"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[Nicholas]

Part 147 Phoney Criminologist Sandra Lean, Her Lack Of Critical Thinking & The Mitchell’s Motors
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/12/04/killer-luke-mitchell-phoney-criminologist-sandra-lean-her-lack-of-critical-thinking-the-mitchells-motors-part-147/

UPDATED 👆🏽

[Nicholas]

One positive of IB is the intensity of the spinning now required by Ms Lean on a larger scale. The more she is asked questions the more she highlights just how lacking she really is. Common sense and intellect are not evident. The half truths and the explanations are a shambles.


I have mentioned this several times now, it matters not who pays heed to this. For some people there is no attempt at changing horses mid stream. Once you are caught in a web of deceit it is almost impossible to escape. Allowing oneself first and foremost to be become entangled out of sheer foolishness will not change.

Some common sense first: - LM was arrested some 10 months after Jodi's murder. If you have already been tangled up in the nonsense of tunnel vision, of setting out to fit Mitchell up from the moment that 999 call was made. Read no further.

DNA - I am going to start here with the infamous bra strap - Ms Leans favourite for spinning with. Of only recently again making claim, to some markers belonging to 4/5 others closely linked to the investigation. Here is the half truth, that there were common markers. To be common they have to sit in the same place. You may have already read Chris's technical terms around this. We can stick with markers here. To include someone as a donor there can be NO markers present that do no match theirs. These others that Ms Lean includes with markers, were EXCLUDED as being a donor. There were markers present NOT belonging to them. Every marker, and there were several in place, the same as Mitchells included him as the donor. The bra strap was not unique to this, there were multiple partial profiles, all with the same markers siting in the same place as Mitchells, all of these partials he could NOT be excluded as being the donor of. Those law of averages, those multiples make it almost certain they were all Mitchells. Proven not, almost certain, yes. Did it matter - yes it did, not for Mitchell and his close relationship with Jodi, but of this murder NOT pointing to A another. That of a stranger.

Doing the rounds and yet again not corrected. This Cath Black claiming that the blood on DD's shoe was Jodi's. Those arms and legs added with some of Mitchells most avid supporters. The type of support needed to ensure Mitchell stays where he belongs. But of spinning and another posted of JaF's DNA and the database:

Now I have picked up on this before, that any OTHER profiles present tell us clearly they do not belong to ANY of Ms Leans others, (EX SK) RG included or claimed 'similar' crimes. Where she is now putting out further half truths around this male. Stating that he had been in trouble prior to his DNA flagging up in the system. No shit, did the guy get stopped for speeding? Any type of minor offence that did not warrant a DNA sample being taken. Using this as a means to claim that anything at the time may NOT have been run through the database - BS. In Peter Pan land of some fantasy conspiracy theory, borne from those days of Jigsawman. The powers on high were out to stitch that lad up - BS

Back to Mitchell and that 10 month period in time. Where anyone, with even a smidgeon of common sense, will see that there had to be sufficient evidence that warranted Mitchell being and remaining the prime suspect in this murder. Take you head out of any obtuse conspiracy theory and think. This was 10 months, there was no rush, no drive to get a quick arrest, to nail someone for this murder. This brutal murder of a 14 year old girl. Add in every other male that had been known through this. SK, the duo, the brother, MK and that condom. All known almost instantly. It does NOT matter that the duo and condom mans actual ID was not knowing to the police until after the 1st of July. The duo were known to the police almost instantly. they knew that two youths had been seen near to the locus. They were instantly prime in this investigation. The very reason that appeal was put out. The ID of them knowing to the police within the week. The condom and some real common sense, not Leans "he may have tried to put it in his pocket and dropped it." Of the crow flies measurements and all else. There was nothing that is 0 of his DNA at the immediate locus or in sight of it. If there had have been, it would have raised more than a ? with DF. Yes we know, Ms Lean has him down as inadequate too. This nonsense and the database, that profile upon the deceased's shoe. Nothing flagged up and irrelevant. A sperm head (1) from a woodland, who would have thought?

Now to draw back to this DNA. This person who has written a book where those who are that blinded, do not even pick up on the fact that there is actually no proper referencing to any witness statements. Just that they come from the defence papers. And those forensic reports. Blagging her way through any type of nonsense. Where this further spinning is required. She is being asked direct questions and the answer is "I never thought of that!" As we had with the female element of DNA present in semen. Book written before any expertise given. Blagging and further blagging. This was the brutal murder of a 14yr old girl and the woman is blagging her way through a book. Her sole aim, to draw the reader onto other possible people of interest. To blag about them, the police, the defence and all else - to have a chapter in her book called "The agreed Facts!" which is the agreement made between Sandra Lean and Luke Mitchell. Nothing to do with facts as we know it. The most blatant half truth in it all. Mitchells LIES labelled as FACTS.

Con-artist Sandra Lean said similar in killer Simon Hall case

[Nicholas]

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

‘Revisions’ ?

[Nicholas]

Excerpt from con-artist Sandra Lean’s first discredited book No Smoke p.90

“If Luke Mitchell had committed such a brutal murder, wearing such a recognisable garment, is it feasible to believe that his mother would provide him with an identical (and therefore readily identifiable) one? It simply makes no sense - having disposed of the jacket, the obvious move would have been to buy something completely different”

How so?

Of course it’s ‘feasible to believe that his mother would provide him with an identical one’!

Btw killer Simon Hall previously owned a pair of black mole skin type trousers - the pair he purchased on the 15th December 2001 were his second pair

[Nicholas]

Group member
This is a Luke love in page with no thought for the victim’s family the fact no one even mentions they arranged to met and there’s only one route from his house to hers and that’s where she was found just off the remote woodland path is enough to make him a suspect. hopefully evidence comes to light that confirms one way or another but to claim he is innocent by being brainwashed by his defence lawyer’s argument is crazy because even guilty people have the right to be defended

Ana Azaria
Hi group member, I’ll address the points you made individually. 
We are a non-speculative group, with the aim of achieving justice for both Jodi and Luke. We absolutely do not allow speculation (or abuse) against Jodi’s family; we only work with the known facts. 
You said in your post that you hope that evidence comes to light that confirms one way or another (whether Luke is guilty) – so do we! But we aren’t here to just hope for that, we are here to fight for it. The fact that you agree that it hasn’t been confirmed one way or another that Luke committed this crime, means that you must be aware that a potentially innocent person could have spent 18 years in prison – and that this could mean the murderer is still out there. While these questions remain, neither Jodi or her family have had justice – and over and above just being considerate, we want to make sure that justice is achieved. 
We have mentioned the meeting details and the route, many times! We have a lot of posts on this page and we cover everything that we can. If you feel that we have missed something or don’t discuss it enough, please bring that up and we can look at it. 
In regards to the path/route - even if Jodi was making her way down the path towards Newbattle to meet Luke (and we don’t know for sure which route she took), we don’t know whether she stopped on the way, or who else she met up with. We still don’t know exactly when Jodi left her house – the statements regarding that changed a few times and it was never properly confirmed. Her cousin’s moped was seen at the v break at the time the police believed Jodi was killed. A family member of Jodi’s was seen following her towards the path just after 5pm. These individuals were not investigated, and if you know the case details, you will know that there are a lot of unanswered questions and discrepancies surrounding these people that were connected to the scene. It doesn’t mean that any of these people are guilty or committed the crime – but the point is, to say that Jodi must have met Luke on the path or made her way down the path without meeting anyone else, is simply speculation. 
I’m not sure what you mean by being brainwashed by his defence lawyer.

[Nicholas]

Reuben March 2010
Mr Hall's family was approached about a PHD in 2006, the book came after, 2007 / 08.  I never said they were connected, I said that the PHD was the reason behind the first contact from S.L.

Corinne Mitchell March 2010
I am sorry, but you are actually, factually.....wrong.
The book and the PHD are not connected. Sandra began her PHD a couple of years AFTER book was published. When she was writing the book a PHD hadn't entered her head. I know....because I was there!!!
The book was never a promise of help it was written to make the general public aware of how rotten our justice system is.

Sandra Lean (Excerpts from Feb 2012 dissertation - beginning p.108)
Because of my long term involvement in a high profile case in Scotland, in which an extremely negative perception of the convicted person has existed for several years, research in Scotland, whether collecting survey data or organising and arranging interviews posed particular challenges. Initially, a decision was taken that I would not personally collect survey data in the local area (Edinburgh and Lothian), this being undertaken by four volunteers not known to be associated with me, so as not to „give away‟ the connection of the survey to instances of wrongful accusation/conviction, as discussed previously.

Because of developments in the above case (with which I remained involved throughout the duration of the study), an internet “hate campaign‟ emerged aiming to discredit me, personally, and the case in particular. Many lies were posted on several sites, calling my integrity and trustworthiness into question, which may have had some impact on those who had initially expressed an interest in participating in the study failing to respond to later attempts at contact. As a result of these events, and the unregulated manner in which sites were operated, the lies and malicious comments escalated fairly quickly into threats, both veiled and blatant. Threats were made to publish my personal address and telephone numbers, pictures of my home, and details of my daughters, and dishonest information was posted concerning my personal life. This culminated in physical threats (including death threats) made by people approaching me whilst in the street, and, in one instance, by a person arriving at my home to threaten me.
Throughout this period, the police in Scotland would not act, maintaining that no crime had been committed, even though in England and Wales, I had been made aware of similar circumstances where police had acted, and charges had been brought28. Following the arrival of the person at my home, my daughter and I were forced to move out until proper security measures had been put in place (cameras and movement sensor lights) as this person had threatened to return should I continue my involvement in the case.

These events raised several issues regarding the whole approach to the study, and the effects of these events on my abilities to maintain an impartial and unbiased approach to data collection and analysis. Of particular concern were dishonest claims that I had previously misled individuals whose cases were highlighted in a book I had written, by leading them to believe I was collecting their stories for a PhD study. Because of my concerns about this aspect of the hate campaign, I had retrieved all the written consents of the people whose stories I had previously covered, but realised that to show them to individuals who may have expressed doubts about participation in this study could have been construed as attempts to influence decisions on whether to participate or not, so a decision was taken that should anyone wish to withdraw, on the basis of internet claims, then that decision would be respected without question. No-one who agreed to participate in the semi-structured interview part of the survey asked to be removed, and feedback from those who had seen the internet claims was positive and encouraging, with assurances that most people knew that the claims were dishonest.

“Someone who used the alias Reuben stated in March 2010, ‘She approached the family telling them she was doing a PHD’

Reuben stated; (14th March 2010)

I too was reading in silence but now need to comment as a close friend of Mr Hall's family..

I have followed the case since the beginning and can guarantee that S Lean DID NOT work on the Simon Hall case AT ALL.

She approached the family telling them she was doing a PHD (as she told everyone she wrote about) and wanted to use the case as an example. 

She then just used the info in the public domain and changed a few words here and there, book made.

If you read the Simon Hall Website and then her chapter...they are strangely similar..

At the time the book was published we all read it and were asked for comments, everyone was quite disappointed at the result but then thought it could be good publicity, still the book hasn't really had the success his family was promised.

Reuben stated; (15th March 2010)

As I said you may be right with YOUR facts, but not about others...not one bit!

Mr Hall's family was approached about a PHD in 2006, the book came after, 2007 / 08.  I never said they were connected, I said that the PHD was the reason behind the first contact from S.L.

You need to read what people are saying, a PHD in 3 different places???  Perhaps in different times?

http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/29/quite-a-hall-tale-part-18a%ef%b8%8f/


In Sandra Leans February 2012 dissertation called ‘Hidden In Plain View’ she was claiming Reuben was one of the people involved in a “hate campaign”

Sandra Lean

Of particular concern were dishonest claims that I had previously misled individuals whose cases were highlighted in a book I had written, by leading them to believe I was collecting their stories for a PhD study. Because of my concerns about this aspect of the hate campaign, I had retrieved all the written consents of the people whose stories I had previously covered, but realised that to show them to individuals who may have expressed doubts about participation in this study could have been construed as attempts to influence decisions on whether to participate or not, so a decision was taken that should anyone wish to withdraw, on the basis of internet claims, then that decision would be respected without question. No-one who agreed to participate in the semi-structured interview part of the survey asked to be removed, and feedback from those who had seen the internet claims was positive and encouraging, with assurances that most people knew that the claims were dishonest

Were the claims made by Reuben about Sandra Lean in 2010 ‘dishonest’?

Sandra Lean

Because of my concerns about this aspect of the hate campaign, I had retrieved all the written consents of the people whose stories I had previously covered, but realised that to show them to individuals who may have expressed doubts about participation in this study could have been construed as attempts to influence decisions on whether to participate or not, so a decision was taken that should anyone wish to withdraw, on the basis of internet claims, then that decision would be respected without question

Did Sandra Lean show all those people who participated in her alleged study, the claims being made on the internet at the time by people like Reuben?

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean (Excerpts from Feb 2012 dissertation - continuing from p.109
However, such experiences also allowed an insight into the experiences of wrongly accused/convicted persons and their family members, where the case has been the subject of high profile media coverage; the inability to prevent such things being disseminated publicly, and the lack of redress for such a situation are two common causes of concern and anger for these people. Also an insight into how some members of the public can be convinced that what they have read or heard about high profile cases in the media is factually correct proved invaluable in understanding the effects of such responses on innocent individuals and their family members.

The potentially negative impacts for the study (access to wrongly accused/convicted persons and their families, campaigners, etc) were greatly eased by existing contacts, with whom relationships of trust and respect had previously been built, making contact with potential participants, reassuring them that the “hate campaign‟ was malicious and dishonest, and that I was trustworthy, with no “ulterior motives,‟ as had been suggested. It was as a result of these people‟s kindness and integrity that the part of the study covering Scottish cases was able to be conducted to the extent it was, and the effects of the “hate campaign‟ so successfully minimised.

 

[Nicholas]

“Someone who used the alias Reuben stated in March 2010, ‘She approached the family telling them she was doing a PHD’

Reuben stated; (14th March 2010)

I too was reading in silence but now need to comment as a close friend of Mr Hall's family..

I have followed the case since the beginning and can guarantee that S Lean DID NOT work on the Simon Hall case AT ALL.

She approached the family telling them she was doing a PHD (as she told everyone she wrote about) and wanted to use the case as an example. 

She then just used the info in the public domain and changed a few words here and there, book made.

If you read the Simon Hall Website and then her chapter...they are strangely similar..

At the time the book was published we all read it and were asked for comments, everyone was quite disappointed at the result but then thought it could be good publicity, still the book hasn't really had the success his family was promised.

Reuben stated; (15th March 2010)

As I said you may be right with YOUR facts, but not about others...not one bit!

Mr Hall's family was approached about a PHD in 2006, the book came after, 2007 / 08.  I never said they were connected, I said that the PHD was the reason behind the first contact from S.L.

You need to read what people are saying, a PHD in 3 different places???  Perhaps in different times?

Sandra Lean thought Reuben could have been Shaun Hall or Stephanie Bon or someone associated with them

Reuben was referred to in the below blog

Part 18a Sandra Lean: Where Did It Really All Begin & Why?
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/29/quite-a-hall-tale-part-18a%ef%b8%8f/

and also referred to in Part 18f ~ dropping soon

[Myster]

This might be of interest to some... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRR-CccYXqI

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean thought Reuben could have been Shaun Hall or Stephanie Bon or someone associated with them

Reuben was referred to in the below blog

Part 18a Sandra Lean: Where Did It Really All Begin & Why?
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/29/quite-a-hall-tale-part-18a%ef%b8%8f/

and also referred to in Part 18f ~ dropping soon

Part 18b Unconvicted Child Killer, Abuser & Predator Billy Middleton
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/30/quite-a-hall-tale-part-18c%ef%b8%8f/

Part 18c Twisted Reciprocal Relationships
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/30/quite-a-hall-tale-part-18d%ef%b8%8f/

Part 18d Innocence Fraud Killers Sion Jenkins & Michael O’Brien
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/31/quite-a-hall-tale-part-18d%ef%b8%8f-2/

Part 18e Abusers
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/09/01/quite-a-hall-tale-part-18e%ef%b8%8f-2/

[Nicholas]

Part 18f Sandra Lean: Toxicity, Triangulation, Projection & Informal Fallacies
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/31/quite-a-hall-tale-part-18e%ef%b8%8f/

Part 18g ~ dropping soon

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean (Excerpts from Feb 2012 dissertation - beginning p.108)
Because of my long term involvement in a high profile case in Scotland, in which an extremely negative perception of the convicted person has existed for several years, research in Scotland, whether collecting survey data or organising and arranging interviews posed particular challenges. Initially, a decision was taken that I would not personally collect survey data in the local area (Edinburgh and Lothian), this being undertaken by four volunteers not known to be associated with me, so as not to „give away‟ the connection of the survey to instances of wrongful accusation/conviction, as discussed previously.

Because of developments in the above case (with which I remained involved throughout the duration of the study), an internet “hate campaign‟ emerged aiming to discredit me, personally, and the case in particular. Many lies were posted on several sites, calling my integrity and trustworthiness into question, which may have had some impact on those who had initially expressed an interest in participating in the study failing to respond to later attempts at contact. As a result of these events, and the unregulated manner in which sites were operated, the lies and malicious comments escalated fairly quickly into threats, both veiled and blatant. Threats were made to publish my personal address and telephone numbers, pictures of my home, and details of my daughters, and dishonest information was posted concerning my personal life. This culminated in physical threats (including death threats) made by people approaching me whilst in the street, and, in one instance, by a person arriving at my home to threaten me.
Throughout this period, the police in Scotland would not act, maintaining that no crime had been committed, even though in England and Wales, I had been made aware of similar circumstances where police had acted, and charges had been brought28. Following the arrival of the person at my home, my daughter and I were forced to move out until proper security measures had been put in place (cameras and movement sensor lights) as this person had threatened to return should I continue my involvement in the case.

These events raised several issues regarding the whole approach to the study, and the effects of these events on my abilities to maintain an impartial and unbiased approach to data collection and analysis. Of particular concern were dishonest claims that I had previously misled individuals whose cases were highlighted in a book I had written, by leading them to believe I was collecting their stories for a PhD study. Because of my concerns about this aspect of the hate campaign, I had retrieved all the written consents of the people whose stories I had previously covered, but realised that to show them to individuals who may have expressed doubts about participation in this study could have been construed as attempts to influence decisions on whether to participate or not, so a decision was taken that should anyone wish to withdraw, on the basis of internet claims, then that decision would be respected without question. No-one who agreed to participate in the semi-structured interview part of the survey asked to be removed, and feedback from those who had seen the internet claims was positive and encouraging, with assurances that most people knew that the claims were dishonest.

“Someone who used the alias Reuben stated in March 2010, ‘She approached the family telling them she was doing a PHD’

In Sandra Leans February 2012 dissertation called ‘Hidden In Plain View’ she was claiming Reuben was one of the people involved in a “hate campaign”
 
Were the claims made by Reuben about Sandra Lean in 2010 ‘dishonest’?

Did Sandra Lean show all those people who participated in her alleged study, the claims being made on the internet at the time by people like Reuben?

What exactly did Sandra Lean tell Gill McIvor and Margaret Malloch ?

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean (Excerpts from Feb 2012 dissertation - beginning p.108)
Of particular concern were dishonest claims that I had previously misled individuals whose cases were highlighted in a book I had written, by leading them to believe I was collecting their stories for a PhD study. Because of my concerns about this aspect of the hate campaign, I had retrieved all the written consents of the people whose stories I had previously covered, but realised that to show them to individuals who may have expressed doubts about participation in this study could have been construed as attempts to influence decisions on whether to participate or not, so a decision was taken that should anyone wish to withdraw, on the basis of internet claims, then that decision would be respected without question. No-one who agreed to participate in the semi-structured interview part of the survey asked to be removed, and feedback from those who had seen the internet claims was positive and encouraging, with assurances that most people knew that the claims were dishonest.
 

 

Never mind the ‘written consents’ what did con-artist Sandra Lean’s original communications with these individuals consist of ?

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean (Excerpts from Feb 2012 dissertation - Page 104)
Again, given the manner in which the study was conducted (travelling in a camper van to keep costs down), security issues were ever present, should the van be broken into or stolen, although the locked cabinet had been built into the furniture of the van so as not to be conspicuous. The removable external drive was not left in the van at any time when it was unattended.

Camper Van? = Former post office van

‘The removable external drive was not left in the van at any time when it was unattended’ - Are you sure Sandra Lean?

 

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean (Excerpts from Feb 2012 dissertation - beginning p.108)
Of particular concern were dishonest claims that I had previously misled individuals whose cases were highlighted in a book I had written, by leading them to believe I was collecting their stories for a PhD study. Because of my concerns about this aspect of the hate campaign, I had retrieved all the written consents of the people whose stories I had previously covered, but realised that to show them to individuals who may have expressed doubts about participation in this study could have been construed as attempts to influence decisions on whether to participate or not, so a decision was taken that should anyone wish to withdraw, on the basis of internet claims, then that decision would be respected without question. No-one who agreed to participate in the semi-structured interview part of the survey asked to be removed, and feedback from those who had seen the internet claims was positive and encouraging, with assurances that most people knew that the claims were dishonest.

From page 177 of Sandra Leans thesis

Another family member highlights what was, to the family, an inexplicable series of events in which what was perceived to be solid, tangible evidence was never followed up;

‘“They took a week to come forward, even though they were relatives [of the victim]... one of them had cut his hair, but they eliminated them from the enquiry within a day – the DNA results weren‟t even back. They never got the clothes they were wearing, or the bike... all of that should have been tested for forensics... just like they didn‟t get the search party‟s clothes...there were so many things we found out later – *** and *** – both of them were at the scene of the crime on the night of the murder, but the police didn‟t trace them, even though they had been told about ***, and they had ***s DNA from the start.‟

(family member, accused convicted, sentenced to 20 years.)