"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[Vertigo Swirl]

Apologies but I do so hate hypocrisy.

Is it worth pointing out to you that all victims of wrongful convictions were convicted at one point? Did that make them guilty? Further Luke was a child too when this happened. Let’s all hope that the justice system did indeed get it right in this case because if not it’s unforgivable what was done to an innocent child in our name.

As to Dr Lean defending killers who later confessed, we have the widow of one of those very killers on this very forum and she defended him too. Why isn’t your disapprobation directed at her too?

Probbably because she’s not busting a gut trying to get a vicious murderer released from prison and trying to pin the crime on the victim’s own family, just a wild guess…

[Bullseye]

For my own personal safety I do not wish to publicly engage with LM defenders. I have already been threatened online this year and Forbes seems to have done a recruitment drive at Polmont & Saughton recently with the amount of criminals and ex-criminals they've attracted. Many of the podcast hosts are ex-cons which brings the question of impartiality and a heavy anti-police bias which Lean & Forbes encourage to whip up Luke's Army. As far as I'm aware SL & SF have only appeared on pro-LM podcasts with the host agreeing with them so perhaps that's why it's seen as one-sided.

Secondly, the case is closed, there have been numerous appeals and I don't feel anyone needs to have a public debate to state why they agree with a guilty verdict. Mrs Lean has never engaged with myself in other debates/forums and seems to have a problem with certain questions and shuts them down so not much point in a debate. Truthseeker my backside.

I understand wanting to keep your anonymity. There are others who are not anonymous. I personally would like to see both sides discuss or debate everything so all questions are open and the answers out there once and for all but I don’t expect to see that any time soon.
You have mentioned a few times there are a lot of questions the Luke supporters will not answer or just avoid. I agree they don’t seem to answer things about Shane and Luke’s dad stance, but as Shane’s statement imo was a huge part of Luke being found guilty then it’s something I don’t think they should be avoiding unless it’s something that won’t look good for Luke. What are the questions you have that you feel Sandra, Scott or Luke supporters will not answer and avoid?

[Kenmair]

they don’t seem to answer things about Shane and Luke’s dad stance, but as Shane’s statement imo was a huge part of Luke being found guilty then it’s something I don’t think they should be avoiding unless it’s something that won’t look good for Luke. What are the questions you have that you feel Sandra, Scott or Luke supporters will not answer and avoid?

I think you answer much of the question with SM/PMs invisibilty over the past 18 years.  Any public debate is shut down saying they just want a quiet life but it would have been well reported if they had views. As to other questions, any debate on the incriminating evidence that got LM convicted or any mention of the Mitchell's alibi is usually ignored or deflected in favour of blaming the victim's family.

[faithlilly]

I understand wanting to keep your anonymity. There are others who are not anonymous. I personally would like to see both sides discuss or debate everything so all questions are open and the answers out there once and for all but I don’t expect to see that any time soon.
You have mentioned a few times there are a lot of questions the Luke supporters will not answer or just avoid. I agree they don’t seem to answer things about Shane and Luke’s dad stance, but as Shane’s statement imo was a huge part of Luke being found guilty then it’s something I don’t think they should be avoiding unless it’s something that won’t look good for Luke. What are the questions you have that you feel Sandra, Scott or Luke supporters will not answer and avoid?

Can you explain to me what answers you expect Dr Lean to give in regard to Shane and his dad? Firstly she has made it clear many, many times that Shane does not want the exposure that would come with publicly backing his brother. Why do you find this so hard to believe? Secondly if there is ill-feeling between Shane and his mother and/or Luke for any reason why do you believe that it is your right to know but more importantly why do you think that it would be Dr Lean’s place to tell you? Are Shane and Corrine not allowed a private life simply because of their relationship with Luke?

If Shane held a press conference tomorrow and said that his brother had been at home when Jodi was killed, that he had seen him but felt pressured into the evidence he gave at court would you believe him?

[Rusty]

that won’t look good for Luke.

Congratulations, you are starting to figure it out 

[Bullseye]

Can you explain to me what answers you expect Dr Lean to give in regard to Shane and his dad? Firstly she has made it clear many, many times that Shane does not want the exposure that would come with publicly backing his brother. Why do you find this so hard to believe? Secondly if there is ill-feeling between Shane and his mother and/or Luke for any reason why do you believe that it is your right to know but more importantly why do you think that it would be Dr Lean’s place to tell you? Are Shane and Corrine not allowed a private life simply because of their relationship with Luke?

If Shane held a press conference tomorrow and said that his brother had been at home when Jodi was killed, that he had seen him but felt pressured into the evidence he gave at court would you believe him?

There is so much out there about Shane and   Like so much in this case it’s all contradictory. I think it’s important the truth is told on all points of the case including Shane as his evidence in court was imo a huge part of luke being found guilty. Im sure the jones family along with anyone else connected to the case do not want any exposure either but with the publicity this has been drawing lately the exposure imo can only get worse for all involved.
I’m not expecting anything from Shane now. Sandra and Luke’s team have made it clear many times they will not discuss Shane.
A few years back on the blue forum I’m sure Sandra said Shane and his father both full support Luke but don’t take an active roll as they have their own life to live. But then others said that was not true, Shane did not support Luke and believed him to be guilty. Some people might think it doesn’t matter but imo it does, Shane was also his alibi. He may not remember what happened that night but if he does not support Luke now then I think that’s a big deal.
What do I expect Sandra Scott or the team to confirm, if true then simply that his brother and father also believe luke is innocent and support the independent review. If they are not involved in the case as they have their own life to live I get that, I would fully understand them wanting to get on with their lives and not go to the protests or get involved in anyway public or otherwise.
But if they don’t support the independent review and do not believe he is innocent I think that’s important for the team to put out there in public before someone else does as I feel it might cause some doubts and people may start to ask what else we were not being told. To ask people to support the case and put in time and effort with petitions, protests, writing to mps etc then it’s important to be open with all the information good and bad. Is it Sandra or Scott’s place to tell us this personal information about Shane and his dad maybe not but some might question if it was their place to publicly name Joseph and his medical records. It’s a thin line and I’m glad I’m not the one walking it.
Anything to do with Shane and his mother any fallout they may or may not have had is their own business.
As for Shane making a statement tomorrow, I can’t say if I’d believe him or not I would need to see and hear it first to make up my mind but it would answer another piece of the case everyone debates, what Shane says he remembers.

[faithlilly]

There is so much out there about Shane and   Like so much in this case it’s all contradictory. I think it’s important the truth is told on all points of the case including Shane as his evidence in court was imo a huge part of luke being found guilty. Im sure the jones family along with anyone else connected to the case do not want any exposure either but with the publicity this has been drawing lately the exposure imo can only get worse for all involved.
I’m not expecting anything from Shane now. Sandra and Luke’s team have made it clear many times they will not discuss Shane.
A few years back on the blue forum I’m sure Sandra said Shane and his father both full support Luke but don’t take an active roll as they have their own life to live. But then others said that was not true, Shane did not support Luke and believed him to be guilty. Some people might think it doesn’t matter but imo it does, Shane was also his alibi. He may not remember what happened that night but if he does not support Luke now then I think that’s a big deal.
What do I expect Sandra Scott or the team to confirm, if true then simply that his brother and father also believe luke is innocent and support the independent review. If they are not involved in the case as they have their own life to live I get that, I would fully understand them wanting to get on with their lives and not go to the protests or get involved in anyway public or otherwise.
But if they don’t support the independent review and do not believe he is innocent I think that’s important for the team to put out there in public before someone else does as I feel it might cause some doubts and people may start to ask what else we were not being told. To ask people to support the case and put in time and effort with petitions, protests, writing to mps etc then it’s important to be open with all the information good and bad. Is it Sandra or Scott’s place to tell us this personal information about Shane and his dad maybe not but some might question if it was their place to publicly name Joseph and his medical records. It’s a thin line and I’m glad I’m not the one walking it.
Anything to do with Shane and his mother any fallout they may or may not have had is their own business.
As for Shane making a statement tomorrow, I can’t say if I’d believe him or not I would need to see and hear it first to make up my mind but it would answer another piece of the case everyone debates, what Shane says he remembers.

You admit yourself that Dr Lean has answered your question, has discussed Shane. She told you that Shane and his father supported Luke but didn’t want to take an active roll in the campaign to free him. What else can she say? Is she supposed to address the claims of anonymous posters who claim the opposite? How? What could Dr Lean possibly say that would convince you that the information that she has already made public is true?

[Bullseye]

You admit yourself that Dr Lean has answered your question, has discussed Shane. She told you that Shane and his father supported Luke but didn’t want to take an active roll in the campaign to free him. What else can she say? Is she supposed to address the claims of anonymous posters who claim the opposite? How? What could Dr Lean possibly say that would convince you that the information that she has already made public is true?

This was a few years ago on a forum, before the murder in a small town doc and all the publicity. It was challenged that they supported him and from what I remember it was not fully addressed.  Basically I was left unsure what was true, I think it was made clear the dad fully supported Luke but was a bit foggy on Shane, I’d need to check the forum it was a while ago. But since the documentary any time Shane has been mentioned or questions about him the response seems to be they won’t discuss him. If they have confirmed since the documentary that Shane and the dad believe Luke to be innocent and support the review I must have missed that, apologies if I have, but that would convince me as I’m sure Shane would not be happy if that was not true due to the publicity the case has now gained.
For the record if they do not support Luke now it would not change my opinion on an independent review, I would still like to see this going ahead.
Other posters had said there was other stuff Sandra would not discuss but this is the only thing I have noticed myself of questions not being answered, I was curious as to what other questions people are saying Sandra does not answer because I had not noticed anything else they will not discuss other than things for legal reasons.

[faithlilly]

This was a few years ago on a forum, before the murder in a small town doc and all the publicity. It was challenged that they supported him and from what I remember it was not fully addressed.  Basically I was left unsure what was true, I think it was made clear the dad fully supported Luke but was a bit foggy on Shane, I’d need to check the forum it was a while ago. But since the documentary any time Shane has been mentioned or questions about him the response seems to be they won’t discuss him. If they have confirmed since the documentary that Shane and the dad believe Luke to be innocent and support the review I must have missed that, apologies if I have, but that would convince me as I’m sure Shane would not be happy if that was not true due to the publicity the case has now gained.
For the record if they do not support Luke now it would not change my opinion on an independent review, I would still like to see this going ahead.
Other posters had said there was other stuff Sandra would not discuss but this is the only thing I have noticed myself of questions not being answered, I was curious as to what other questions people are saying Sandra does not answer because I had not noticed anything else they will not discuss other than things for legal reasons.

There is now so much information surrounding this case and so many vested interests it is often hard to sort out the wheat from the chaff. I myself always attempt to find at least two credible sources for a claim but as you know often that isn’t possible.

I myself have always found Dr Lean very approachable and willing to engage, especially on other forums. Of course those who think Luke guilty will never believe the answers she gives to the questions they ask but that doesn’t make the answers any less true. Of course Dr Lean makes mistakes and of course she will, at times, try to put a positive spin on the unhelpful actions of some of the main protagonists but that doesn’t suggest dishonesty rather damage limitation. It would be interesting to see the now retired DCI Dobbie engage with the public about the case in the same way as Dr Lean. From reports of the trial it is obvious that he was, at times, rather economical with the truth.

[Bullseye]

There is now so much information surrounding this case and so many vested interests it is often hard to sort out the wheat from the chaff. I myself always attempt to find at least two credible sources for a claim but as you know often that isn’t possible.

I myself have always found Dr Lean very approachable and willing to engage, especially on other forums. Of course those who think Luke guilty will never believe the answers she gives to the questions they ask but that doesn’t make the answers any less true. Of course Dr Lean makes mistakes and of course she will, at times, try to put a positive spin on the unhelpful actions of some of the main protagonists but that doesn’t suggest dishonesty rather damage limitation. It would be interesting to see the now retired DCI Dobbie engage with the public about the case in the same way as Dr Lean. From reports of the trial it is obvious that he was, at times, rather economical with the truth.

I have also put many questions to Sandra over the years, she always took the time to answer the questions I had which I fully appreciate. Some people refer to her as a liar and not to be trusted but I’ve not seen anything to justify this. That doesn’t mean I believe everything she has said like some people on hear like to suggest, but she is imo certainly more credible than a lot of others.

I’ve never understood why, if Luke is so clearly guilty, do people need to make up stuff to convince others who are unsure of his guilt. If the evidence is so strong why can it not stand on its own?
So many things have been muddied over time it’s hard sifting through it all. That’s why it needs someone from the guilty camp to agree to be part of one of these interviews or documentaries to highlight any mistakes or misleading information they feel there is. I don’t see anyone stepping up to do this anytime soon which really I can’t blame them for and at the end of the day why should they, but on the same note why then bother coming here and other places to discredit Sandra, Scott and Luke so relentlessly. It reminds me of those flat earthers who have a lot to say until challenged by a scientist to a debate. I understand people may not want to be in the public for safety reasons but maybe it could be arranged for the person to remain anonymous to the public. Of course the person doing the interview would know their identity. Just a thought.

[Rusty]

I’ve never understood why, if Luke is so clearly innocent, do people need to make up stuff to convince others who are unsure of his innocence. If the evidence is so strong why can it not stand on its own?

Fixed that for you

but on the same note why then bother coming here and other places to discredit Sandra, Scott and Luke so relentlessly.

Maybe it has something to do with blaming innocent people of murder.

[Mr Apples]

While, imo, the circumstantial evidence used against LM at the original trial was overwhelming and leaves me totally convinced of his guilt, I'd still like to watch the aforementioned trial in its entirety in HD. That would be extremely interesting and would, I'm sure, remove any doubts people may have about this case or LM's guilt or innocence.

As for SM's testimony, well, I've already addressed this. He made it quite clear under oath that his wee brother wasn't in the house between 1650 and 1715. SM admitted (under oath) he'd been looking at porn in his bedroom and was masturbating between 1650 and 1715; said he would never have done this if anyone else had been in the house at that time and said he couldn't hear music coming from Luke's bedroom or the dining room (implying that LM playing music was a regular occurrence at this time of day in the family household). It wasn't, I don't think, discussed in court if SM had physically checked LM's bedroom or the whole house to see if his wee brother was there (though I think I read SM, upon arrival home, shouted out "Hello?"and got no answer). Asked directly by AD Turnbull if he'd seen Luke when he went downstairs after looking at the aforementioned porn images, SM replied: "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother. He could have been there."

How can anyone, after reading the above, infer that Luke Mitchell was in his family house that day between 1650 and 1715? It's obvious he wasn't in the house and Shane was admitting as much without actually categorically saying he wasn't there. Shane was never ever going to come right out and say his brother wasn't in the house, because blood is thicker than water and Shane probably could never bring himself to fully drop his wee brother in the shit like that; besides, him categorically saying his wee brother wasn't there would've left him and his mother open to perjury charges (had AD Turnbull came right out and asked Shane if he saw his wee brother mashing tatties in the kitchen, I suspect Shane would have said he couldn't remember). The Mitchell house at Newbattle Abbey Crescent was merely a 2-storey property and not some mansion or castle with a labyrinth of rooms and corridors -- it would have been impossible for those 2 boys not to see each other that day had they been in the house at the same time. The fact that neither boy could give a consistent account of each others' whereabouts at that particular time without their mother's input is very telling. I mean, for goodness' sake, you either saw Luke or you didn't -- no in between. Are we really expected to believe that the police would be able to intimidate Shane into making a false confession that his wee brother wasn't there, when he was?!! In such a serious charge of murder? That Shane would let the police bully him? A mechanic, an intelligent strapping lad who was going to batter drug dealer [Name removed]? Yeah, right!

I often wonder if SM started crying in court out of guilt for Jodi -- did him seeing those pics of her dead, mutilated body prompt him to tell the truth? Probably. That, combined with the fact that he probably knew the police had sussed out that Luke had done it and the jury would likely see through it. Fearing going to jail for perjury for trying to cover for a horrendous murder. Stuck between a rock and a hard place -- not wanting to drop his brother in the shit, blood being thicker than water. A horrible dilemma he was in. Overwhelmed, crying. I suspect, in large part, SM's human side shone through and he simply told the truth without fully exposing his wee brother -- "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day. He could have been there." About the best he could do or say, given the circumstances. But, at the core, the police and prosecution did a good job of getting SM to tell the truth; it wasn' so much about the police playing unfairly hardball as it was of getting Shane to realise that they knew he was lying as the Mitchells' stories weren't adding up.

Actually, I wonder if LM would've still been found guilty if SM had said under oath that his wee brother was in the house with him between 1650 - 1715. What do you think?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Christopher Harrisson has just been found guilty of murdering his ex-wife by a majority verdict in a Scottish court.  Using Mitchell supporter logic this must therefore mean a likely miscarriage of justice has taken place  - I wonder how long before Sandra McLean has a petition for his re-trial?

[Kenmair]

According to Dalkeith's leading criminologist, Shane privately supports his brother but doesn't want to state it publicly. Surely that must count for something..

 

[faithlilly]

While, imo, the circumstantial evidence used against LM at the original trial was overwhelming and leaves me totally convinced of his guilt, I'd still like to watch the aforementioned trial in its entirety in HD. That would be extremely interesting and would, I'm sure, remove any doubts people may have about this case or LM's guilt or innocence.

As for SM's testimony, well, I've already addressed this. He made it quite clear under oath that his wee brother wasn't in the house between 1650 and 1715. SM admitted (under oath) he'd been looking at porn in his bedroom and was masturbating between 1650 and 1715; said he would never have done this if anyone else had been in the house at that time and said he couldn't hear music coming from Luke's bedroom or the dining room (implying that LM playing music was a regular occurrence at this time of day in the family household). It wasn't, I don't think, discussed in court if SM had physically checked LM's bedroom or the whole house to see if his wee brother was there (though I think I read SM, upon arrival home, shouted out "Hello?"and got no answer). Asked directly by AD Turnbull if he'd seen Luke when he went downstairs after looking at the aforementioned porn images, SM replied: "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother. He could have been there."

How can anyone, after reading the above, infer that Luke Mitchell was in his family house that day between 1650 and 1715? It's obvious he wasn't in the house and Shane was admitting as much without actually categorically saying he wasn't there. Shane was never ever going to come right out and say his brother wasn't in the house, because blood is thicker than water and Shane probably could never bring himself to fully drop his wee brother in the shit like that; besides, him categorically saying his wee brother wasn't there would've left him and his mother open to perjury charges (had AD Turnbull came right out and asked Shane if he saw his wee brother mashing tatties in the kitchen, I suspect Shane would have said he couldn't remember). The Mitchell house at Newbattle Abbey Crescent was merely a 2-storey property and not some mansion or castle with a labyrinth of rooms and corridors -- it would have been impossible for those 2 boys not to see each other that day had they been in the house at the same time. The fact that neither boy could give a consistent account of each others' whereabouts at that particular time without their mother's input is very telling. I mean, for goodness' sake, you either saw Luke or you didn't -- no in between. Are we really expected to believe that the police would be able to intimidate Shane into making a false confession that his wee brother wasn't there, when he was?!! In such a serious charge of murder? That Shane would let the police bully him? A mechanic, an intelligent strapping lad who was going to batter drug dealer [Name removed]? Yeah, right!

I often wonder if SM started crying in court out of guilt for Jodi -- did him seeing those pics of her dead, mutilated body prompt him to tell the truth? Probably. That, combined with the fact that he probably knew the police had sussed out that Luke had done it and the jury would likely see through it. Fearing going to jail for perjury for trying to cover for a horrendous murder. Stuck between a rock and a hard place -- not wanting to drop his brother in the shit, blood being thicker than water. A horrible dilemma he was in. Overwhelmed, crying. I suspect, in large part, SM's human side shone through and he simply told the truth without fully exposing his wee brother -- "I genuinely don't remember seeing my brother that day. He could have been there." About the best he could do or say, given the circumstances. But, at the core, the police and prosecution did a good job of getting SM to tell the truth; it wasn' so much about the police playing unfairly hardball as it was of getting Shane to realise that they knew he was lying as the Mitchells' stories weren't adding up.

Actually, I wonder if LM would've still been found guilty if SM had said under oath that his wee brother was in the house with him between 1650 - 1715. What do you think?

Logic tells us then that as Shane had forgotten that he had arrived home later than usual on the day of Jodi’s murder and had also forgotten that he fixed his friend’s car that those things didn’t happen. Is that what you’re saying?

It is interesting that Shane is treated as a liar when he appears to agree with the defence but a witness of truth when he doesn’t.