"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[faithlilly]

Why do these creeps only go on pro-Mitchell podcasts? The hosts aren't even neutral but are backing them up - all of them. Forbes seems to have curtailed the drugs but still talks an equal amount of lies and nonsense.

I understand a protest coming up in a few weeks. Come along for your free sausage roll and bingo ticket.

Of course the hosts aren’t neutral. No one who views the facts of this case objectively is.

Certain podcasters though have invited those who think Luke is guilty to make their case. Thus far the invitations have been ignored and while I understand some may want to remain anonymous people like Nicholas, whose real identity is widely known, could certainly put their side across with no detriment to their safety but doesn’t. Why is that? Is she really too afraid to have the claims she posts here tested?

[Nicholas]

Of course the hosts aren’t neutral. No one who views the facts of this case objectively is.

Certain podcasters though have invited those who think Luke is guilty to make their case. Thus far the invitations have been ignored and while I understand some may want to remain anonymous people like Nicholas, whose real identity is widely known, could certainly put their side across with no detriment to their safety but doesn’t. Why is that? Is she really too afraid to have the claims she posts here tested?

Your projections betray you John

[Nicholas]

Karen McQueen
Getting a few  (some nasty)  comments when posting about luke"s innocence, 1 thing stays the same though NOT 1 COMMENT GIVES ME A REASON for their comment. So I politely just reply " educate yourself, then let me know if opinion changes" nobody ever gets back. 🙈🙉🙊❤️

Paul Stoddart
Thats the 1's who don't want to beleive that luke was set up by the jones family and lothian & borders police

How did they do that then

 

[Nicholas]

Marie Milne
I find it odd that not one of the doubters come back with anything that makes any sense
I get “guilty”
No matter how much information you give them
It’s silly

[Kenmair]

Of course the hosts aren’t neutral. No one who views the facts of this case objectively is.

Certain podcasters though have invited those who think Luke is guilty to make their case. Thus far the invitations have been ignored and while I understand some may want to remain anonymous people like Nicholas, whose real identity is widely known, could certainly put their side across with no detriment to their safety but doesn’t. Why is that? Is she really too afraid to have the claims she posts here tested?

I'm not talking about pro/anti LM podcasters, just someone who is impartial who can ask probing questions of SL/SF on the many issues they won't discuss, without agreeing or disagreeing with them.  I don't think anyone from the LM guilty camp needs to have their claims tested as that has already been proven in court and subsequent appeals.

None of SL/SF's claims have been legally tested and remain speculative theories.

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean now claiming James Falconer knew sadist Luke Mitchell had committed his murder by the morning of the 1st July 2003

Can just imagine how she gaslights her two daughters

[Nicholas]

None of SL/SF's claims have been legally tested and remain speculative theories.

They are a pair of gaslighting abusers

[Nicholas]

“Everybody thought Luke Mitchell was having sexual relationships with his mother” ~ fraudster Scott Forbes

Corinne Mitchell and her killer son Luke most definitely appear to have had an enmeshed and emotionally incestuous relationship - which isn’t the same as ‘sexual relationships’ with his mother

[Nicholas]

don't think anyone from the LM guilty camp needs to have their claims tested as that has already been proven in court and subsequent appeals.

There’s nothing to test

All the people who have been taken in by this fraud don’t recognise they are being gaslit by a couple of grifters,

“lawyers’ Scott Forbes and Sandra Lean

[Nicholas]

They are a pair of gaslighting abusers

And the latest ‘new’ ‘hidden’ evidence is a nothingburger

Nothing was ‘hidden’ from the defence

[Kenmair]

There’s nothing to test

All the people who have been taken in by this fraud don’t recognise they are being gaslit by a couple of grifters,‘lawyers’ Scott and Sandra

As far as I'm aware, neither have been employed in a professional legal capacity and are mere hobbyists. SF didnt make it past his solicitor's traineeship and SL (leading criminologist) has never been employed or affiliated with any academic or research faculties yet calls herself a "Dr". Flying monkeys indeed.

[faithlilly]

I'm not talking about pro/anti LM podcasters, just someone who is impartial who can ask probing questions of SL/SF on the many issues they won't discuss, without agreeing or disagreeing with them.  I don't think anyone from the LM guilty camp needs to have their claims tested as that has already been proven in court and subsequent appeals.

None of SL/SF's claims have been legally tested and remain speculative theories.

Which begs the question, why are you here? Justice has been done.

[faithlilly]

As far as I'm aware, neither have been employed in a professional legal capacity and are mere hobbyists. SF didnt make it past his solicitor's traineeship and SL (leading criminologist) has never been employed or affiliated with any academic or research faculties yet calls herself a "Dr". Flying monkeys indeed.

You do realise that Dr Lean has a PhD and therefore is entitled to call herself doctor?

Don’t you find that jealousy is such an unedifying trait?

[faithlilly]

Your projections betray you John

Pardon?

[Nicholas]

That misogynistic creep Roddy McLeod/Barrheadboy referring to Jodi Jones as ‘darlin’’

 

“Darlin”

“Wee darlin” - then Roddy McCleod stated;

“We can presume she was stripped before she was murdered”

And the creep emphasised ‘stripped’