yrs of work defending the 'Laird of Shotts HMP'
However if Parky were to do so they’d have a far more higher moral & ethical standing do whatever is deemed appropriate with the publication profits without any of the collateral damage the good doctor and her associates have managed to achieve in the pain & suffering of Jodi’s family & friends, Mark Kane’s family & friends and not to mention some of witnesses that gave honest account testimonies.
BTW Any idea when the ‘Long Road to Justice Organization’ will be operational?
A lot of us said we would read the book once it's available
-
A lot of us said we would read the book once it's available
I agree. I have absolutely no idea what Parky's book may bring to the table but SLs has brought nothing but misinformation and conspiracy theories. No court papers, just supposition on the part of SL.
-
A lot of us said we would read the book once it's available
Why would Parky publish anything to counter SL’s misinformation?
The convicted killer child isn’t going anywhere.
-
Why would Parky publish anything to counter SL’s misinformation?
The convicted killer child isn’t going anywhere.
Dunno they just mentioned it.
-
I agree. I have absolutely no idea what Parky's book may bring to the table but SLs has brought nothing but misinformation and conspiracy theories. No court papers, just supposition on the part of SL.
That isn't true though is it. You might not agree with her findings but she has definitely seen the case paperwork.
-
That isn't true though is it. You might not agree with her findings but she has definitely seen the case paperwork.
As Gustave Le Bon opined,
“The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim.”
-
As Gustave Le Bon opined,
“The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim.”
Bit of a ironic contradiction from a Sandra Lean Supporter.
Next you be quoting Anton LaVey.
-
And we all know who's a big fan of him.
-
I agree. I have absolutely no idea what Parky's book may bring to the table but SLs has brought nothing but misinformation and conspiracy theories. No court papers, just supposition on the part of SL.
I can't agree with you: SL has probably got some things wrong, but , in my view, her book is very well researched.
Parky hasn't said he will write a book: Nicholas suggested that he ought to! Hope he does, actually, as I'd like to read a book by someone who believes LM is guilty.
-
YouTube have put it back on. Maybe this time it will stay...who knows.
‘James English exposes Shaun Attwood’ ➡️ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MXuuPVvRGhY
-
‘James English exposes Shaun Attwood’ ➡️ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MXuuPVvRGhY
What a lot of sanctimonious claptrap from a couple of numpties.
I suspect it’s merely a cheap ploy to garner controversial rivalry+publicity ratings=revenue especially since Mr Attwood has been a very naughty boy recently.
Any bets on for Parky vs Lean? 8)-)))
-
‘James English exposes Shaun Attwood’ ➡️ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MXuuPVvRGhY
Doesn't make good viewing does it.
-
Doesn't make good viewing does it.
’Shaun Attwood GASLIGHTS James English (& Everyone Else)’
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J9IUqSn0ilE&feature=youtu.be
-
What a lot of sanctimonious claptrap from a couple of numpties.
I suspect it’s merely a cheap ploy to garner controversial rivalry+publicity ratings=revenue especially since Mr Attwood has been a very naughty boy recently.
Any bets on for Parky vs Lean? 8)-)))
No chance. Parky would have to reveal his identity.
-
No chance. Parky would have to reveal his identity.
Perhaps a masquerade game of Cluedo could be arranged?
But I suspect Dr Lean could be a bit of a bad sport with her almighty protests of foul play and corruption with examples of “Professor Plum couldn’t have done it, he was at home cooking dinner for his dear mother!!”
-
Perhaps a masquerade game of Cluedo could be arranged?
But I suspect Dr Lean could be a bit of a bad sport with her almighty protests of foul play and corruption with examples of “Professor Plum couldn’t have done it, he was at home cooking dinner for his dear mother!!”
Or perhaps a grown up discussion regarding the murder of a child would be more appropriate.
I feel whichever way it came about Parky would be on the back foot. It’s one thing presenting speculation as fact, another completely actually backing up that speculation with evidence.
-
Or perhaps a grown up discussion regarding the murder of a child would be more appropriate.
I feel whichever way it came about Parky would be on the back foot. It’s one thing presenting speculation as fact, another completely actually backing up that speculation with evidence.
I completely agree, this is about the hideous murder of a child by someone she loved and trusted.
I certainly don't speak on Parky behalf nor would I ever endorse such a debate for it would only do so to promote her book which of course would be her primary purpose.
If a debate was indeed to take place on her gameship rules of masquerading misinformation to research and innuendo to facts combined with her talent for suggestive thinking with us lesser mortals I'm sure the good doctor would be in a great advantage to win just a contest.
However I am yet to read or see any such debate or discussion from any of her fellow peers in regards to this case or for that matter on this very forum.
I wonder why that is?
-
What a lot of sanctimonious claptrap from a couple of numpties.
I suspect it’s merely a cheap ploy to garner controversial rivalry+publicity ratings=revenue especially since Mr Attwood has been a very naughty boy recently.
Any bets on for Parky vs Lean? 8)-)))
Mates getting views for each other? I think so. IMO.
-
That isn't true though is it. You might not agree with her findings but she has definitely seen the case paperwork.
She has also stated that she has not seen all of it.
-
I completely agree, this is about the hideous murder of a child by someone she loved and trusted.
I certainly don't speak on Parky behalf nor would I ever endorse such a debate for it would only do so to promote her book which of course would be her primary purpose.
If a debate was indeed to take place on her gameship rules of masquerading misinformation to research and innuendo to facts combined with her talent for suggestive thinking with us lesser mortals I'm sure the good doctor would be in a great advantage to win just a contest.
However I am yet to read or see any such debate or discussion from any of her fellow peers in regards to this case or for that matter on this very forum.
I wonder why that is?
Lean would not have the guts to go face to face with someone that challenges her narrative. What is it she calls them? Trolls. Lean likes to be molly cuddled from her minions. Those ones that nod in agreement. She has a couple of her minions on here doing her dirty work, trying to distract, goad, attack anyone that challenges Leans fairy tales. You can spot them a mile off.
-
Lean would not have the guts to go face to face with someone that challenges her narrative. What is it she calls them? Trolls. Lean likes to be molly cuddled from her minions. Those ones that nod in agreement. She has a couple of her minions on here doing her dirty work, trying to distract, goad, attack anyone that challenges Leans fairy tales. You can spot them a mile off.
So you accuse Sandra Lean of calling anyone who disagrees with her a troll. Then you attack anyone who agrees with her naming calling and all? *%87
-
Not what you posted though is it?
That is what SL has said all by herself.
-
So you accuse Sandra Lean of calling anyone who disagrees with her a troll. Then you attack anyone who agrees with her naming calling and all? *%87
SL is dishonest. I see it. Many others see it. If you don't see it, up to you.
-
SL is dishonest. I see it. Many others see it. If you don't see it, up to you.
Once again your reply has NOTHING to do with my actual comment.
-
Once again your reply has NOTHING to do with my actual comment.
That's because I have no idea what you're talking about.
-
Are you still logging in and out here on an hourly basis? Apart from your input from when you first showed up, which you have yet to provide evidence for. All you have done, is like comments, and well offered nothing else apart from trying to wind other posters up. I see right though you pal.
It's not me who writes well into the early hours.
-
Are you still logging in and out here on an hourly basis? Apart from your input from when you first showed up, which you have yet to provide evidence for. All you have done, is like comments, and well offered nothing else apart from trying to wind other posters up. I see right though you pal.
Oh btw Rusty I don't log in on and out as you state. Something else you are wrong about. Do you count my likes aww such dedication. Bless
-
Oh btw Rusty I don't log in on and out as you state. Something else you are wrong about. Do you count my likes aww such dedication. Bless
You're evasion of questions about Scott Forbes whilst having so much knowledge, sticks in my head. So many questions you didn't answer whilst pretending you didn't know how to!
-
But you DO wind the rest of us up whilst pretending to be an innocent. Don't you? You're evasion of questions about Scott Forbes whilst having so much knowledge, sticks in my head. So many questions you didn't answer whilst pretending you didn't know how to! A charlatan? Yes, IMO.
The rest of you?
You asked questions about SF which in fact you demanded. He replied and you didn't believe it was him.
Yet you stamped your feet for more!
So many questions I didn't answer? firstly most of the stuff you want to know you have no legal right to see and be answered on. You don't accept this and I dont have to do what you demand.
It has been suggested you ask SF directly as you kept mentioning his Twitter. He was waiting...you didnt.
-
He is well and truly triggered @)(++(*
Who is he?
-
He is well and truly triggered @)(++(*
You brought Scott Forbes into this. I asked questions about him that you seemed able to answer then, you couldn't, in fact, still haven't answered. I didn't demand anything except the cities that this forum (sometimes) requires.
-
Lean would not have the guts to go face to face with someone that challenges her narrative. What is it she calls them? Trolls. Lean likes to be molly cuddled from her minions. Those ones that nod in agreement. She has a couple of her minions on here doing her dirty work, trying to distract, goad, attack anyone that challenges Leans fairy tales. You can spot them a mile off.
I don't agree. Even if SL turns out to be wrong, IMO, she is brave.
I very much doubt anyone is on her doing her "dirty work".
-
You brought Scott Forbes into this. I asked questions about him that you seemed able to answer then, you couldn't, in fact, still haven't answered. I didn't demand anything except the cities that this forum (sometimes) requires.
*&^^&
-
I don't agree. Even if SL turns out to be wrong, IMO, she is brave.
I very much doubt anyone is on her doing her "dirty work".
No it seems anyone who is anti SL is always right but anyone who shares her views even slightly is here to do her dirty work.
This is incorrect but why should that matter
-
No it seems anyone who is anti SL is always right but anyone who shares her views even slightly is here to do her dirty work.
This is incorrect but why should that matter
I don't agree with you. I think many people are just waiting for the proof she claims to have.
-
I don't agree. Even if SL turns out to be wrong, IMO, she is brave.
I very much doubt anyone is on her doing her "dirty work".
Anyway, I would be quite grateful if you can point me in the direction of any kind of podcast, interview, anything that she has gone head-to-head with someone that dares question her narrative. I'm not talking about her little cosy YouTube sessions with Sharon "nodding" Sunshine and co. It was not that long ago, the head of this forum, turned up on one of her live stream and challenged her narrative, what was it he was called? Pile-on ensued.
For being an educated retired teacher, right? You are incredibly naive. The kids must have ran riot in your classes.
-
Anyway, I would be quite grateful if you can point me in the direction of any kind of podcast, interview, anything that she has gone head-to-head with someone that dares question her narrative. I'm not talking about her little cosy YouTube sessions with Sharon "nodding" Sunshine and co. It was not that long ago, the head of this forum, turned up on one of her live stream and challenged her narrative, what was it he was called? Pile-on ensued.
For being an educated retired teacher, right? You are incredibly naive. The kids must have ran riot in your classes.
Wouldn't it be nice if someone had the balls to ask SL difficult questions? So far, nothing.
-
Wouldn't it be nice if someone had the balls to ask SL difficult questions? So far, nothing.
It will never happen. She will never put herself in a situation on camera where she is not in control of the conversation. She would melt, quicker than an ice cream on a hot summer's day.
-
It will never happen. She will never put herself in a situation on camera where she is not in control of the conversation. She would melt, quicker than an ice cream on a hot summer's day.
I agree that what she chooses to be on, is easy meat for her.
-
I will wait for mrswah if you don't mind.
What did you ask me??
-
Anyway, I would be quite grateful if you can point me in the direction of any kind of podcast, interview, anything that she has gone head-to-head with someone that dares question her narrative. I'm not talking about her little cosy YouTube sessions with Sharon "nodding" Sunshine and co. It was not that long ago, the head of this forum, turned up on one of her live stream and challenged her narrative, what was it he was called? Pile-on ensued.
For being an educated retired teacher, right? You are incredibly naive. The kids must have ran riot in your classes.
No, they didn't, actually!
I don't watch many of SL's podcasts, but, from what you say, someone DID challenge her !
-
It is beginning to get nasty on here.
I suggest we all treat each other civilly.
Thanks.
-
Lean would not have the guts to go face to face with someone that challenges her narrative. What is it she calls them? Trolls. Lean likes to be molly cuddled from her minions. Those ones that nod in agreement. She has a couple of her minions on here doing her dirty work, trying to distract, goad, attack anyone that challenges Leans fairy tales. You can spot them a mile off.
I’m not sure we will see any more interviews on Luke with Sandra, I think she has stepped back by the sounds of it. Maybe Lisa C Reynolds Peden will be doing them from now on, although I’ve not seen anything from her since the statement was released. I’m not able to find the statement anywhere, anyone know if it was removed?
-
I’m not sure we will see any more interviews on Luke with Sandra, I think she has stepped back by the sounds of it. Maybe Lisa C Reynolds Peden will be doing them from now on, although I’ve not seen anything from her since the statement was released. I’m not able to find the statement anywhere, anyone know if it was removed?
She seems to have gone really quiet. The statement got changed but for some reason that was denied too. None of it looks too good for those concerned
Even when lots of people had copied the statement denials were still offered.
Not sure about the silence when it was clearly stated that everything had to go via her
Hope the legal team are in place and doing things behind the scenes at least.
-
Hope the legal team are in place. So, where are they?
-
Hope the legal team are in place. So, where are they?
I don't know . Could be working behind the scenes or they might not be. As mentioned at the time they may have chosen not to speak out yet.
Their choice not ours.
-
I don't know . Could be working behind the scenes or they might not be. As mentioned at the time they may have chosen not to speak out yet.
Their choice not ours.
Well, so long as there is one.
-
Well, so long as there is one.
As already been mentioned things went very strange after the statement. Then silence so it's hard to gauge.
-
As already been mentioned things for very strange after the statement. Then silence so it's hard to gauge.
No idea what that means.
-
I’m not sure we will see any more interviews on Luke with Sandra, I think she has stepped back by the sounds of it. Maybe Lisa C Reynolds Peden will be doing them from now on, although I’ve not seen anything from her since the statement was released. I’m not able to find the statement anywhere, anyone know if it was removed?
Don't hold your breath Bullseye, she will be back. A few grand don't go far these days.
-
Well, so long as there is one.
Do pigs fly? It really is all just one big con.
-
Do pigs fly? It really is all just one big con.
If there turns out to be no new legal team you wouldnt know who is at fault.
SL was asked to hand over the paperwork and did as asked .
Who knows what other people have said behind the scenes. Some who had lots to say now say nothing. Maybe all is not as it seems or they aren't
-
Who knows what other people have said behind the scenes. Some who had lots to say now say nothing. Maybe all is not as it seems or they aren't
Jane Hamilton described these people perfectly. In the article she released a month or so back. What was it? Facebook sleuths 8@??)(
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-found-guilty-murder-24016568
-
Jane Hamilton described these people perfectly. In the article she released a month or so back. What was it? Facebook sleuths 8@??)(
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-found-guilty-murder-24016568
Sorry. I just don't see what you see in written text.
-
Jane Hamilton described these people perfectly. In the article she released a month or so back. What was it? Facebook sleuths 8@??)(
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-found-guilty-murder-24016568
Sorry. I don't see what you see in written text but I believe Luke Mitchell murdered and mutilated his girlfriend, Jodi. I believe that the perpetrator is in prison where he belongs. I believe he should stay there.
-
Jane Hamilton described these people perfectly. In the article she released a month or so back. What was it? Facebook sleuths 8@??)(
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/luke-mitchell-found-guilty-murder-24016568
I dont like her style but then the actions of others aren't great either.
-
I dont like her style but then the actions of others aren't great either.
Do you ever think she may be right?
-
Do you ever think she may be right?
About Luke's guilt or the behaviour of some other people? I think she is wrong on many levels mostly
-
About Luke's guilt or the behaviour of some other people? I think she is wrong on many levels mostly
Poor wee girl though. She is always the point. At least, we can agree on that, can we?. And for her mother and her immediate family.
-
Poor wee girl though. She is always the point. At least, we can agree on that, can we?. And for her mother and her immediate family.
Yes I agree. I have never once said anything against anyone connected to her family
Some of the posts I have read have been disgusting.
These kind of things bring out the best and the worst in people
-
Don't hold your breath Bullseye, she will be back. A few grand don't go far these days.
I really hope she does come back and also release any info allowed
-
I really hope she does come back and also release any info allowed
Poor wee girl
-
Poor wee girl
Who? Dr Lean?
-
Who? Dr Lean?
No one is going to take that comment seriously. Ask anyone. Away you go.
-
No one is going to take that comment seriously. Ask anyone. Away you go.
Then make yourself clearer. You can when it suits.
-
Then make yourself clearer. You can when it suits.
Fair point.
-
Who? Dr Lean?
Never saw SL as a poor wee girl though. Don't think SL would appreciate being referred to as a wee girl. I wouldn't. I'm a grown woman. However, fair point that I can be clear.
-
So very similar to John Morris and his book on mass murderer and child killer David Morris
https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Struck+off+solicitor+was+taken+on+by+law+firm%3B+TRIBUNAL%3A+Swansea...-a088672757
Mass murderer and child killer David Morris died on 20th August 2021
Convicted but exonerated murderer Michael O’Brian is - as per usual - in the thick of all the drama
Michael A O’Brien
‘I always have done but the family are standing by Geraint I had a horrible message from one of them tonight via one of there friends I haven't made it public because they are grieving its not fair or right I should have to put up with this.
Michael A O’Brien
‘I have made my position clear I do not want to talk to Geraint Evans or members of Dai family and If I continue to get abuse or threats the police will be called and I will speak out in the media about what they are doing and saying about me. just because someone is grieving does not give them the right to allow their campaigns manager to threaten me or to level abuse at me through other people. bang out of order what's going on and I'm making a stand simple.
-
George Fergie
Hi guys
There’s gonny be some big changes to the group
A was gonny close it down but there’s to much effort went in so I’ve decided to archive and rebuild
Be back up and running in a couple of weeks
-
Of course there were choices but having gone down so many roads, different cases, Simons included - Admitting failure was/is not going to happen? For it is not seen as failure upon herself, is it? That is the problem as I see it.
Her personal idiosyncrasies are somewhat renowned are they not? The strength she strives in being blameless is, paradoxically, also her weakness? As we have seen in recent times, resulting in this retreat, for now. The same retreat that has happened at other points in time.
Whilst others my feel your objections against Ms Lean are unwarranted, I for the most part don't. I have made it very clear what my stance is, I make no bones over it. There are no room for lies in those claiming to seek truth?!
I recognise I cannot save all other victims from men like Simon Hall but I am appealing to your better nature to consider the impact your book could have on others. Whilst I fully understand you probably want to put it all behind you, there will be a point in the future imo where these matters will need addressing. Why wait when you can do something about it now?
(Source: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382459.html#msg382459)
I’m not so sure now she has a ‘better nature’
-
(Source: http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382459.html#msg382459)
I’m not so sure now she has a ‘better nature’
If it's worth anything to you, Nicholas I don't think your attitude toward SL is unwarranted either.
-
If it's worth anything to you, Nicholas I don't think your attitude toward SL is unwarranted either.
@)(++(*
-
If it's worth anything to you, Nicholas I don't think your attitude toward SL is unwarranted either.
I retracted this some time ago btw
I do not believe Sandra Lean knowingly deceived anyone regarding the Simon Hall case; let's make that clear
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382473.html#msg382473
But then you may have realised this before now?
-
I retracted this some time ago btw
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382473.html#msg382473
But then you may have realised this before now?
Sorry I quoted the wrong quote. Story of my time on here unfortunately. I was agreeing with Parky. At least I meant to.
-
Sorry I quoted the wrong quote. Story of my time on here unfortunately. I was agreeing with Parky. At least I meant to.
Thanks
-
If it's worth anything to you, Nicholas I don't think your attitude toward SL is unwarranted either.
‘Did anyone bother to check’ 🙄
Sandra Lean
Were the details of the confession checked against all of the known information? Were there any aspects of the confession that didn't match the known information, or that didn't fit logically with what was claimed? Did anyone bother to check?
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383168.html#msg383168
-
‘Did anyone bother to check’ 🙄
Sandra Leanhttp://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383168.html#msg383168
Honestly, it all seems like a contradiction in terms to me by SL, regardless of case. SL has a knack of making anything fit her narrative for those blindly willing to believe. There's a pattern here. A pattern of dangerous, guilty men and SL never being wrong about anything but the two don't merge. Maybe SL is just a bad judge unwilling to admit so.
-
Honestly, it all seems like a contradiction in terms to me by SL, regardless of case. SL has a knack of making anything fit her narrative for those blindly willing to believe. There's a pattern here. A pattern of dangerous, guilty men and SL never being wrong about anything but the two don't merge. Maybe SL is just a bad judge unwilling to admit so.
Maybe it's deeper because there are a lot of guilty men defended by SL as opposed to innocent men. I don't know for sure but there's certainly a worrying pattern. IMO.
-
Honestly, it all seems like a contradiction in terms to me by SL, regardless of case. SL has a knack of making anything fit her narrative for those blindly willing to believe. There's a pattern here. A pattern of dangerous, guilty men and SL never being wrong about anything but the two don't merge. Maybe SL is just a bad judge unwilling to admit so.
Men who have committed murder
-
Honestly, it all seems like a contradiction in terms to me by SL, regardless of case. SL has a knack of making anything fit her narrative for those blindly willing to believe. There's a pattern here. A pattern of dangerous, guilty men and SL never being wrong about anything but the two don't merge. Maybe SL is just a bad judge unwilling to admit so.
She treats people likes imbeciles
‘Did anyone bother to check’ 🙄
Sandra Lean
Were the details of the confession checked against all of the known information? Were there any aspects of the confession that didn't match the known information, or that didn't fit logically with what was claimed? Did anyone bother to check?
Sandra Leanhttp://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383168.html#msg383168
Reallly!?! *&^^&
-
Honestly, it all seems like a contradiction in terms to me by SL, regardless of case. SL has a knack of making anything fit her narrative for those blindly willing to believe. There's a pattern here. A pattern of dangerous, guilty men and SL never being wrong about anything but the two don't merge. Maybe SL is just a bad judge unwilling to admit so.
‘Her narrative’ is not to be trusted
The fact she chooses to attempt to ghost out killer Luke Mitchell’s violent and abusive behaviours towards females should be a red flag alone
-
Honestly, it all seems like a contradiction in terms to me by SL, regardless of case. SL has a knack of making anything fit her narrative for those blindly willing to believe. There's a pattern here. A pattern of dangerous, guilty men and SL never being wrong about anything but the two don't merge. Maybe SL is just a bad judge unwilling to admit so.
She’s similar to Amanda Knox
who also chooses to treat Meredith Kercher’s family like imbeciles *&^^&
‘They can’t separate their emotions from their ability to rationally observe objective evidence’
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CckT0twVsDQ
-
8((()*/
-
Honestly, it all seems like a contradiction in terms to me by SL, regardless of case. SL has a knack of making anything fit her narrative for those blindly willing to believe. There's a pattern here.
What do you think Sandra Lean learns from all the guilty killers she communicates with?
-
What do you think Sandra Lean learns from all the guilty killers she communicates with?
Whether or not there's a potential book deal.
-
Michael O’Brien
Disappointed to hear Dr Sandra Lean being slagged off in regards to the Luke Mitchell case if it wasn't for Dr Sandra Lean The book would not have been written and the documentary film wouldn't have come about.
Some very ungrateful people out there I must say and I stand with Dr Sandra Lean.
Michael A O’Brien
Seems it was a waste of time talking to these documentary makers they seem more interested in Darren Hall my co-accused than they do about my New book or work that I do so I've told them I cannot and will not work with them because of this.
Michael A O’Brien
I have today pulled out of a Potential documentary which was going to be made about the Cardiff Newsagent Three as they wanted to make a big thing about me being a victim and they wanted to focus on my Co- Accused Daren Hall. For anyone who knows me I don't do the poor me syndrome nor will I have others portray me as a victim.
I am not a victim I am a survivor if that is not good enough for their program I will not engage with them. Simple.
-
Michael A O’Brien
Seems it was a waste of time talking to these documentary makers they seem more interested in Darren Hall my co-accused than they do about my New book or work that I do so I've told them I cannot and will not work with them because of this.
Michael A O’Brien
I have today pulled out of a Potential documentary which was going to be made about the Cardiff Newsagent Three as they wanted to make a big thing about me being a victim and they wanted to focus on my Co- Accused Daren Hall. For anyone who knows me I don't do the poor me syndrome nor will I have others portray me as a victim.
I am not a victim I am a survivor if that is not good enough for their program I will not engage with them. Simple.
Hi Nicholas. I don't know who MOB is. Wish I had the time to find out 8((()*/
-
Hi Nicholas. I don't know who MOB is. Wish I had the time to find out 8((()*/
A convicted/exonerated killer who still hasn’t been able to prove he and his two co-d’s - Ellis Sherwood and Darren Hall - didn’t murder Philip Saunders
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-15129956
He’s now saying, after allegedly literally just turning down one TV documentary, he’s now set do another
Michael A O’Brien
Update on my book the Dossier In talks with Channel 5 about doing three-part TV series on my book looking at the need for a judicial enquiry into all the Miscarriages in Wales from my book. This is more like it. Bring it on.
He didn’t appear to be very happy after the BBC’s recent documentary called ‘A killing in Tiger Bay’
-
Has anyone seen the latest news of killer Luke Mitchell and his fans @)(++(*
Rockets!
-
Morag Richie
Has Jane Hamilton lost the plot? She read it nowhere in the group!! She has some imagination that one, think she needs to see the shrink and have a few months in the asylum!! That must be the worst story she has made up yet with her obsession on Luke Mitchell.. 😡
🙄
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219690/Familys-terror-UFO-hovers-rural-home-hours.html
-
Morag Richie
Has Jane Hamilton lost the plot? She read it nowhere in the group!! She has some imagination that one, think she needs to see the shrink and have a few months in the asylum!! That must be the worst story she has made up yet with her obsession on Luke Mitchell.. 😡
🙄
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2219690/Familys-terror-UFO-hovers-rural-home-hours.html
Wait what? Someone writing an article in a newspaper needs psychiatric help. But claiming to see UFO's flying around your house is perfectly normal behaviour? Aye OK Morag. They were never the full shilling up in the Broch...
-
Morag Ritchie is a vile specimen.
She’s dying to pump Johnnyboy Steele or any one of his handymen.
She’d even go as far as Carson for some attention.
I’ve no idea who she is but the latest news article by the Daily Record stated something along the lines of Jodi’s family have warned that Mitchell supporters are becoming more radical and are now “dangerous”
-
Morag Ritchie is a vile specimen.
She’s dying to pump Johnnyboy Steele or any one of his handymen.
She’d even go as far as Carson for some attention.
Who is Carson?
There has been some decent insight in the last week on here regarding the type of folk involved in the LM campaign, namely Steele and Ritchie. Crackpots masquerading as warrior poets.
-
Who is Carson?
There has been some decent insight in the last week on here regarding the type of folk involved in the LM campaign, namely Steele and Ritchie. Crackpots masquerading as warrior poets.
Doesn’t he have a YouTube channel?
-
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Al7VVZfCc24
-
Ah, another freedom fighter. Cheers.
-
Ah, another freedom fighter. Cheers.
There’s a news article on a then 26 year old ‘Darren Carson’ in the Herald. I won’t post a link as it could be another Darren Carson
There’s also an article of a then 21 year old ‘Darren Carson’ who was done for ‘conning people, many of them elderly’
-
Morag Ritchie is a vile specimen.
She’s dying to pump Johnnyboy Steele or any one of his handymen.
She’d even go as far as Carson for some attention.
8@??)(
-
There’s a news article on a then 26 year old ‘Darren Carson’ in the Herald. I won’t post a link as it could be another Darren Carson
There’s also an article of a then 21 year old ‘Darren Carson’ who was done for ‘conning people, many of them elderly’
I feel I need to jump in here. The paedophile, Darren Carson is not the Luke Mitchell supporting YouTuber. He's the scammer.
-
I feel I need to jump in here. The paedophile, Darren Carson is not the Luke Mitchell supporting YouTuber. He's the scammer.
Yes I thought he was the scammer
-
Sandra Lean and dangerous men is a whole new shockumentary. IMO.
Was reminded again today about Allan Jamieson and what he did to Michelle Doyle ⬇️
‘A POLICE forensic scientist has been suspended from duty after a court heard he terrified a woman driver on a motorway.
Civilian officer Allan Jamieson, who is Lothian and Borders Police senior scientist, is to be called before a police disciplinary hearing after he was fined in court for stopping a woman on a motorway to lecture her about her driving.
Yesterday, police bosses said they were concerned by Mr Jamieson's actions described in the case and intended to study the factual evidence closely.
They said that, until a full disciplinary hearing into his behaviour had been carried out, Jamieson had been suspended on full pay.
A spokesman for Lothian and Borders Police said: `We are considering the outcome of the court proceedings.
In the meantime, Mr Jamieson has been placed on a precautionary suspension.''
Jamieson was fined #300 yesterday when he appeared at Airdrie Sheriff Court. He admitted putting a woman driver in a state of alarm.
Jamieson, 40, was alleged to have flashed a ``police'' sign at his victim as he tailed her along the M8.
The woman he pulled over to lecture about her driving was in fact a British School of Motoring instructor and her husband was a Glasgow police officer.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12049924.woman-terrified-by-drivers-action-police-suspend-forensic-scientist/
In memory of Sarah Everard ‘Making Herstory’ have put out guidance for women and girls pulled aside for questioning or arrest by a lone (male) police officer.
Jamieson’s behaviour towards Michelle Doyle was appalling
-
Was reminded again today about Allan Jamieson and what he did to Michelle Doyle ⬇️
‘A POLICE forensic scientist has been suspended from duty after a court heard he terrified a woman driver on a motorway.
Civilian officer Allan Jamieson, who is Lothian and Borders Police senior scientist, is to be called before a police disciplinary hearing after he was fined in court for stopping a woman on a motorway to lecture her about her driving.
Yesterday, police bosses said they were concerned by Mr Jamieson's actions described in the case and intended to study the factual evidence closely.
They said that, until a full disciplinary hearing into his behaviour had been carried out, Jamieson had been suspended on full pay.
A spokesman for Lothian and Borders Police said: `We are considering the outcome of the court proceedings.
In the meantime, Mr Jamieson has been placed on a precautionary suspension.''
Jamieson was fined #300 yesterday when he appeared at Airdrie Sheriff Court. He admitted putting a woman driver in a state of alarm.
Jamieson, 40, was alleged to have flashed a ``police'' sign at his victim as he tailed her along the M8.
The woman he pulled over to lecture about her driving was in fact a British School of Motoring instructor and her husband was a Glasgow police officer.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12049924.woman-terrified-by-drivers-action-police-suspend-forensic-scientist/
In memory of Sarah Everard ‘Making Herstory’ have put out guidance for women and girls pulled aside for questioning or arrest by a lone (male) police officer.
Jamieson’s behaviour towards Michelle Doyle was appalling
A. Jamieson seems to have a bad temper. So bad he risked lives stopping someone on a motorway just so.he could have a go.
-
Was reminded again today about Allan Jamieson and what he did to Michelle Doyle ⬇️
‘A POLICE forensic scientist has been suspended from duty after a court heard he terrified a woman driver on a motorway.
Civilian officer Allan Jamieson, who is Lothian and Borders Police senior scientist, is to be called before a police disciplinary hearing after he was fined in court for stopping a woman on a motorway to lecture her about her driving.
Yesterday, police bosses said they were concerned by Mr Jamieson's actions described in the case and intended to study the factual evidence closely.
They said that, until a full disciplinary hearing into his behaviour had been carried out, Jamieson had been suspended on full pay.
A spokesman for Lothian and Borders Police said: `We are considering the outcome of the court proceedings.
In the meantime, Mr Jamieson has been placed on a precautionary suspension.''
Jamieson was fined #300 yesterday when he appeared at Airdrie Sheriff Court. He admitted putting a woman driver in a state of alarm.
Jamieson, 40, was alleged to have flashed a ``police'' sign at his victim as he tailed her along the M8.
The woman he pulled over to lecture about her driving was in fact a British School of Motoring instructor and her husband was a Glasgow police officer.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12049924.woman-terrified-by-drivers-action-police-suspend-forensic-scientist/
In memory of Sarah Everard ‘Making Herstory’ have put out guidance for women and girls pulled aside for questioning or arrest by a lone (male) police officer.
Jamieson’s behaviour towards Michelle Doyle was appalling
Sarah Everard. I've no words at all.
-
A. Jamieson seems to have a bad temper. So bad he risked lives stopping someone on a motorway just so.he could have a go.
‘Have a go’ at a women - who was on her own
He most definitely sounds like a misogynistic bully
-
‘Have a go’ at a women - who was on her own
He most definitely sounds like a misogynistic bully
I hope the judge asked her to never stop on a 70mph motorway again at the behest of a man on his own. What the hell was he thinking? Jamieson, I mean. Then, he shows her his warrant badge. SMH. Not a good actor in a shockumentary about justice. IMO
-
‘Have a go’ at a women - who was on her own
He most definitely sounds like a misogynistic bully
Nic, I can't find that link you posted for YouTube about the tricks of innocence fraud, the other day. I remember seeing it, but can't find it. I'm interested in watching it, if you can post again, please.
-
‘Have a go’ at a women - who was on her own
He most definitely sounds like a misogynistic bully
But that is exactly what he did. Obviously, no control.
-
I hope the judge asked her to never stop on a 70mph motorway again at the behest of a man on his own. What the hell was he thinking? Jamieson, I mean. Then, he shows her his warrant badge. SMH. Not a good actor in a shockumentary about justice. IMO
Wonder if he ever contacted Mindhouse TV or vice versa?
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/5364656/white-house-farm-murder-scots-forensics-expert/
-
Wonder if he ever contacted Mindhouse TV or vice versa?
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/5364656/white-house-farm-murder-scots-forensics-expert/
Seems to be a solid link between "professional," nutters and unprofessional campaigns.
-
And do you have evidence of this?
Yes. An alibi discredited in court.and a bunch of lies about garden fires.
-
Stephanie Bon was a source for Sandra Lean’s chapter in her book ‘No Smoke’ on killer Simon Hall
Part 2 to follow
⬇️
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2021/12/19/wrongful-convictions-miscarriages-of-justice-innocence-fraud-whats-the-difference/?preview_id=223&preview_nonce=203b426e39&preview=true
-
Sandra is back with another podcast.
https://www.facebook.com/1011563515/posts/10223795574249929/?d=n
She mentions she spoke with Luke the other day. No mention of the new legal team and no mention that she exited from the campaign. Was it a real exit from the case. Or way it just a stunt so she could take a step back from the mess that she has made without taking any responsibility and making it look like she was forced to leave. More smoke and mirrors
*%87
-
Sandra is back with another podcast.
https://www.facebook.com/1011563515/posts/10223795574249929/?d=n
She mentions she spoke with Luke the other day. No mention of the new legal team and no mention that she exited from the campaign. Was it a real exit from the case. Or way it just a stunt so she could take a step back from the mess that she has made without taking any responsibility and making it look like she was forced to leave. More smoke and mirrors
*%87
That's rubbish and you know it. Everyone read the statement and saw ALL the changes they made to it while rushing to be in charge
Once they had said control they had no idea what to do with it did they? THEY went very quiet.
As for Luke maybe he has realised the error. The wannabes soon got bored and the one consistent person would still fight his corner.
-
Who do you mean by they?
-
Further opinion, by invite of "make of it what you will?"
Something to digest: In IB Nicholas, SL refers to the fall out during the time of the SCCRC report being in. It is put across as things becoming strained between CM, that they could not agree on which was the best way to proceed. That once the report came through communication had broken down in their relationship, so much so that CM (who loves a note?) put another note through SL's door stating she had been stripped of POA - then refers to the WAP, that it had to be taken down as one no longer had the case files to back up what was being put out!
Interesting but so full of holes. The strain in the relationship it would appear was due to what had been happening on the WAP forum. Dispute between four people and not two, those four being SL, CM, LM and of course BM. (The latter co founder and runner of the WAP and also partner of SL?) Which was not simply about a disagreement on how best to proceed.
There were other cases involved here also, which due to losing their 'prime' target, that high profile murderer, the rest and any organisation to fight their cause were simply surplus, no longer worth keeping that forum running for? Yet when IB was released, that promise of wonderful new things, a new organisation to act in pretty much the same fashion as the WAP. Using the Mitchell case, that high profile murderer as their prime target to draw support! The 'others' and that vague promise to help those in similar situations, is simply not enough to give incentive to carry on, is it? (Where an organisation is concerned) One needs paid, so it is far from being mercenary, is it not?
But this dispute and that note, the demand that one is no longer able to hold those case files, that stripping of POA is not down to CM it is down to LM. In the exact same fashion as to that which has happened of late. It is not these other supporters, it is not CM, these are ultimately the actions of LM. They are his case files, his permission only to give and strip POA and not his mothers.
One talks of being both pushed to the "brink of mental and emotional collapse (after the fallout and failed review attempt). Everything it seemed had been for nothing" (IB SCCRC) - say what? History is simply repeating itself, is it not? Those years from becoming involved with the Mitchells, that massive help they have been to SL throughout those years. A writer and student needs material, and they source and study for this. What exactly in reality is this "Everything it seemed had been for nothing?"
Going back to study was always an option, she tells us this but it had to be at the right time. A continuation from one's psychology degree in 2000? Wanted to further study crime and chose that route of the Justice system (It's flaws), but mostly one wanted to use whatever was gained to be an author and writer. Three years back into study and one had put out their first book around 7 cases. Cases based upon opinion and attempts to match them to what can happen in the world of MOJ's. Taken an elective in paralegal work whilst doing that PHD. In short, those years (8 approx until that submission), the involvement with the Mitchells and others has been invaluable to SL, run alongside her true vocation, have they not? SL really owes a lot to them contrary to what impression people are under of sacrifices?
The waiting game, that cherry on the icing at this point - the report and feed back from the SCCRC was to determine what would be the decider of one's next move. That book however always in the pipeline, was it not? But LM stripped SL of her POA status, took those files back and ultimately without his permission, of that draw and contents from his case files - there would be no IB as it stands, that is simple fact. Was this the drain, the "Everything it seemed had been for nothing?"
As, there was very little hope of success with SCCRC, one tells us this and the next step forward ultimately to get the word out there, to sway public opinion and gain attention another way, by means of putting it all out there in that book. Flatlined, dead in the water, without LM and his mother? MOJO was to be the next hope, but they state clearly that their offices were merely to "provide storage for those case files" Which actually makes sense, these files in reality, should have always been in a secure place should they not have? Not simply stored in one's house in the middle of a scheme? A bedroom/make shift study? SL tells of that visitor to her door, to then getting security cameras to her house, so nothing there to protect any files before this then? No security. Which as anyone knows, hold very sensitive material? Perhaps they were under lock and key, perhaps not.
Let us be realistic here, those pop ins from SL over the time there (MOJO), served dual purpose once more, did it not? Still putting together content for that book. Where we are told that it came about by another stranger posing that question to her, getting it all down in writing and hey presto, within months that book is written! The first draft she tells us was not satisfactory (Did LM not approve of the first?), to then have it ready for press and released by '18'
So they merged together again, permission for certain contents allowed to be included in the book. The new legal team on board (The two PI's?). Done multiple podcasts and so forth to promote the book, to promote both SL and of course the Mitchell case. They get or were approached by C5, that carrot of having this killers voice aired publicly at a time where, there, was/is massive interest in this type of viewing? That best shot has been had for now, and history once more repeats itself, as:
Purpose has been served for both SL and LM once more, and again she is stripped from having his case files, that demand to hand them back, by him. Not CM and not those supporters together on side with her, It is his decision, exactly as before to take back what is rightfully his. It is foolish, is it not? To imagine for one moment that SL was ready and willing to take on any role of endless campaigning, manning an organisation whilst being fronted by both LM and his mother! I do not imagine for one moment that any of them are the 'forgive and forget' type? Do you?
Stir crazy, the influx of support, people willing to charge through the streets on horseback (I kid you not!) Never mind "Picnic at Hanging Rock" It was picnics at RDP for many western families and their kids, lots of lovely memorial "pics" of their children at the murder site! But reality was to hit home, not was at all how it should be, there was no stepping up to the mark from either CM or SL on behalf of Luke, was there? Not where these others were concerned, they could not understand why the gates of hell themselves were not being chained to? Disputes going on that had been going on for years between three people (LM, his mother and SL). And one by one people began to wake up and fall to the wayside, what was the point of them doing all the dirty work? When the main people were at loggerheads with each other?
Realism to the present day, the one person and again, who is really in charge is of course LM, has asked in the best way possible so as not to lose any more support - fed his fans a carrot, a message of hope? His lovely poem and a thank you for all their hard work, especially SL. To keep things low key and not feed the media. His mother and support on that side, are they eerily quiet or simply doing as requested? Where the other side, the group and support of SL have found this extremely hard, and why should one person remain quiet? That deal is done and dusted, the book is written and can not be taken back, the author has put a lot of work into this and like any author, promotion and sales are what come first! Are they not?
And yes it is opinion, one can not see into the true workings of those three in a bed together for their own cause, but it really does speak for itself does it not? If one takes any time to actually work their way through those years, as opposed to the present day and the writings of a book. Three people who have ultimately served purpose for each other, selfless acts? - not.
Further food for thought and that request to keep things low key, and to make that split ultimately public. This claimed new legal teams advice, may very well have a real basis of truth in it. LM is due to begin preparation for parole hearings in the not so distant future. His 20yrs are up come April 2024. And contrary to what many people may have been led to believe, there has never been an option for any early release in this case, it was a minimum 20yrs tariff, before being eligible for applying to the parole board. He simply could not have held his hands up and been out on the streets. But without doubt he may very well be wanting things low key, taken advice due to that preparation for those hearings?
One simply does not know, but then it certainly would appear that his last "legal team" were those two ex cops touting for their new PI business? Certainly no others have come to light, or if there were then they too saw nothing in this case that even hinted at a MOJ. Don't let the experts fool one, whilst it is all very well a lawyer putting out opinion on questions asked of them, it is another thing entirely putting money where their mouths are, not so keen to take this case on, are they?
And without doubt, this case will rear it's head time and again, more broadcasts one way or another via media source of all kinds. It attracted attention and status then, it will do so again without doubt. A different spin, and who knows, maybe one day LM himself may write his own book? There will always be something to top what has already passed? Human nature in all forms thrives for attention, to make their mark, nothing better than something that has already gained notoriety. We may even see a third book from SL on this case, most definitely, IF by some miracle LM were to be innocent by some default in law (doubtful) Perhaps one along the lines of 'My time with a killer' - Who knows, anything is possible, is it not? But for now, LM remains both factually and legally guilty of the murder of his girlfriend. No amount of opinion is going to change that. IB is one big IF, it is not based upon evidence and facts that matter, it is opinion and most definitely in parts by permission of LM.
This split which also holds interest in another area of the book, where by there is virtually nothing from any interviews or statements from CM herself. We have some of LM's interviews (by permission) and one says his mothers was just pretty much more of the same, therefore no point in putting them up? There are continuous red flags in the book, it is missing the very heart of anything that points towards Injustice, directly from the accused and convicted.
Therefore, this fiasco, deliberate or not, simply always the intention - Three people knew those files were to be handed back prior to it being made public, someone was obviously dragging their heels. Propaganda indeed, look at me?
-
Further opinion, by invite of "make of it what you will?"
Something to digest: In IB Nicholas, SL refers to the fall out during the time of the SCCRC report being in. It is put across as things becoming strained between CM, that they could not agree on which was the best way to proceed. That once the report came through communication had broken down in their relationship, so much so that CM (who loves a note?) put another note through SL's door stating she had been stripped of POA - then refers to the WAP, that it had to be taken down as one no longer had the case files to back up what was being put out!
That’s interesting
-
Further opinion, by invite of "make of it what you will?"
Something to digest: In IB Nicholas, SL refers to the fall out during the time of the SCCRC report being in. It is put across as things becoming strained between CM, that they could not agree on which was the best way to proceed. That once the report came through communication had broken down in their relationship, so much so that CM (who loves a note?) put another note through SL's door stating she had been stripped of POA - then refers to the WAP, that it had to be taken down as one no longer had the case files to back up what was being put out!
Interesting but so full of holes. The strain in the relationship it would appear was due to what had been happening on the WAP forum. Dispute between four people and not two, those four being SL, CM, LM and of course BM. (The latter co founder and runner of the WAP and also partner of SL?) Which was not simply about a disagreement on how best to proceed.
‘Holes’ or more blatant lies?
Billy Middleton published the following (In blue) in mid 2014
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/
-
But this dispute and that note, the demand that one is no longer able to hold those case files, that stripping of POA is not down to CM it is down to LM. In the exact same fashion as to that which has happened of late. It is not these other supporters, it is not CM, these are ultimately the actions of LM. They are his case files, his permission only to give and strip POA and not his mothers.
The ‘more powerful narcissist’
-
As, there was very little hope of success with SCCRC, one tells us this and the next step forward ultimately to get the word out there, to sway public opinion and gain attention another way, by means of putting it all out there in that book. Flatlined, dead in the water, without LM and his mother? MOJO was to be the next hope, but they state clearly that their offices were merely to "provide storage for those case files" Which actually makes sense, these files in reality, should have always been in a secure place should they not have? Not simply stored in one's house in the middle of a scheme? A bedroom/make shift study? SL tells of that visitor to her door, to then getting security cameras to her house, so nothing there to protect any files before this then? No security. Which as anyone knows, hold very sensitive material? Perhaps they were under lock and key, perhaps not.
They didn’t look like they were ‘under lock and key’ in that TV show
-
Let us be realistic here, those pop ins from SL over the time there (MOJO), served dual purpose once more, did it not? Still putting together content for that book. Where we are told that it came about by another stranger posing that question to her, getting it all down in writing and hey presto, within months that book is written! The first draft she tells us was not satisfactory (Did LM not approve of the first?), to then have it ready for press and released by '18'
Is this what she says in her second book?
Did the killer ever read the draft?
She alleged in one of the podcasts he hadn’t read IB
-
Let us be realistic here, those pop ins from SL over the time there (MOJO), served dual purpose once more, did it not? Still putting together content for that book. Where we are told that it came about by another stranger posing that question to her, getting it all down in writing and hey presto, within months that book is written! The first draft she tells us was not satisfactory (Did LM not approve of the first?), to then have it ready for press and released by '18'
Is this what she alleges in her book?
-
Stir crazy, the influx of support, people willing to charge through the streets on horseback (I kid you not!)
@)(++(*
-
But reality was to hit home, not was at all how it should be, there was no stepping up to the mark from either CM or SL on behalf of Luke, was there? Not where these others were concerned, they could not understand why the gates of hell themselves were not being chained to? Disputes going on that had been going on for years between three people (LM, his mother and SL).
Toxic mix
-
As, there was very little hope of success with SCCRC, one tells us this and the next step forward ultimately to get the word out there, to sway public opinion and gain attention another way, by means of putting it all out there in that book. Flatlined, dead in the water, without LM and his mother? MOJO was to be the next hope, but they state clearly that their offices were merely to "provide storage for those case files" Which actually makes sense, these files in reality, should have always been in a secure place should they not have? Not simply stored in one's house in the middle of a scheme? A bedroom/make shift study? SL tells of that visitor to her door, to then getting security cameras to her house, so nothing there to protect any files before this then? No security. Which as anyone knows, hold very sensitive material? Perhaps they were under lock and key, perhaps not.
Did she actually get ‘security cameras to her house’ or was this yet more smoke and mirrors?
And did she plan on inside and outside ‘security cameras’ given the Billy Middleton fiasco ?
Surely she considered both
-
Disputes going on that had been going on for years between three people (LM, his mother and SL).
And Shane Mitchell and the father?
-
And without doubt, this case will rear it's head time and again, more broadcasts one way or another via media source of all kinds.
You think?
I don’t!
-
IB is one big IF, it is not based upon evidence and facts that matter, it is opinion and most definitely in parts by permission of LM.
It’s Sandra Lean’s interpretation and spin and not based on the actual facts heard throughout the murder trial
Sandra Lean didn’t realise until recently AO had given evidence - what does that tell you?
Re: AO ➡️ http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12082.msg658244#msg658244
-
Suspect it will be a while before Lianna Mackie realises she’s been duped
’Or those vying for attention by lying? - Leans right handers? Direct puppets such as L.Mackie?’
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12082.msg658226#msg658226
Lianna Mackie
‘KG we aren’t collapsing, never will. Just waiting to hear back from Luke, and go forward accordingly. I’ve been on this for 18 years, the world will collapse before I will x
Lianna Mackie
KG Sandra has only pulled out professionally for now, she is still very much a supporter, however. There is no confirmation that statement is Luke’s own words. But please know, the second we can confirm more we absolutely will. We don’t want to add to the rife speculation which helps no one, and the drama certainly doesn’t either. So until we have absolute facts to update you all with we are not commenting on anything.
Anyone know what her twitter account was suspended for? ⬇️
https://mobile.twitter.com/liannamackie?lang=en
Was her twitter suspension killer Luke Mitchell related?
And who’s ‘drama’ is she referring to - Sandra Leans?
Is this Lianna Mackie related to this sick psychopathic Mackie ? https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-34458970
-
Suspect it will be a while before Lianna Mackie realises she’s been duped
’Or those vying for attention by lying? - Leans right handers? Direct puppets such as L.Mackie?’
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12082.msg658226#msg658226
Is this Lianna Mackie related to this sick psychopathic Mackie ? https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-34458970
Whoever Lianna Mackie is she appears completely deluded
She states,
‘Lianna Mackie
Could we please ask all new comers to sign the petition for an independent inquiry? Whether you think Luke is guilty or innocent, an independent review will finally give answers to all the doubts and is beneficial for both sides of the argument.
Why would someone who thinks sadistic psycho killer Luke Mitchell to be guilty want time and money wasted on a ‘review’ of any description based on a book written by liar Sandra Lean?
-
Let us be realistic here, those pop ins from SL over the time there (MOJO), served dual purpose once more, did it not? Still putting together content for that book. Where we are told that it came about by another stranger posing that question to her, getting it all down in writing and hey presto, within months that book is written! The first draft she tells us was not satisfactory (Did LM not approve of the first?), to then have it ready for press and released by '18'
Does she say this in her book?
-
Really pushed for time, in short, yes it is a summary to a degree of what is in the book around the fall out and so forth. I will answer fully later when I have more time. I have a post (continuation), around AO's and of SL's response to this which I will also put up. To note also quickly, that no, it does not say LM had read the book first prior to print, this is my question and opinion only. As is of course other areas which are opinion, the new colleague, stranger to her at work whom she was wary with when he asked her "Are you the Sandra Lean----" to then getting into a discussion around writing the book. As with everything context is important and one doesn't get much from the odd quote, allowed under "Fair use" for discussion purpose?
-
Really pushed for time, in short, yes it is a summary to a degree of what is in the book around the fall out and so forth. I will answer fully later when I have more time. I have a post (continuation), around AO's and of SL's response to this which I will also put up. To note also quickly, that no, it does not say LM had read the book first prior to print, this is my question and opinion only. As is of course other areas which are opinion, the new colleague, stranger to her at work whom she was wary with when he asked her "Are you the Sandra Lean----" to then getting into a discussion around writing the book. As with everything context is important and one doesn't get much from the odd quote, allowed under "Fair use" for discussion purpose?
I don’t think LM would need to read a draft of her book. He knows he murdered [Name removed].
All he’s interested in is having someone like Sandra Lean promote yet further propaganda
-
Really pushed for time, in short, yes it is a summary to a degree of what is in the book around the fall out and so forth. I will answer fully later when I have more time. I have a post (continuation), around AO's and of SL's response to this which I will also put up. To note also quickly, that no, it does not say LM had read the book first prior to print, this is my question and opinion only. As is of course other areas which are opinion, the new colleague, stranger to her at work whom she was wary with when he asked her "Are you the Sandra Lean----" to then getting into a discussion around writing the book. As with everything context is important and one doesn't get much from the odd quote, allowed under "Fair use" for discussion purpose?
Sounds like fraudster Scott Forbes
-
As with everything context is important and one doesn't get much from the odd quote, allowed under "Fair use" for discussion purpose?
Massive red flag and a tactic used by innocence fraud enablers like Sandra Lean
-
Something to digest: In IB Nicholas, SL refers to the fall out during the time of the SCCRC report being in. It is put across as things becoming strained between CM, that they could not agree on which was the best way to proceed. That once the report came through communication had broken down in their relationship, so much so that CM (who loves a note?) put another note through SL's door stating she had been stripped of POA - then refers to the WAP, that it had to be taken down as one no longer had the case files to back up what was being put out!
Hmm these ‘notes’
I’m not so sure about these ‘notes’
What I am sure of is Sandra Lean seemingly makes a lot up as she goes
-
Further opinion, by invite of "make of it what you will?"
Something to digest: In IB Nicholas, SL refers to the fall out during the time of the SCCRC report being in. It is put across as things becoming strained between CM, that they could not agree on which was the best way to proceed. That once the report came through communication had broken down in their relationship, so much so that CM (who loves a note?) put another note through SL's door stating she had been stripped of POA -then refers to the WAP, that it had to be taken down as one no longer had the case files to back up what was being put out!
Wasn’t this also around the time Corinne Mitchell put her house up for sale - around 3 years after the news she was apparently being sued for ‘£1/4m over deadly caravan’
https://www.scotsman.com/news/murderer-mitchells-mother-sued-ps-14m-over-deadly-caravan-1687143
-
Sounds like fraudster Scott Forbes
SF on the scene well before this, this new workmate claims to have been a friend who had doubts, who was scared to voice them for fear of the locals? Full of contradiction once more. Plays the "was done with it" packing all her many years of study away. Entering that new life of an easy 9 - 5 work role. That one was in a place that discussion of the case, as a "rule of thumb" did not happen (In that office) . Only a "select few" knew of her and that connection to the case there. This is the reason one was wary, was the new start a friend or foe? Wary as then states her place of work was "filled with mainly locals?" (Big office?) Least that is the impression. - contrast to other areas of the book, of everyone knowing her, those embellished attacks and all else, so much so (as stated before), that one had to ask her daughters to lie at school, to say no if they were asked "is your mother------"
So, all was packed away, "done with it" all. To the discussion on the case with this new mate, and the book was brought up. This is 2016 and by 2017 it is in for it's first edit. Give over? One had obviously been working hard at that book until that point, had they not? Not left and "done with it", at all!
So these fall outs, getting that proverbial boot not once but twice. Tells us also that although one is not being critical of CM, that unlike herself, she did not have a grasp and understanding of "legal technicalities" Perhaps the truth is more closer to one getting too big for ones boots, taking that hold of POA a step too far? That paralegal elective and qualification, that allowance to be granted access to sensitive case material, was being overstepped in some way? Certainly and without doubt, there was a fall out online at the time of the WAP, was someone not impersonating CM?
But regardless, and ultimately, any stripping and removing access came as a direct request from LM himself. I made an error around MOJO, (perhaps), the book in for it's first edit by that point. But without doubt, permission must have been requested/granted, from LM for contents belonging to him, not in the public domain to be used. Was his mother playing the role of "piggy in the middle" here? These three people came together once more, to suit the others purpose, that purpose is done and they are separate once more, for the time being. And as stated, the side of his mother appears to be adhering to keeping quiet, whilst the other not? Book still to be promoted and sold, (again an error), obviously suiting purpose still for Mitchell to get the word out there, to have that much craved attention, (narcistic, as you rightly state)
Reflect briefly once more to 2003, that undivided attention, replaying that night over and over to his captive audience that was SL? Feeding his nature, given him the attention he craved and needed? Much like that interview on the day of this girls funeral? Those interviews and that "flat affect" voice, handing the police more and more information that only the killer could know. In much the same fashion as "Peter Manual" ---------
("---" IB, chapter, SCCRC. )
-
SF on the scene well before this, this new workmate claims to have been a friend who had doubts, who was scared to voice them for fear of the locals? Full of contradiction once more. Plays the "was done with it" packing all her many years of study away. Entering that new life of an easy 9 - 5 work role. That one was in a place that discussion of the case, as a "rule of thumb" did not happen (In that office) . Only a "select few" knew of her and that connection to the case there. This is the reason one was wary, was the new start a friend or foe? Wary as then states her place of work was "filled with mainly locals?" (Big office?) Least that is the impression. - contrast to other areas of the book, of everyone knowing her, those embellished attacks and all else, so much so (as stated before), that one had to ask her daughters to lie at school, to say no if they were asked "is your mother------"
Is this what Sandra Lean claims in IB?
-
SF on the scene well before this, this new workmate claims to have been a friend who had doubts, who was scared to voice them for fear of the locals? Full of contradiction once more. Plays the "was done with it" packing all her many years of study away. Entering that new life of an easy 9 - 5 work role. That one was in a place that discussion of the case, as a "rule of thumb" did not happen (In that office) . Only a "select few" knew of her and that connection to the case there. This is the reason one was wary, was the new start a friend or foe? Wary as then states her place of work was "filled with mainly locals?" (Big office?) Least that is the impression. - contrast to other areas of the book, of everyone knowing her, those embellished attacks and all else, so much so (as stated before), that one had to ask her daughters to lie at school, to say no if they were asked "is your mother------"
Not surprised to hear she’s allegedly using her daughters as pawns again
But were both daughters asked to lie for her or just the one who lived with her or the one that didn’t?
-
Further opinion, by invite of "make of it what you will?"
Killer Simon Hall used these words btw in one of his blogs in early 2013 🙄
‘I say to whoever reads this, make of it what you will. People seem to form opinions without knowing all the facts’
(28th Jan 2013 https://therealmrshspoofblog.wordpress.com/author/gr8jumper/page/2/)
-
Does anyone remember the letter ‘someone’ sent to killer Simon Hall in early 2013
The post mark indicated it had originated from Edinburgh
And Sandra Lean indicated around the time she was seemingly concerned people might think she wrote/sent it
Was it Sandra Lean again who ‘suggested’ this person read the Bamber forum? 🙄
A copy of it was posted here ⬇️ (Under 4th Feb 2013)
https://therealmrshspoofblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/27/the-burglary-omission-smear-campaign-hindsight/
Killer Simon Hall wrote a blog in reply to the letter and he wrote it to give the impression his then wife had composed it, which she hadn’t.
‘’To the cowardly author who wrote to my husband, your letter arrived today.
Thank you for sharing your opinions and showing your narrow mindedness, thank you for confirming to us that you have ‘joined the pack’ and thank you for reminding us that you have very little knowledge.
You appear to be a bit of a nosy parker, so it would follow that you are probably also a curtain twitcher, have you got a neighbourhood watch sticker on your window.
We have noted the post mark and know that the letter was sent from Edinburgh.
The handwriting of the letter looks female but the words and tone are that of man. So for the time being, you could be female or a very effeminate man.
Never the less, you are one of the lucky ones. I have decided to commission a fingerprint expert along with a handwriting expert and fund this myself in order to find out your true identity. This will enable me to give your details to the police & prison security and add your name to the increasing list of nuisance mailers/harassers.
(Under 9th Feb 2013 here https://therealmrshspoofblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/simon-halls-blogs/)
-
Killer Simon Hall wrote a blog in reply to the letter and he wrote it to give the impression his then wife had composed it, which she hadn’t.
‘’To the cowardly author who wrote to my husband, your letter arrived today.
Thank you for sharing your opinions and showing your narrow mindedness, thank you for confirming to us that you have ‘joined the pack’ and thank you for reminding us that you have very little knowledge.
You appear to be a bit of a nosy parker, so it would follow that you are probably also a curtain twitcher, have you got a neighbourhood watch sticker on your window.
We have noted the post mark and know that the letter was sent from Edinburgh.
The handwriting of the letter looks female but the words and tone are that of man. So for the time being, you could be female or a very effeminate man.
Never the less, you are one of the lucky ones. I have decided to commission a fingerprint expert along with a handwriting expert and fund this myself in order to find out your true identity. This will enable me to give your details to the police & prison security and add your name to the increasing list of nuisance mailers/harassers.
(Under 9th Feb 2013 here https://therealmrshspoofblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/simon-halls-blogs/)
Why would Sandra Lean choose to privately contact Stephanie (Hall) on the 3rd Feb 2013 to make the claim she didn’t write the letter?
A copy of the ‘letter’ was posted here ⬇️ (Under 4th Feb 2013)
https://therealmrshspoofblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/27/the-burglary-omission-smear-campaign-hindsight/
Sandra Lean(3rd Feb 2013)
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.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg384705.html#msg384705
-
And Sandra Lean indicated around the time she was seemingly concerned people might think she wrote/sent it
Was it Sandra Lean again who ‘suggested’ this person read the Bamber forum? 🙄
A copy of it was posted here ⬇️ (Under 4th Feb 2013)
https://therealmrshspoofblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/27/the-burglary-omission-smear-campaign-hindsight/
Was Sandra Lean aware of the identity of author of the letter?
And was she also communicating with Shaun Hall and/or Stephanie Bon around this time?
”Maybe you should take that advice yourself, you rant night and day about the abuse you receive, if you look way back you’ll see your own behavior was responsible, you love to play the victim, when in fact the opposite is true. SL’s biggest mistake was lending you that laptop, which in turn allowed you to spread your personality around the WWW like a disease. This threads a f***ing car crash, much like your husbands case, well done.”
(Under the 3rd Feb 2013 here https://therealmrshspoofblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/27/the-burglary-omission-smear-campaign-hindsight/)
-
A copy of the ‘letter’ was posted here ⬇️ (Under 4th Feb 2013)
https://therealmrshspoofblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/27/the-burglary-omission-smear-campaign-hindsight/
Suffolk police were not ’convinced her murder was a burglary gone wrong’ 🙄
Early indications show Suffolk police thought Joan Albert’s murder was sexually motivated ⬇️
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2021/12/19/wrongful-convictions-miscarriages-of-justice-innocence-fraud-whats-the-difference/
Part 2 will be dropping in a few days
-
/
Sandra Lean(3rd Feb 2013)
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.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg384705.html#msg384705
Yet more gaslighting and smears and Sandra Lean’s attempts at emotional manipulation
Some examples of which will be included in the UK’s Innocence Fraud news series
-
She’s similar to Amanda Knox
who also chooses to treat Meredith Kercher’s family like imbeciles *&^^&
‘They can’t separate their emotions from their ability to rationally observe objective evidence’
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CckT0twVsDQ
Latest podcast on Innocence fraudster Amanda Knox
👇
https://www.spreaker.com/user/7811742/amanda-knox-controls-the-internet-feat-s
-
SF on the scene well before this, this new workmate claims to have been a friend who had doubts, who was scared to voice them for fear of the locals? Full of contradiction once more. Plays the "was done with it" packing all her many years of study away. Entering that new life of an easy 9 - 5 work role. That one was in a place that discussion of the case, as a "rule of thumb" did not happen (In that office) . Only a "select few" knew of her and that connection to the case there. This is the reason one was wary, was the new start a friend or foe? Wary as then states her place of work was "filled with mainly locals?" (Big office?) Least that is the impression. - contrast to other areas of the book, of everyone knowing her, those embellished attacks and all else, so much so (as stated before), that one had to ask her daughters to lie at school, to say no if they were asked "is your mother------"
What year was this and what school did her older daughter who didn’t live with her attend?
-
Further opinion, by invite of "make of it what you will?"
Something to digest: In IB Nicholas, SL refers to the fall out during the time of the SCCRC report being in. It is put across as things becoming strained between CM, that they could not agree on which was the best way to proceed. That once the report came through communication had broken down in their relationship, so much so that CM (who loves a note?) put another note through SL's door stating she had been stripped of POA - then refers to the WAP, that it had to be taken down as one no longer had the case files to back up what was being put out!
Interesting but so full of holes. The strain in the relationship it would appear was due to what had been happening on the WAP forum. Dispute between four people and not two, those four being SL, CM, LM and of course BM. (The latter co founder and runner of the WAP and also partner of SL?) Which was not simply about a disagreement on how best to proceed.
There were other cases involved here also, which due to losing their 'prime' target, that high profile murderer, the rest and any organisation to fight their cause were simply surplus, no longer worth keeping that forum running for? Yet when IB was released, that promise of wonderful new things, a new organisation to act in pretty much the same fashion as the WAP. Using the Mitchell case, that high profile murderer as their prime target to draw support! The 'others' and that vague promise to help those in similar situations, is simply not enough to give incentive to carry on, is it? (Where an organisation is concerned) One needs paid, so it is far from being mercenary, is it not?
But this dispute and that note, the demand that one is no longer able to hold those case files, that stripping of POA is not down to CM it is down to LM. In the exact same fashion as to that which has happened of late. It is not these other supporters, it is not CM, these are ultimately the actions of LM. They are his case files, his permission only to give and strip POA and not his mothers.
One talks of being both pushed to the "brink of mental and emotional collapse (after the fallout and failed review attempt). Everything it seemed had been for nothing" (IB SCCRC) - say what? History is simply repeating itself, is it not? Those years from becoming involved with the Mitchells, that massive help they have been to SL throughout those years. A writer and student needs material, and they source and study for this. What exactly in reality is this "Everything it seemed had been for nothing?"
Going back to study was always an option, she tells us this but it had to be at the right time. A continuation from one's psychology degree in 2000? Wanted to further study crime and chose that route of the Justice system (It's flaws), but mostly one wanted to use whatever was gained to be an author and writer. Three years back into study and one had put out their first book around 7 cases. Cases based upon opinion and attempts to match them to what can happen in the world of MOJ's. Taken an elective in paralegal work whilst doing that PHD. In short, those years (8 approx until that submission), the involvement with the Mitchells and others has been invaluable to SL, run alongside her true vocation, have they not? SL really owes a lot to them contrary to what impression people are under of sacrifices?
The waiting game, that cherry on the icing at this point - the report and feed back from the SCCRC was to determine what would be the decider of one's next move. That book however always in the pipeline, was it not? But LM stripped SL of her POA status, took those files back and ultimately without his permission, of that draw and contents from his case files - there would be no IB as it stands, that is simple fact. Was this the drain, the "Everything it seemed had been for nothing?"
As, there was very little hope of success with SCCRC, one tells us this and the next step forward ultimately to get the word out there, to sway public opinion and gain attention another way, by means of putting it all out there in that book. Flatlined, dead in the water, without LM and his mother? MOJO was to be the next hope, but they state clearly that their offices were merely to "provide storage for those case files" Which actually makes sense, these files in reality, should have always been in a secure place should they not have? Not simply stored in one's house in the middle of a scheme? A bedroom/make shift study? SL tells of that visitor to her door, to then getting security cameras to her house, so nothing there to protect any files before this then? No security. Which as anyone knows, hold very sensitive material? Perhaps they were under lock and key, perhaps not.
Let us be realistic here, those pop ins from SL over the time there (MOJO), served dual purpose once more, did it not? Still putting together content for that book. Where we are told that it came about by another stranger posing that question to her, getting it all down in writing and hey presto, within months that book is written! The first draft she tells us was not satisfactory (Did LM not approve of the first?), to then have it ready for press and released by '18'
So they merged together again, permission for certain contents allowed to be included in the book. The new legal team on board (The two PI's?). Done multiple podcasts and so forth to promote the book, to promote both SL and of course the Mitchell case. They get or were approached by C5, that carrot of having this killers voice aired publicly at a time where, there, was/is massive interest in this type of viewing? That best shot has been had for now, and history once more repeats itself, as:
Purpose has been served for both SL and LM once more, and again she is stripped from having his case files, that demand to hand them back, by him. Not CM and not those supporters together on side with her, It is his decision, exactly as before to take back what is rightfully his. It is foolish, is it not? To imagine for one moment that SL was ready and willing to take on any role of endless campaigning, manning an organisation whilst being fronted by both LM and his mother! I do not imagine for one moment that any of them are the 'forgive and forget' type? Do you?
Stir crazy, the influx of support, people willing to charge through the streets on horseback (I kid you not!) Never mind "Picnic at Hanging Rock" It was picnics at RDP for many western families and their kids, lots of lovely memorial "pics" of their children at the murder site! But reality was to hit home, not was at all how it should be, there was no stepping up to the mark from either CM or SL on behalf of Luke, was there? Not where these others were concerned, they could not understand why the gates of hell themselves were not being chained to? Disputes going on that had been going on for years between three people (LM, his mother and SL). And one by one people began to wake up and fall to the wayside, what was the point of them doing all the dirty work? When the main people were at loggerheads with each other?
Realism to the present day, the one person and again, who is really in charge is of course LM, has asked in the best way possible so as not to lose any more support - fed his fans a carrot, a message of hope? His lovely poem and a thank you for all their hard work, especially SL. To keep things low key and not feed the media. His mother and support on that side, are they eerily quiet or simply doing as requested? Where the other side, the group and support of SL have found this extremely hard, and why should one person remain quiet? That deal is done and dusted, the book is written and can not be taken back, the author has put a lot of work into this and like any author, promotion and sales are what come first! Are they not?
And yes it is opinion, one can not see into the true workings of those three in a bed together for their own cause, but it really does speak for itself does it not? If one takes any time to actually work their way through those years, as opposed to the present day and the writings of a book. Three people who have ultimately served purpose for each other, selfless acts? - not.
Further food for thought and that request to keep things low key, and to make that split ultimately public. This claimed new legal teams advice, may very well have a real basis of truth in it. LM is due to begin preparation for parole hearings in the not so distant future. His 20yrs are up come April 2024. And contrary to what many people may have been led to believe, there has never been an option for any early release in this case, it was a minimum 20yrs tariff, before being eligible for applying to the parole board. He simply could not have held his hands up and been out on the streets. But without doubt he may very well be wanting things low key, taken advice due to that preparation for those hearings?
One simply does not know, but then it certainly would appear that his last "legal team" were those two ex cops touting for their new PI business? Certainly no others have come to light, or if there were then they too saw nothing in this case that even hinted at a MOJ. Don't let the experts fool one, whilst it is all very well a lawyer putting out opinion on questions asked of them, it is another thing entirely putting money where their mouths are, not so keen to take this case on, are they?
And without doubt, this case will rear it's head time and again, more broadcasts one way or another via media source of all kinds. It attracted attention and status then, it will do so again without doubt. A different spin, and who knows, maybe one day LM himself may write his own book? There will always be something to top what has already passed? Human nature in all forms thrives for attention, to make their mark, nothing better than something that has already gained notoriety. We may even see a third book from SL on this case, most definitely, IF by some miracle LM were to be innocent by some default in law (doubtful) Perhaps one along the lines of 'My time with a killer' - Who knows, anything is possible, is it not? But for now, LM remains both factually and legally guilty of the murder of his girlfriend. No amount of opinion is going to change that. IB is one big IF, it is not based upon evidence and facts that matter, it is opinion and most definitely in parts by permission of LM.
This split which also holds interest in another area of the book, where by there is virtually nothing from any interviews or statements from CM herself. We have some of LM's interviews (by permission) and one says his mothers was just pretty much more of the same, therefore no point in putting them up? There are continuous red flags in the book, it is missing the very heart of anything that points towards Injustice, directly from the accused and convicted.
Therefore, this fiasco, deliberate or not, simply always the intention - Three people knew those files were to be handed back prior to it being made public, someone was obviously dragging their heels. Propaganda indeed, look at me?
Parasites all three of them!
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/27/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-30/
-
Abuser Sandra Lean & Her Lies, Deliberate Manipulation, Smear Campaigns & Gaslighting (Part 1)
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/29/quite-a-hall-tale-part-18%ef%b8%8f/
-
Abuser Sandra Lean & Her Lies, Deliberate Manipulation, Smear Campaigns & Gaslighting (Part 1)
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/29/quite-a-hall-tale-part-18%ef%b8%8f/
Part 2
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/29/quite-a-hall-tale-part-18a%ef%b8%8f/
-
I had been reading Ms Leans thesis
Did you check it for plagiarism ?
Sandra Lean
Ronnie Mothersole Not quite, Ronnie. The parka story began with Fleming and Walsh (one of them said it "might have been" a parka jacket - just like it "might have been" Luke, when we know it could have been MK), then grew arms and legs
-
Sandra Lean stated, (13th June 2021 during her live Facebook video)
“I don’t work with people who are dishonest with me” (cough cough 🙄)
She then went on to state,
“here are some of the comments I’ve had from Luke’s supporters
‘Drop the drama’
‘Stop making it all about you’
‘Get is sorted’
‘If you’d don’t want to be here then you don’t have to be’
‘The balls in your court’
and then,
‘now the balls in your court means we’ve done everything we possibly can it’s up to you now
I’ve been doing everything I possibly can for 18 years yeah the balls in my court
Corinne Mitchell would surely fall under the category of ‘Luke’s supporters’
So were - or have - any of these comments made about Sandra to Sandra been made directly or indirectly by Corinne or
maybe even killer Luke Mitchell?
Sandra then goes on to state,
‘’now so these these are difficult things to try to negotiate and to bring together and it kinda of became apparent that there was no will to negotiate’ (sic)
Was this really all about ‘negotiation’ or was this Sandra Leans attempt to assert her perceived authority?
Was this Corinne Mitchell saying these things ?
-
Following killer Luke Mitchell and his mother Corinne statement (which was made for them by Lisa C Reynolds Peden)
Sandra Lean stated during her last live Facebook video,
‘So to the statement I’m not gonna address the whole thing because there’s no need I think the message was fairly self evident’
What from the following ⬇️ was Sandra Lean claiming to be ‘self evident’
given the week before she had stated during her live Facebook video,
‘and in view of everything that’s been going on you know and the way things have been I asked Luke did he want me to bow out now hand over to the legal team and bow out and he said absolutely not Luke wants me to continue and hopefully find ways for me to communicate stuff to the lawyer and all that sort of thing so one of the things that I do have to say upfront and it is quite important for people to understand this some lawyers and I don’t know about this one like I said it’s very earlier days some lawyers like when they are trying to put an application to go back to the commission or an application goes into the commission they will say to the convicted person and their families
‘take down everything off of social media’
and I’ve seen it done I’ve seen it done on a couple of cases I’ve been working on we’ve got a big following going and the lawyer said take it down erm we’re hoping that won’t be the case or or if it is the case we’ll be able to erm maintain some sort of presence maybe without being as in depth as it currently is
‘take down everything off of social media’
@)(++(*
What about those books of yours Sandra ?
Will the lawyers also be sending someone out to round up all those books you’ve sold or given away and be erasing people’s minds in the process @)(++(*
And what about all those people who watched that sham of a Channel 5 TV show Sandra?
Who will be responsible for erasing the minds of all those who watched it ?
And do you think channel 5 will remove it because killer Luke Mitchell’s alleged new lawyer said so?
@)(++(*
This was defo “balls of steel” Scott Forbes
-
So……. All of a sudden Sandra is back on the scene with sidekick Scott Forbes. Has Luke now had a change of heart.
She never really stepped down in the first place did she? Was the exit last year because things got a little too hot in the kitchen perhaps?
-
Transcript of Sandra Leans live YouTube/Facebook video update - 28th March 2021
(From around approx 24:27)
“The number of people who have been in touch since this started desperate for help in similar circumstances desperate for help and it really really tears me apart to have to say I’m sorry I can’t take on any new work and new cases right now there’s only one of me I don’t have the time or the resources right now to take on any new cases
Most of you know that for the vast vastvast majority of the time I’ve been doing this I’ve done it in my spare time I’ve had to work other jobs to support myself in order to be able to do this work in my spare time
In the last almost 5 weeks I have done nothing from morning to night working on THIS
so working on not just what you see with answering questions and dealing with books and things like that but behind the scenes working with people who can really help long long conversations with with people who can really help erm who’s input will be really important and what’s become apparent is the only way I can do this properly is full time and that means I need to be able to earn enough money earn a living to keep me afloat and do this work full time
To that end erm a other fantastic couple of supporters have helped me set up erm a company called innocents betrayed lots and thought that company books sales, events, services all the sorts of stuff that will be available for other people to access will go through innocents betrayed ltd they’ll be the sort of shop front if you like of that organisation which in turn will allow me to focus on THIS work full time
It’s my intention again there have been lots of unexpected expenses during the period where I’ve not been able to work for money because this has been literally full time so so I need to address that erm I’m no good to anybody if I can’t pay the bills to keep the roof over my own head erm so the the my plan is to give the profits innocents betrayed away to miscarriage of justice organisations that that can do this sort of work charitable organisations that’s my intention whatever I’m legally allowed to give away that is what I will do with it erm inevitably inevitably I can almost hear them start already listen “she’s just in it for the money” - “she’s just in it for the money” yep if I’d been doing this for the money guys I’d have given up a long long time ago arh ha ha ha a long time ago erm but yeah I just wanted that out there up front that’s that’s where I’m at the minute and over the next arh 2 or 3 weeks I’ll be I’ll be developing that and erm putting out more information about it as well now that’s our update
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RGhh114oQBw&feature=youtu.be
.
-
So……. All of a sudden Sandra is back on the scene with sidekick Scott Forbes. Has Luke now had a change of heart.
She never really stepped down in the first place did she? Was the exit last year because things got a little too hot in the kitchen perhaps?
Why is Sandra back all of a sudden with her lapdog Scott?
-
I am looking for her full exit transcript do you have the whole thing? The one from June 2021.
Transcript of Hoaxer Sandra Lean’s 27th June 2021 ‘Exit’ Speech Re: Factually Guilty Killer Luke Mitchell & The Infighting
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2021/07/04/transcript-of-sandra-leans-27th-june-2021-live-facebook-video-exit-speech/