Author Topic: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean  (Read 843907 times)

0 Members and 89 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #1830 on: February 18, 2023, 07:33:13 AM »
Deluded ‘Photographer, Filmmaker & Producer’ Matthew Elliott’s ‘Friend’ & Gravy Train Jumper Naomi Channell (Part 133)
Toxic abuser and innocence fraud pusher and enabler Sandra Lean also fabricated a misleading innocence fraud narrative for actual, factual guilty and dangerous killer Simon Hall (along with 6 other guilty killers) in her 1st discredited book, which was published in 2007 and again in 2008.
And morally duplicitous Sandra Lean’s 1st discredited book is still being sold! - 2023

👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/11/25/killer-luke-mitchell-deluded-matthew-elliotts-friend-gravy-train-jumper-naomi-channell-part-133/

Fraudster Sandra Lean claimed in October 2019;

I've contacted the publisher today to ask for the book to be withdrawn
👇
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9986.msg456199.html#msg456199

 *&^^&

Sandra Lean’s publisher - another charlatan and fraudster called Stephen T Manning
👇
Hi Folks - as the publisher of Ms Sandra Lean's book - 'No Smoke: The Shocking Truth About British Justice' - I thought I should help clarify a couple of points of possible misinformation here.

I wish to make it clear that I do not wish to cause any offence, nor am I qualified to comment on the intricacies of any of the seven cases covered in Ms Lean's book, but I do think the following facts need to be stated for the record.

Firstly, 'No Smoke' (2nd edition) was published by CheckPoint Press under our 'Traditional Contract' terms. This means that the manuscript qualified for publication 'on merit' [for content, theme, and quality of writing].
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s250.html

The same Stephen T Manning was ‘accused of inappropriate conduct around children in 2009’
« Last Edit: February 18, 2023, 12:15:52 PM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #1831 on: February 18, 2023, 08:50:31 AM »
“ Mr [Name removed] said he had looked at a clock when he got into Mr [Name removed]’s house, and it said a quarter to five. It had been wrong. Mr Findlay continued: "You and [Name removed] may have been in the area at or about the time that Jodi may have been attacked, yet you saw nothing and heard nothing?" Mr [Name removed] answered: "No."

Mr Findlay: "You would have the jury believe you know nothing?"

Mr [Name removed]: "Yes."

The witness agreed that the moped had been stopped at a break in a wall, behind which Jodi’s body was discovered, and that he seemed to be "piling up a rather substantial list of coincidences". He said he did not know why he had not gone to the police for several days, nor told any of Jodi’s family he had been on the path that evening.”

https://www.scotsman.com/news/ex-drug-dealer-denies-he-was-behind-murder-cousin-jodi-2509760

What exactly did all of John F e r r i s’s police witness statements say about this?
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #1832 on: February 18, 2023, 08:52:27 AM »
It would appear that one of the employees from the tool hire saw the bike against the wall at 5.15. Perhaps on their way home?

It’s been explained numerous times - the witness from basic tool hire who claimed this, was wrong

And the reason they weren’t called to give evidence during killer Luke Mitchell’s trial supports this

Fantasy ‘Lawyer’ Scott Forbes’ Fairytales, The Moped & Playing With Innocent Peoples Lives (Part 125)

Donald Findlay at trial, directly to the boys, told them that someone had given information to the police of seeing their bike upon that path. Of it being stationary with no boys in sight, those tactics.
There were NO witnesses at the trial of any bike at any V break.
Now for some context and we are talking of those lies doing the round, that the bike was SEEN at the break in the wall.
The person who gave the information was driving their car in a national speed zone, on The Beeches.
Even the person who gave the information to the police did not see any bike at any V break in that wall, it cannot be seen, the bike IF seen was up past the line of trees blocking all view of both the wall and the V break.

👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/11/19/killer-luke-mitchell-fantasy-lawyer-scott-forbes-fairytales-continue-part-125/

« Last Edit: February 18, 2023, 09:35:29 AM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #1833 on: February 18, 2023, 09:53:54 AM »
Why has Sandra Lean chosen to not tell all those people she is choosing to dupe about all the details about killer Luke Mitchell’s missing push bike?

UPDATED - Malignant Narcissist Sandra Lean’s Bad Habits (Part 109)
Sandra Lean puts the gran, sister and Steven Kelly at this path at 10.58pm. A somewhat precise time?

There is no information as to why she has this time, no source - nothing, but uses this to infer the search party had left the house before knowing this girl was missing?

What is clear, is that there is numerous times of contact between Judith, Luke and the grans house phone, who do we imagine Judith was talking to when the house phone was answered in the grans? And presumably more calls to this grans mobile whilst out. Why does Sandra Lean miss out all of those, along with any information given.


http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/10/31/killer-luke-mitchell-malignant-narcissist-sandra-leans-bad-habits-guest-blog/

Angeline AKA Sandra Lean - 17th May 2009

’That's only the tip of the iceberg, I'm afraid. Most of the evidence in this case never made it into court’

‘There is much, much, more’


Including the evidence collated on killer Luke Mitchell’s other missing push bike
« Last Edit: February 25, 2023, 02:50:51 PM by John »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #1834 on: February 18, 2023, 10:04:42 AM »
The clues that snared a murderer

SMALL but vital clues convinced police that Luke Mitchell was Jodi Jones’ killer, the murder inquiry’s leading investigator said today.

But detective chief superintendent Craig Dobbie said the teenager was nothing more than a witness at the beginning of the investigation.

It wasn’t until inconsistencies emerged in his statements that he became a suspect.

He said they tried to eliminate him from their enquiries but "they just couldn’t".

Mr Dobbie, 53, said more than 3000 statements were taken throughout the course of the inquiry.

"We interviewed everyone possible," he said. "We interviewed every male who had been viewed with general suspicion.

"That group included any males known to Jodi - both relatives and friends.


"Luke was one, and, at first, he was no different from the rest of them. We were just trying to eliminate people from that group.

"It wasn’t until July 3 that our suspicions about Luke increased. We had a degree of suspicion, but not enough to detain him.

However, Mr Dobbie did not want to detain Mitchell until the DNA test results had come back from the lab.

"When the results came back there was not one DNA profile which could not be accounted for. Every profile belonged to people who knew Jodi, including Luke. However, what we didn’t have was DNA from someone unknown, which ruled out anyone unknown as the killer."

https://www.scotsman.com/news/clues-snared-murderer-2470415

Angeline AKA Sandra Lean 17th May 2009

‘A week into the enquiry, they were claiming that the results of DNA tests would "either prove or disprove their main line of investigation." Funny, that, since they only had reference samples from two people by that stage - Jodi and Luke. They didn't even get reference samples from the other members of the search party, or members of Jodi's family for 2 - 3 weeks after the murder.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2023, 10:09:11 AM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #1835 on: February 18, 2023, 10:11:20 AM »
Angeline AKA Sandra Lean

In order to photograph and video the murder scene, police cut down overhanging branches before forensics had examined the scene.

Strongly suspect the video began before any overhanging branches were removed


« Last Edit: February 18, 2023, 10:26:15 AM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #1836 on: February 18, 2023, 10:34:00 AM »
Angeline AKA Sandra Lean 25th February 2009
👇
’If you look at the acrobatics they had to perform to construct the case against Luke, or any of the others, for that matter, it has to have been much more difficult than actually carrying out a proper investigation?

In Simon Hall's case, for example, the police instructed a gastro-enterologist to ascertain time of death. When his report didn't fit with the chosen "window of opportunity," they dropped this expert, and his evidence went into the unused evidence file. The police then went to ludicrous lengths to "find" evidence that supported their chosen window of opportunity, at the same time as ignoring several other witnesses/pieces of evidence which backed up the gastro-enterologist's findings.

The police and prosecution were practically spot on re ‘time of death’ in relation to killer Simon Hall’s murder, just as  they appear to have been with killer Luke Mitchell’s


The truth behind killer Simon Hall’s innocence fraud phenomenon scam
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/the-truth-behind-killer-simon-hall-and-his-enablers-innocence-fraud-phenomenon-scam-%ef%b8%8f/

More of Sandra Lean’s projections
👇
The police were so sure in Luke's case that the DNA reports would nail Luke. When they didn't, instead of checking further to see whose DNA they did have, they turned somersaults to "find" other evidence to "support" their theory that Luke was the murderer.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s50.html
« Last Edit: February 18, 2023, 10:39:22 AM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #1837 on: February 18, 2023, 10:46:26 AM »
Angeline AKA Sandra Lean 17th May 2009

‘A week into the enquiry, they were claiming that the results of DNA tests would "either prove or disprove their main line of investigation." Funny, that, since they only had reference samples from two people by that stage - Jodi and Luke. They didn't even get reference samples from the other members of the search party, or members of Jodi's family for 2 - 3 weeks after the murder.

Reg127 AKA Billy Middleton 5th February 2010

By investigation I mean following other leads and considering evidence carefully. The direction of the investigation focussed on Luke very early on  as without doubt he was a suspect. The presence of some other persons DNA on the body has not been explained publicly which is very worrying.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/shirleymckie/luke-mitchell-postings-now-archived-see-new-thread-t398-s70.html
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline faithlilly

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #1838 on: February 18, 2023, 10:46:49 AM »
Why did Matt Elliott choose to edit his video down so it didn’t include Sandra Lean standing there with her hand out?

And did Matt Elliott do this of his own accord or was it suggested to him by someone that he edit out fraudster Scott Forbes and the delay in the handshake between Russel Findlay and Sandra Lean?

Deluded ‘Photographer, Filmmaker & Producer’ Matthew Elliott’s ‘Friend’ & Gravy Train Jumper Naomi Channell (Part 133)
Toxic abuser and innocence fraud pusher and enabler Sandra Lean also fabricated a misleading innocence fraud narrative for actual, factual guilty and dangerous killer Simon Hall (along with 6 other guilty killers) in her 1st discredited book, which was published in 2007 and again in 2008.
And morally duplicitous Sandra Lean’s 1st discredited book is still being sold!

👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/11/25/killer-luke-mitchell-deluded-matthew-elliotts-friend-gravy-train-jumper-naomi-channell-part-133/

Decent little video. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2023, 10:50:43 AM by faithlilly »
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline faithlilly

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #1839 on: February 18, 2023, 10:49:33 AM »
What exactly did all of John F e r r i s’s police witness statements say about this?

Under oath JF admitted his bike was left at the break in the wall. No need to look at his statements.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #1840 on: February 18, 2023, 11:02:25 AM »
Under oath JF admitted his bike was left at the break in the wall. No need to look at his statements.

“The witness agreed that the moped had been stopped at a break in a wall”

There was more than one break in the wall
« Last Edit: February 18, 2023, 11:04:57 AM by Nicholas »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline Nicholas

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #1841 on: February 18, 2023, 11:08:59 AM »
The Killing of Jodi Jones: We must all realise that sex and drugs did not murder Jodi
by Joan Burnie 2005

JODI JONES, it was said at Luke Mitchell's trial, was a normal, average 14-year-old.

She went to school.She liked the music of Kurt Cobain.She had rows with her mum.But Jodi loved her mum and her mum loved Jodi.

Jodi also had sex with Luke Mitchell - and she smoked cannabis.That,however,doesn't make her any less normal a teenager.

Kids do have sex before the law says they should - just as kids also experiment with illegal substances.

The statistics tell us that by Jodi's age approximately half of all teenagers will be sexually active anda similar number will have tried drugs at least once.

But let no-one suggest that because Jodi did both these things she is somehow less of a victim than say, Holly Wells or Jessica Chapman,who were murdered by Ian Huntley.

No one deserves what happened to Jodi.

Sex,soft drugs - it's the way they live now.

So those least likely to be surprised,far less shocked by Jodi's life style will be her own generation.

They,unlike too many of their mums and dads,know exactly what goes on.Even if they don't do it themselves, they'll know plenty who behaved like Jodi.

Kids grow up terrifyingly quickly these days.But one thing hasn't changed - like all teenagers they think they know it all.

Unfortunately they don't. In many ways,they are just as innocent,or maybe the better word is ignorant, as kids always have been.

Joan's Juniors has given mea slight insight to their lives.So I know they believe they can handle drugs. They don't see it as much of a problem and, indeed, think adults are hypocrites to condemn it when they drink and smoke.

To many, cannabis is less harmful than alcohol or nicotine.

As for sex - that in itself doesn't worry them too much.By10,most of them know the mechanics in theory if not in practice.

It's love which gets them down.They wish for it above all else.Sadly some,especially girls, have got it into their heads that they won't get that love unless they agree to sex first.So should we panic?

Maybe not.Most of those who have passed a spliff around behind the bike shed won't go on to become addicts.That doesn't imply parents need do nothing but cross their fingers and turn a blind eye.Parents have to be parents not pals and that means telling kids what they can or cannot do as well as laying down some rules and limits.

You discuss drugs.You stress the dangers - and point out that drugs are illegal.

Much the same goes for sex.Too many parents won't talk about it, either through misplaced embarrassment or because they think it's best left to the schools.

That isn't nearly enough. Apart from anything else,kids say they would prefer to talk about sex,especially the emotional side of it, with their parents.

At the very least, if you suspect it's happening you don't encourage it.You certainly don't allow an underage girl to share abed with her boyfriend - - any more than you think it's okay for your sons to be sexually experienced but not your daughters.

I'm not naive enough to believe all of the above will prevent either drug taking or young kids having sex.But if they know you don't approve it gives a reason to say,'No'.

Being able to blame your mum and dad is a useful tool.

What you don't much careyou don'tWhat you don't much care what they get up to.

Jodi's mum did care but it still didn't prevent what happened to Jodi when she met death.Nothing could have saved her.

Luke Mitchell's mother on the other hand failed Jodi and failed Luke as well.

Even if Luke had not butchered Jodi, her son was clearly deeply disturbed as well as disturbing. He needed help.

Smoking the occasional joint and having sex may be relatively normal but using large quantities of cannabis and supplying his friends was not. Nor, by any stretch of the imagination, was keeping bottles of urine under his bed,normal.

But then what normal mother would buy her sona knife?

By apparently covering up the murder, Corinne did Luke no favours.

She merely prolonged the inevitable and subjected Jodi's family to even more grief.

Mitchell may have convinced herself that she acted out of mother love but it wasa perversion of that noble emotion.She defiled it. Her refusal to see wrong in her son let directly to Jodi's death.

Corinne too is guilty. As for Jodi,she wasa young girl. Her sole mistake was to fall for Luke Mitchell - and she paid a terrible price.

May she rest in peace - - and may Luke Mitchell rot.

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+Killing+of+Jodi+Jones%3A+We+must+all+realise+that+sex+and+drugs+did...-a0127488522
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation

Offline faithlilly

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #1842 on: February 18, 2023, 05:23:49 PM »
“The witness agreed that the moped had been stopped at a break in a wall”

There was more than one break in the wall

There was indeed but I think we all know what break they meant.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline faithlilly

Re: "Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean
« Reply #1843 on: February 18, 2023, 05:28:17 PM »
The Killing of Jodi Jones: We must all realise that sex and drugs did not murder Jodi
by Joan Burnie 2005

JODI JONES, it was said at Luke Mitchell's trial, was a normal, average 14-year-old.

She went to school.She liked the music of Kurt Cobain.She had rows with her mum.But Jodi loved her mum and her mum loved Jodi.

Jodi also had sex with Luke Mitchell - and she smoked cannabis.That,however,doesn't make her any less normal a teenager.

Kids do have sex before the law says they should - just as kids also experiment with illegal substances.

The statistics tell us that by Jodi's age approximately half of all teenagers will be sexually active anda similar number will have tried drugs at least once.

But let no-one suggest that because Jodi did both these things she is somehow less of a victim than say, Holly Wells or Jessica Chapman,who were murdered by Ian Huntley.

No one deserves what happened to Jodi.

Sex,soft drugs - it's the way they live now.

So those least likely to be surprised,far less shocked by Jodi's life style will be her own generation.

They,unlike too many of their mums and dads,know exactly what goes on.Even if they don't do it themselves, they'll know plenty who behaved like Jodi.

Kids grow up terrifyingly quickly these days.But one thing hasn't changed - like all teenagers they think they know it all.

Unfortunately they don't. In many ways,they are just as innocent,or maybe the better word is ignorant, as kids always have been.

Joan's Juniors has given mea slight insight to their lives.So I know they believe they can handle drugs. They don't see it as much of a problem and, indeed, think adults are hypocrites to condemn it when they drink and smoke.

To many, cannabis is less harmful than alcohol or nicotine.

As for sex - that in itself doesn't worry them too much.By10,most of them know the mechanics in theory if not in practice.

It's love which gets them down.They wish for it above all else.Sadly some,especially girls, have got it into their heads that they won't get that love unless they agree to sex first.So should we panic?

Maybe not.Most of those who have passed a spliff around behind the bike shed won't go on to become addicts.That doesn't imply parents need do nothing but cross their fingers and turn a blind eye.Parents have to be parents not pals and that means telling kids what they can or cannot do as well as laying down some rules and limits.

You discuss drugs.You stress the dangers - and point out that drugs are illegal.

Much the same goes for sex.Too many parents won't talk about it, either through misplaced embarrassment or because they think it's best left to the schools.

That isn't nearly enough. Apart from anything else,kids say they would prefer to talk about sex,especially the emotional side of it, with their parents.

At the very least, if you suspect it's happening you don't encourage it.You certainly don't allow an underage girl to share abed with her boyfriend - - any more than you think it's okay for your sons to be sexually experienced but not your daughters.

I'm not naive enough to believe all of the above will prevent either drug taking or young kids having sex.But if they know you don't approve it gives a reason to say,'No'.

Being able to blame your mum and dad is a useful tool.

What you don't much careyou don'tWhat you don't much care what they get up to.

Jodi's mum did care but it still didn't prevent what happened to Jodi when she met death.Nothing could have saved her.

Luke Mitchell's mother on the other hand failed Jodi and failed Luke as well.

Even if Luke had not butchered Jodi, her son was clearly deeply disturbed as well as disturbing. He needed help.

Smoking the occasional joint and having sex may be relatively normal but using large quantities of cannabis and supplying his friends was not. Nor, by any stretch of the imagination, was keeping bottles of urine under his bed,normal.

But then what normal mother would buy her sona knife?

By apparently covering up the murder, Corinne did Luke no favours.

She merely prolonged the inevitable and subjected Jodi's family to even more grief.

Mitchell may have convinced herself that she acted out of mother love but it wasa perversion of that noble emotion.She defiled it. Her refusal to see wrong in her son let directly to Jodi's death.

Corinne too is guilty. As for Jodi,she wasa young girl. Her sole mistake was to fall for Luke Mitchell - and she paid a terrible price.

May she rest in peace - - and may Luke Mitchell rot.

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+Killing+of+Jodi+Jones%3A+We+must+all+realise+that+sex+and+drugs+did...-a0127488522

I wouldn’t take any notice. The same journalists, or their like, who demonised Luke then will beg for exclusives when his conviction is eventually quashed. It’s the nature of the game.
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Nicholas

« Last Edit: February 25, 2023, 02:51:56 PM by John »
Who wants to take on this great massive lie?” Writer Martin Preib on the tsunami of innocence fraud sweeping our nation