"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[Nicholas]

Killer Simon Hall and his prison solicitor fabricated a Guittard application 

Sandra Lean fabricated her ‘thesis’ also

”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. ~ Sandra Lean

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.

In reality guilty killer Luke Mitchell and Sandra Lean’s innocence fraud was being exposed, which demonstrated Sandra Lean had zero integrity and could not be trusted but Stirling university failed to recognise and address this fact.

Sandra Lean told numerous lies about many cases and individual’s and the ‘internet “hate campaign” she mentioned was her own aimed at other people, in which she attempted to discredit many people, especially those who saw through her and her former boyfriend and co-director un-convicted baby killer, sexual deviant, con-artist and abuser Billy Middleton.

And contrary to what Sandra Lean wrote in her thesis (and online) Sandra Lean was not only unable to remain impartial her entire approach to re-examining murder cases was biased in favour of the disturbed and dangerous killers (and other criminals – convicted/or un-convicted) she deeply desired to free from prison and or exonerate – Or portray those individuals who had stood trial and been found ‘not proven’, as innocent victims of a criminal justice system run amok.

Above excerpts taken from following blog
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/31/quite-a-hall-tale-part-18f%ef%b8%8f/

[Nicholas]

Colin Bowman - 21st November 2010
I apologise for making a post (above) which did not address the thread topic.
My understanding of the Hall case is weak, and am rather improving that understanding by following recents posts on the case and its personalities.
It seems an interesting case, given that it is accepted by some that its circumstantial arguments so depend on what is said about particular fibres; that if that evidence fails, then the whole case falls.
That would be an interesting conception to get into play. Namely that circumstantial prosecutions can have lynch-pin presumptions and intrepretations; such that circumstantially gained convictions can be overturned across identifying and discrediting that lynch pin evidence. So it would contribute to building-up a tool-box of instruments that can be employed to deconstruct circumstantial prosecutions.
colin

Does Colin Bowman no longer post on the forums?

Would be interested to hear his take on the personalities involved in killer Luke Mitchell’s innocence fraud

Colin Bowman - 21st November 2010
I now intend to openly protect the forums and the people who make this argument on behalf of Luke Mitchell and others. I can now see that the advancement of a strong MOJ culture and movement, takes priority over both free-speech and individual-rights. Previously I was hanging onto values of free-speech and individual-rights; but I now recognise that the advancement of a MOJ culture and movement, is going to face such obstacles, that making this project happen has to be astutely done and be protected.

 

Con-artist Sandra Lean “….the unregulated manner in which sites were operated”

”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. ~ Sandra Lean

 

In reality - it was about control

And in reality the ‘control issues’ Sandra Lean wrote about as a footnote in her fabricated ‘thesis’ were again her own

89.This campaign was beset with difficulties introduced by control issues, contributors who were ignorant of the actual legal processes involved, defensiveness, a tendency for contributors to interpret criticisms and suggestions as personal attacks, and the recurring difficulties of malicious and disingenuous contributors posting under numerous false identities.
(Page 270 https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/9834706.pdf)

[Nicholas]

Colin Bowman - 21st November 2010
I now intend to openly protect the forums and the people who make this argument on behalf of Luke Mitchell and others. I can now see that the advancement of a strong MOJ culture and movement, takes priority over both free-speech and individual-rights. Previously I was hanging onto values of free-speech and individual-rights; but I now recognise that the advancement of a MOJ culture and movement, is going to face such obstacles, that making this project happen has to be astutely done and be protected.

 

Con-artist Sandra Lean “….the unregulated manner in which sites were operated”

 

In reality - it was about control

And in reality the ‘control issues’ Sandra Lean wrote about as a footnote in her fabricated ‘thesis’ were again her own

89.This campaign was beset with difficulties introduced by control issues, contributors who were ignorant of the actual legal processes involved, defensiveness, a tendency for contributors to interpret criticisms and suggestions as personal attacks, and the recurring difficulties of malicious and disingenuous contributors posting under numerous false identities.
(Page 270 https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/9834706.pdf)

“Within just a few weeks of this new arrangement taking place, Sandra Lean contacted Stephanie (Hall) one Sunday morning in November 2010 to inform her that an incident had occurred between her and Billy Middleton and her youngest adult daughter had had to intervene in order to protect her mother.

Following a night of drinking alcohol, Sandra Lean claimed that Billy Middleton had threatened her and got up in her face, so much so that Sandra Lean’s youngest daughter (who had apparently witnessed the incident) had helped pack Billy Middleton’s belongings and kicked him out of her and her mothers home.

Some hours after Billy Middleton had been forced to leave Sandra Lean’s home, he apparently contacted her via the telephone saying he was ‘lost’. At which point Sandra Lean and her youngest daughter had gone out in a motor vehicle searching for him, eventually finding Billy in a street in Edinburgh with his face evidently ‘covered in blood’.
 
Following this event Sandra Lean had apparently given Billy Middleton some money in order to help him travel back to his parents home in the Shetland isles as he was allegedly at this point pennyless.

It is not known why Sandra Lean chose to contact Stephanie (Hall) about the incident between her and Billy Middleton, but by this time Stephanie (Hall) had made it clear to Sandra Lean she no longer trusted or believed Billy Middleton’s version of events regarding the night of the two fires in which baby Annalise had died and wanted nothing whatsoever to do with him.

The above excerpts have been taken from the following blog
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/12/15/continued-sandra-leans-fabricated-phd-should-be-revoked-with-immediate-effect-part-18h%ef%b8%8f/

The day after Colin Bowman stated;

”I now intend to openly protect the forums and the people who make this argument on behalf of Luke Mitchell and others. I can now see that the advancement of a strong MOJ culture and movement, takes priority over both free-speech and individual-rights. Previously I was hanging onto values of free-speech and individual-rights; but I now recognise that the advancement of a MOJ culture and movement, is going to face such obstacles, that making this project happen has to be astutely done and be protected.

un-convicted baby killer Billy Middleton banned Stephanie (Hall) from the WAP website

Stephanie (Hall)- 22nd November 2010
I have just been banned from the WAP site.

The following day (23rd November 2010) Sandra Lean had her boyfriend (ex?) Billy Middleton publish a ‘crazy making’ blub (written by Sandra Lean) which began with:

“ ADMINISTRATORS NOTE: I HAVE BEEN SENT THE FOLLOWING BY SANDRA AT 20:59
“It is with extreme sadness and regret that I am making this post, but the events of this afternoon have left me with no choice. Whether people accept it or not, posts on internet sites have real life consequences

and in part ended with

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

“I assume this came about as a result of various claims being made on various websites”

Sandra Lean’s (23rd November 2010) blub in full has been re-published here
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/12/15/continued-sandra-leans-fabricated-phd-should-be-revoked-with-immediate-effect-part-18h%ef%b8%8f/

And as stated several years ago, Sandra Lean is a fraud who exploits, mistreats and abuses people who are in vulnerable situations.
(https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383379.html#msg383379)

[Nicholas]

Colin Bowman - 22nd November 2010
I'm suspicious, and worried. Why would you choose to invest your time in bashing Middleton and WAP, with legal review only a fornight or so away.
The only 'hot' material on Simon Hall's case, on that forum, has been this dispute. In the absence of this dispute, the offending thread would have been silent or quiet. Why was that particular dog not left lying.
There's then clearly a lot attaching to behind the scenes matters and details, that the parties are choosing to not release into the public domain. Why then have this dispute in the public domain at all; why not keep it totally private.
I don't know what the impact of all this will be on the Simon Hall side. The impact on WAP looks negative; and that worries me. This public disagreement, it without clarifiying material, simply should not be occurring.
colin

Colin Bowman - 22nd November 2010
I agree that, on the surface, it looks like a difficult PR day for WAP.
But I don't then see how any of this leads to more support for MRS H. A history of falling out with erstwhile supporters, is not a good CV.

Colin Bowman- 22nd November 2010
On the most cursory of data (really just reading online posts which purport to attach to Stephanie Hall) I sense that your approach differs. Your commitment is to Simon Hall, and you well have been instrumental in seeing his case now come to legal review. The psychological and intellectual approaches differ, depending on whether we are taking a generalist or an individual-private approach. I surmise that, for some behind the scenes set of reasons, a tension in this has become explosive.
colin

Stephanie (Hall)- 22nd November 2010
We are no longer associated with WAP, due to behind the scenes activities in the last couple of months

Stephanie (Hall) - 22nd November 2010
Billy is choosing to interpret Simon's letter for his own ends and he is also attempting to cover his unprofessional behaviour.

In reality it was Sandra Lean (and Billy Middleton)

Con- 23rd November 2010
Thought I would help out with these definitions
Definitions of closed on the Web:
   * not open or affording passage or access
      not open to the general public
       shut not open.
Definitions of remove on the Web
get rid of: dispose of
The act of removing something,
Take away totally.
Though closed could just mean shut but still in view. So I think what you need is for the information to be removed totally from public view.

Sandra Lean using emotional manipulation

“Emotional manipulators are excellent guilt mongers. They can make you feel guilty for speaking up or not speaking up, for being emotional or not being emotional enough, for giving and caring, or for not giving and caring enough. Any thing is fair game and open to guilt with an emotional manipulator. Emotional manipulators seldom express their needs or desires openly - they get what they want through emotional manipulation. Guilt is not the only form of this but it is a potent one. Most of us are pretty conditioned to do whatever is necessary to reduce our feelings of guilt. Another powerful emotion that is used is sympathy. An emotional manipulator is a great victim. They inspire a profound sense of needing to support, care for and nurture. Emotional Manipulators seldom fight their own fights or do their own dirty work. The crazy thing is that when you do it for them (which they will never ask directly for), they may just turn around and say they certainly didn’t want or expect you to do anything!
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383377.html#msg383377

and her usual go to BS and regurgitation about allegedly being threatened in a shop

👇

Sandra Lean wrote: November 2010
"Entering a local store this evening, I was approached by a man who greeted me with the following:
 “You are one f*cking sick little bitch. How long did you think folk were going to take your lies and p*sh? Weren’t happy destroying one family’s life, eh? Now you’ve started on somebody else’s. How many more you twisted little f*ck? Yours is coming, don’t you worry about it. You’ll get yours you twisted little c**t – there’s plenty just waiting their chance.”
I assume this came about as a result of various claims being made on various websites. In principle, I would not back down to such bullying and threatening behaviour. However, I have to live here, as do my family, and in view of the fact that Simon’s appeal is imminent, it is with a very heavy heart that I have asked Billy to remove everything relating to Simon’s case from the site.http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/re-simon-hall-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/

Sandra Lean - 2007
"I was in a shop recently, talking to someone I know when another woman came in. The person I was speaking to mentioned that I'd been looking at the Luke Mitchell case, and this other woman - you know the kind, knuckles scrapping on the floor - turned and growled something like: 'Well, you'd just better watch yourself'."

There have been other, even more worrying incidents which Sandra prefers not to discuss publicly. Yet she is so driven to lift the lid on what she sees as fundamental flaws in the justice system which have sent Mitchell to jail for 20 years, that she's prepared to take the flak: "I'll just not shop in that shop for a while," she shrugs.
http://truthinjustice.org/no-smoke.htm
Another broken link http://truthinjustice.org/no-smoke.htm
https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/books/claiming-killer-innocent-part-of-search-for-truth-1-1316853

https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/claiming-killer-innocent-part-search-truth-2453025

I'm ‘not inclined to take’ Sandra Lean’s ‘word at face value’ because she’s a manipulative con-artist who uses various types of lies and manipulative tactics to con and exploit people

Sandra Lean ~ “…it is with a very heavy heart that I have asked Billy to remove everything relating to Simon’s case from the site”

 

“Stephanie (Hall) had also been told by killer Simon Hall that he also did not want to be associated with Billy Middleton or his WAP website and wanted everything related to his case removed from Billy’s site because he (Simon Hall) did not like or trust Billy Middleton, after having met him face to face a few months earlier when he and Sandra Lean had visited him at HMP Kingston in Portsmouth.

Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton had also attended Simon Hall’s preliminary appeals hearing at the appeal court in London on the 10th of March 2010.

Above excerpts taken from following blog
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/12/15/continued-sandra-leans-fabricated-phd-should-be-revoked-with-immediate-effect-part-18h%ef%b8%8f/

[Nicholas]

Colin Bowman - 22nd November 2010
I'm suspicious, and worried. Why would you choose to invest your time in bashing Middleton and WAP, with legal review only a fornight or so away.
The only 'hot' material on Simon Hall's case, on that forum, has been this dispute. In the absence of this dispute, the offending thread would have been silent or quiet. Why was that particular dog not left lying.
There's then clearly a lot attaching to behind the scenes matters and details, that the parties are choosing to not release into the public domain. Why then have this dispute in the public domain at all; why not keep it totally private.
I don't know what the impact of all this will be on the Simon Hall side. The impact on WAP looks negative; and that worries me. This public disagreement, it without clarifiying material, simply should not be occurring.
colin

Colin Bowman - 22nd November 2010
I agree that, on the surface, it looks like a difficult PR day for WAP.
But I don't then see how any of this leads to more support for MRS H. A history of falling out with erstwhile supporters, is not a good CV.

Colin Bowman- 22nd November 2010
On the most cursory of data (really just reading online posts which purport to attach to Stephanie Hall) I sense that your approach differs. Your commitment is to Simon Hall, and you well have been instrumental in seeing his case now come to legal review. The psychological and intellectual approaches differ, depending on whether we are taking a generalist or an individual-private approach. I surmise that, for some behind the scenes set of reasons, a tension in this has become explosive.
colin

Stephanie (Hall)- 22nd November 2010
We are no longer associated with WAP, due to behind the scenes activities in the last couple of months

Stephanie (Hall) - 22nd November 2010
Billy is choosing to interpret Simon's letter for his own ends and he is also attempting to cover his unprofessional behaviour.

In reality it was Sandra Lean (and Billy Middleton)

Con- 23rd November 2010
Thought I would help out with these definitions
Definitions of closed on the Web:
   * not open or affording passage or access
      not open to the general public
       shut not open.
Definitions of remove on the Web
get rid of: dispose of
The act of removing something,
Take away totally.
Though closed could just mean shut but still in view. So I think what you need is for the information to be removed totally from public view.

Again Sandra Lean stated on 23rd November 2010

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

November 21st: The post was re-posted on the McKie site

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

Sandra Lean’s emotionally manipulative blub has been reproduced and can be read in full here
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/12/19/sandra-leans-emotional-manipulation-original-published-on-the-23rd-november-2010/

But her cherry picked points - as per usual - didn’t include the full context

Why did Sandra Lean choose to omit Stephanie’s following statement which was also made on the 22nd November 2010

”We are no longer associated with WAP, due to behind the scenes activities in the last couple of months[/size][/b]
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/simon-hall-appeal-hearing-dates-set-t717-s30.html

Sandra Lean also didn’t include Colin Bowman’s statements for example - which had also been posted to the McKie site

Colin Bowman - 22nd November 2010
I'm suspicious, and worried. Why would you choose to invest your time in bashing Middleton and WAP, with legal review only a fornight or so away.
The only 'hot' material on Simon Hall's case, on that forum, has been this dispute. In the absence of this dispute, the offending thread would have been silent or quiet. Why was that particular dog not left lying.
There's then clearly a lot attaching to behind the scenes matters and details, that the parties are choosing to not release into the public domain. Why then have this dispute in the public domain at all; why not keep it totally private.
I don't know what the impact of all this will be on the Simon Hall side. The impact on WAP looks negative; and that worries me. This public disagreement, it without clarifiying material, simply should not be occurring.
colin

Would be interested to know if Sandra Lean also told Colin Bowman at this time about Billy Middleton threatening her, like she chose to do with Stephanie (Hall)

”Sandra Lean contacted Stephanie (Hall) one Sunday morning in November 2010 to inform her that an incident had occurred between her and Billy Middleton and her youngest adult daughter had had to intervene in order to protect her mother.

Following a night of drinking alcohol, Sandra Lean claimed that Billy Middleton had threatened her and got up in her face, so much so that Sandra Lean’s youngest daughter (who had apparently witnessed the incident) had helped pack Billy Middleton’s belongings and kicked him out of her and her mothers home.

Some hours after Billy Middleton had been forced to leave Sandra Lean’s home, he apparently contacted her via the telephone saying he was ‘lost’. At which point Sandra Lean and her youngest daughter had gone out in a motor vehicle searching for him, eventually finding Billy in a street in Edinburgh with his face evidently ‘covered in blood’.
 
Following this event Sandra Lean had apparently given Billy Middleton some money in order to help him travel back to his parents home in the Shetland isles as he was allegedly at this point pennyless.

It is not known why Sandra Lean chose to contact Stephanie (Hall) about the incident between her and Billy Middleton, but by this time Stephanie (Hall) had made it clear to Sandra Lean she no longer trusted or believed Billy Middleton’s version of events regarding the night of the two fires in which baby Annalise had died and wanted nothing whatsoever to do with him..

“Stephanie (Hall) had also been told by killer Simon Hall that he also did not want to be associated with Billy Middleton or his WAP website and wanted everything related to his case removed from Billy’s site because he (Simon Hall) did not like or trust Billy Middleton, after having met him face to face a few months earlier when he and Sandra Lean had visited him at HMP Kingston in Portsmouth.

Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton had also attended Simon Hall’s preliminary appeals hearing at the appeal court in London on the 10th of March 2010.

Above excerpts taken from following blog
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/12/15/continued-sandra-leans-fabricated-phd-should-be-revoked-with-immediate-effect-part-18h%ef%b8%8f/

[Nicholas]

Colin Bowman - 22nd November 2010
I'm suspicious, and worried. Why would you choose to invest your time in bashing Middleton and WAP, with legal review only a fornight or so away.
The only 'hot' material on Simon Hall's case, on that forum, has been this dispute. In the absence of this dispute, the offending thread would have been silent or quiet. Why was that particular dog not left lying.
There's then clearly a lot attaching to behind the scenes matters and details, that the parties are choosing to not release into the public domain. Why then have this dispute in the public domain at all; why not keep it totally private.
I don't know what the impact of all this will be on the Simon Hall side. The impact on WAP looks negative; and that worries me. This public disagreement, it without clarifiying material, simply should not be occurring.
colin

Again would be interested to know if Sandra Lean also told Colin Bowman about un-convicted baby killer Billy Middleton threatening her in front of her youngest adult daughter

Would also be interested to know if Colin Bowman was aware of some of the previous comments of the McKie site about Billy Middleton, like for example William Becks Aka Big Wullie

Big Wullie - 28th February 2010
Not only do I find these comments totally inappropriate for this forum but deeply offensive and alarming.
I hope the Family of Jodi Jones are not reading this forum to see what is being written here.
Angeline:
I have searched high and low for references to 14 year olds drinking and come up with the following which you might find really interesting since they concern your Partner in your new adventures.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/DAD+CLEAR ... 0196026467

The court heard how the couple quarrelled on the night before Annalise's death.

Kareen accused her husband of flirting with young girls who were staying over.

______________________________________________
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/nor ... 935423.stm
Mrs Middleton told the trial at the High Court in Aberdeen that she and her 32-year-old husband had spent the evening enjoying a drink with his 14-year-old niece and two of her friends.
______________________________________________________________
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/nor ... 937993.stm

During the course of the night they were all drinking, the court heard.
A 14-year-old girl told the court Mr Middleton had flirted with her teenage friend.
The girl said his wife Kereen had overheard him tell the girl "I wish I met you before my wife".
She said Kereen Middleton then left the house in tears.
___________________________________________
Angeline
I would suggest if you wish to remain anonymous then you do not advertise who you are here:
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s160.html

[Nicholas]

Colin Bowman - 22nd November 2010
I'm suspicious, and worried. Why would you choose to invest your time in bashing Middleton and WAP, with legal review only a fornight or so away.
The only 'hot' material on Simon Hall's case, on that forum, has been this dispute. In the absence of this dispute, the offending thread would have been silent or quiet. Why was that particular dog not left lying.
There's then clearly a lot attaching to behind the scenes matters and details, that the parties are choosing to not release into the public domain. Why then have this dispute in the public domain at all; why not keep it totally private.
I don't know what the impact of all this will be on the Simon Hall side. The impact on WAP looks negative; and that worries me. This public disagreement, it without clarifiying material, simply should not be occurring.
colin

Would also be interested to hear what Colin Bowman made of un-convicted baby killer Billy Middleton’s 2010 fabricated speech (which he asked Sandra Lean to proof read and accidentally emailed to Stephanie (Hall))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Kareen had not been happy for a long time. Billy spent much of his home time on the computer. Kareen was sure he was in contact with other women. She looked up the history on their computer one day Billy was at work and found that he had googled "rape", "torture" and "p***y fisting". Billy had been visiting hardcore BDSM sites and Kareen was scared - is this what he had in mind for her? She told me things had been escalating against her will in the bedroom. She did not tell me the exact date of when the assault had taken place but I did get the impression that she had waited a few days before leaving him and moving to Brae. She only went to see the GP the day after she moved to Brae on her aunt and uncle's insistance. From my understanding of what Kareen has told me because she had waited a number of days and because she had given birth to 2 children naturally the GP was non-committal about any signs of an assault having taken place.

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


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

However, following the trial Kareen's solicitor did take a statement from her counsellor. That is why Billy never fought to see the kids. His lies would be exposed before his family and he couldn't let that happen
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg385712.html#msg385712

And what Colin Bowman made of some of the following from the now defunct Glasgow innocence forum

The following is a reproduction of a post made by Marina Thomason posting as Sunniva Gunn on the Glasgow innocence forum.
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:12 pm   
Sunniva Gunn writes...

I'm going to write out the following text and ask what people make of it.

This was found on a computer and appears incomplete.

The date is not on the printed copy but it was written in May 2007 when Kareen had left Billy and gone to Brae with the kids.

Quote:   
Although not written on any official document, these are my last will and testimonies.  I hope in the event of my premature death,  should any court proceedings take place, that they be considered legally binding.  To ensure authenticity of this text, I provide certain information which could only be known by myself, that is to say that some parts may be known by some members of the following text, but none by all.

It seems prudent to stipulate these facts from the onset, thus eliminating any confusion or legal rambling of which I do not wish.

Facts.

1.  No one will probably know the fact that I have even written this.  This file will be hidden in a location on the hard disk of this pc and on a physical copy, the location of which is known hopefully only by the medical professionals whom attend me, and any subsequent legal authority whom has interest in my death.  These details will be included on my person at all times.  In the event that I am taken from this world through some destructive force which renders my wallet unfindable, a second proof of authenticity can be found at C & A Thomasons Mussel shed, cullivoe pier, cullivoe, yell. These are by way of an exact copy of this testimont.  To be found above the 2nd H-beam in the depuration shed.  Though not immediately obvious, the location of this second duplicate document is known by anyone searching my known locations.

2.   

[Nicholas]

Colin Bowman - 21st November 2010
I apologise for making a post (above) which did not address the thread topic.
My understanding of the Hall case is weak, and am rather improving that understanding by following recents posts on the case and its personalities.
It seems an interesting case, given that it is accepted by some that its circumstantial arguments so depend on what is said about particular fibres; that if that evidence fails, then the whole case falls.
That would be an interesting conception to get into play. Namely that circumstantial prosecutions can have lynch-pin presumptions and intrepretations; such that circumstantially gained convictions can be overturned across identifying and discrediting that lynch pin evidence. So it would contribute to building-up a tool-box of instruments that can be employed to deconstruct circumstantial prosecutions.
colin

Does Sandra Lean mention Colin Bowman in her second book and if not why not?

It was afterall Colin Bowman who stated not long after killer Luke Mitchell was found guilty

”Has anyone entertained the notion that he might be innocent?”

and set up the Luke Mitchell fact and myth forum 

Links to blogs referring to Colin Bowman
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/12/19/psychology-student-colin-bowman/

[Nicholas]

Does Sandra Lean mention Colin Bowman in her second book and if not why not?

It was afterall Colin Bowman who stated not long after killer Luke Mitchell was found guilty

”Has anyone entertained the notion that he might be innocent?”

and set up the Luke Mitchell fact and myth forum 

Links to blogs referring to Colin Bowman
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/12/19/psychology-student-colin-bowman/

Wasn’t Colin Bowman involved with the lying Mitchell’s before Sandra Lean ?

Or was it Sandra Lean who was first in contact with Colin Bowman after being contacted by the Mitchell’s?

And why did con-artist and liar Sandra Lean make the following post under the pseudonym Angeline on Colin Bowman’s forum on the 26th October 2008;

”I've just started finding my way round this forum, so I'll be bit more active with posts now!”

When Sandra Lean was already registered as Jigsawman and had been since August 2005 and was by October 2008 a GOD member

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

[Nicholas]

Colin Bowman - 22nd November 2010
I'm suspicious, and worried. Why would you choose to invest your time in bashing Middleton and WAP, with legal review only a fornight or so away.
The only 'hot' material on Simon Hall's case, on that forum, has been this dispute. In the absence of this dispute, the offending thread would have been silent or quiet. Why was that particular dog not left lying.
There's then clearly a lot attaching to behind the scenes matters and details, that the parties are choosing to not release into the public domain. Why then have this dispute in the public domain at all; why not keep it totally private.
I don't know what the impact of all this will be on the Simon Hall side. The impact on WAP looks negative; and that worries me. This public disagreement, it without clarifiying material, simply should not be occurring.
colin

Why did Sandra Lean choose to post what she did and when she did?

And how did Sandra Lean think her 23rd November 2010 statement on WAP would be perceived by those who read it?

Link to Sandra Lean’s post in full
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/12/19/sandra-leans-emotional-manipulation-original-published-on-the-23rd-november-2010/

[Nicholas]

Wasn’t Colin Bowman involved with the lying Mitchell’s before Sandra Lean ?

Or was it Sandra Lean who was first in contact with Colin Bowman after being contacted by the Mitchell’s?

And why did con-artist and liar Sandra Lean make the following post under the pseudonym Angeline on Colin Bowman’s forum on the 26th October 2008;

”I've just started finding my way round this forum, so I'll be bit more active with posts now!”

When Sandra Lean was already registered as Jigsawman and had been since August 2005 and was by October 2008 a GOD member

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

Why did Colin Bowman remove his fact and myth forum from the WWW?

[Nicholas]

Re: Sandra Leans book "No Smoke" should be re-vised or withdrawn
« Reply #104 on: January 12, 2017, 09:21:PM »
His wife when he confessed - the only contact he had with the outside world. His wife when he died - the only contact he had with the outside world.
Was his mental health properly assessed in the lead up to the confession, the suicide attempt before the confession, or at the time of the confession itself?
These are not difficult questions. His family can't answer them because he was estranged from them at the times I'm talking about.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383343.html#msg383343


Killer Simon Hall had apparently planned to admit his guilt to Stephanie (Hall) before his first overdose in February 2013

And as already stated in the blog series The Truth Behind Killer Simon Hall & His Enablers #InnocenceFraud Phenomenon Scam (http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/the-truth-behind-killer-simon-hall-and-his-enablers-innocence-fraud-phenomenon-scam-%ef%b8%8f/)

it would appear the Hall family members already knew killer Simon Hall was guilty and it’s highly probable he had already admitted his guilt to his older brother Shaun Hall, and why they chose to swap bracelets just before his imminent arrest

And Killer Simon Hall was in regular contact with people in the outside world including with Phoebe Grant’s mother Sarah Grant, who wrote to killer Simon Hall and sent him photos. A woman called Heidi, who sent him stacks of emails and visited with him in prison as did his adoptive mother Lynne Hall.

Both Heidi and Lynne Hall visited with killer Simon Hall in 2014.

Assessments by numerous ‘mental health’ workers from 2003 to 2014 concluded killer Simon Hall had no mental health issues.

[Nicholas]

Re: Sandra Leans book "No Smoke" should be re-vised or withdrawn
« Reply #104 on: January 12, 2017, 09:21:PM »
His wife when he confessed - the only contact he had with the outside world. His wife when he died - the only contact he had with the outside world.
Was his mental health properly assessed in the lead up to the confession, the suicide attempt before the confession, or at the time of the confession itself?
These are not difficult questions. His family can't answer them because he was estranged from them at the times I'm talking about.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383343.html#msg383343

Both Heidi and Lynne Hall visited with killer Simon Hall in 2014.

Did Sandra Lean ever make contact with all the people she communicated with for chapter 5 of her 1st discredited book No Smoke and if not why not?

[Nicholas]

Re: Sandra Leans book "No Smoke" should be re-vised or withdrawn
« Reply #104 on: January 12, 2017, 09:21:PM »
His wife when he confessed - the only contact he had with the outside world. His wife when he died - the only contact he had with the outside world.
Was his mental health properly assessed in the lead up to the confession, the suicide attempt before the confession, or at the time of the confession itself?
These are not difficult questions. His family can't answer them because he was estranged from them at the times I'm talking about.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg383343.html#msg383343

Sandra Lean - Did you contact (or speak with) Lynne Hall, Phil Hall, Shaun Hall or Stephanie Bon ?


‘I spoke with many people (including others whose cases were mentioned or discussed) about the question of withdrawing the book. Not one of them wanted the book withdrawn. There were discussions about possible revisions which would, of necessity, have taken a great deal of time and effort - time and effort that I was not capable of devoting to the matter at that time. ~ Sandra Lean
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg382961.html#msg382961


And if you did speak to/communicate with them Sandra Lean, what did they say ?

Because the following suggests you possibly did speak to/communicate with the Halls and/or Stephanie Bon


If it helps, I can give a synopsis of what the revision to the Simon Hall chapter in No Smoke would have comprised, and why:

“In August 2013, it was reported that Simon Hall had confessed to the murder, in what many considered questionable circumstances, after ten years of maintaining his innocence. Some observers (including Simon's family) expressed concerns about Simon's mental health immediately prior to, and at the time of, the confession (a suicide attempt in the months before, for example.)
The confession and the circumstances in which it was made, have never been made public. There were other suicide attempts, the last being in February 2014, when he was found dead in his cell. The confession, whether reliable or not, does not alter the fact that the case on which the conviction was founded was extremely weak, and fell far below the standards most of us would expect when a life sentence is the potential outcome of proceedings.
There can be no doubt that the confession shocked those fighting claimed cases of Miscarriage of Justice, and raised serious questions about whether those fights should continue. However, where the fight is based on the evidence of the case as used at trial and in subsequent appeal proceedings, and that evidence is not robust enough to justify the convictions obtained, then the fight must continue, in the name of true justice.
We will never know if Simon Hall’s confession was genuine, or the confused utterings of a crumbling sanity. The decision about whether to take up, or continue to carry, the baton for claimed Miscarriages of Justice is a matter for the person deciding to do so, and their own conscience.”

You see, to this day, we have only Stephanie’s word about the circumstances leading up to the confession, the circumstances of the confession itself, the state of Simon’s mental and emotional well-being (or otherwise), the content of the confession etc. We have no information about how the confession was given or accepted (it was reported at the inquest that he “told his wife” who then “told him to tell the prison.” I have no idea if that is true or not – it was reported in the media, after all.) I’m not inclined to simply take Stephanie’s word (or anyone else’s for that matter) at face value.
But, of course, that is my opinion, one I’m perfectly entitled to hold.
And so, I would simply revise the book to reflect the known facts, as they currently stand.

[Nicholas]

If it helps, I can give a synopsis of what the revision to the Simon Hall chapter in No Smoke would have comprised, and why:

“In August 2013, it was reported that Simon Hall had confessed to the murder, in what many considered questionable circumstances, after ten years of maintaining his innocence. Some observers (including Simon's family) expressed concerns about Simon's mental health immediately prior to, and at the time of, the confession (a suicide attempt in the months before, for example.)
The confession and the circumstances in which it was made, have never been made public. There were other suicide attempts, the last being in February 2014, when he was found dead in his cell. The confession, whether reliable or not, does not alter the fact that the case on which the conviction was founded was extremely weak, and fell far below the standards most of us would expect when a life sentence is the potential outcome of proceedings.
There can be no doubt that the confession shocked those fighting claimed cases of Miscarriage of Justice, and raised serious questions about whether those fights should continue. However, where the fight is based on the evidence of the case as used at trial and in subsequent appeal proceedings, and that evidence is not robust enough to justify the convictions obtained, then the fight must continue, in the name of true justice.
We will never know if Simon Hall’s confession was genuine, or the confused utterings of a crumbling sanity. The decision about whether to take up, or continue to carry, the baton for claimed Miscarriages of Justice is a matter for the person deciding to do so, and their own conscience.”

You see, to this day, we have only Stephanie’s word about the circumstances leading up to the confession, the circumstances of the confession itself, the state of Simon’s mental and emotional well-being (or otherwise), the content of the confession etc. We have no information about how the confession was given or accepted (it was reported at the inquest that he “told his wife” who then “told him to tell the prison.” I have no idea if that is true or not – it was reported in the media, after all.) I’m not inclined to simply take Stephanie’s word (or anyone else’s for that matter) at face value.
But, of course, that is my opinion, one I’m perfectly entitled to hold.
And so, I would simply revise the book to reflect the known facts, as they currently stand.

This is embarrassing Sandra Lean!

Especially given the fact - once again - you didn’t attend the trial and have no idea what was and wasn’t said through out

And it’s especially embarrassing given the conversations you and I had following killer Simon Hall’s suicide