Sandra's exit - The real reasons

[Nicholas]

SF on the scene well before this, this new workmate claims to have been a friend who had doubts,  who was scared to voice them for fear of the locals? Full of contradiction once more. Plays the "was done with it" packing all her many years of study away. Entering that new life of an easy  9 - 5 work role. That one was in a place that discussion of the case, as a "rule of thumb" did not happen (In that office) . Only a "select few" knew of her and that connection to the case there. This is the reason one was wary, was the new start a friend or foe? Wary as then states her place of work was "filled with mainly locals?" (Big office?) Least that is the impression. - contrast to other areas of the book, of everyone knowing her, those embellished attacks and all else, so much so (as stated before), that one had to ask her daughters to lie at school, to say no if they were asked "is your mother------"

Is this what Sandra Lean claims in IB?

[Nicholas]

SF on the scene well before this, this new workmate claims to have been a friend who had doubts,  who was scared to voice them for fear of the locals? Full of contradiction once more. Plays the "was done with it" packing all her many years of study away. Entering that new life of an easy  9 - 5 work role. That one was in a place that discussion of the case, as a "rule of thumb" did not happen (In that office) . Only a "select few" knew of her and that connection to the case there. This is the reason one was wary, was the new start a friend or foe? Wary as then states her place of work was "filled with mainly locals?" (Big office?) Least that is the impression. - contrast to other areas of the book, of everyone knowing her, those embellished attacks and all else, so much so (as stated before), that one had to ask her daughters to lie at school, to say no if they were asked "is your mother------"

Not surprised to hear she’s allegedly using her daughters as pawns again

But were both daughters asked to lie for her or just the one who lived with her or the one that didn’t?

[Nicholas]

Further opinion, by invite of "make of it what you will?"

Killer Simon Hall used these words btw in one of his blogs in early 2013 🙄

‘I say to whoever reads this, make of it what you will. People seem to form opinions without knowing all the facts’

(28th Jan 2013 https://therealmrshspoofblog.wordpress.com/author/gr8jumper/page/2/)

[Nicholas]

Does anyone remember the letter ‘someone’ sent to killer Simon Hall in early 2013

The post mark indicated it had originated from Edinburgh

And Sandra Lean indicated around the time she was seemingly concerned people might think she wrote/sent it

Was it Sandra Lean again who ‘suggested’ this person read the Bamber forum? 🙄

A copy of it was posted here ⬇️  (Under 4th Feb 2013) 
https://therealmrshspoofblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/27/the-burglary-omission-smear-campaign-hindsight/

Killer Simon Hall wrote a blog in reply to the letter and he wrote it to give the impression his then wife had composed it, which she hadn’t.


‘’To the cowardly author who wrote to my husband, your letter arrived today.
Thank you for sharing your opinions and showing your narrow mindedness, thank you for confirming to us that you have ‘joined the pack’ and thank you for reminding us that you have very little knowledge.
You appear to be a bit of a nosy parker, so it would follow that you are probably also a curtain twitcher, have you got a neighbourhood watch sticker on your window.
We have noted the post mark and know that the letter was sent from Edinburgh.
The handwriting of the letter looks female but the words and tone are that of man. So for the time being, you could be female or a very effeminate man.
Never the less, you are one of the lucky ones. I have decided to commission a fingerprint expert along with a handwriting expert and fund this myself in order to find out your true identity. This will enable me to give your details to the police & prison security and add your name to the increasing list of nuisance mailers/harassers.
(Under 9th Feb 2013 here https://therealmrshspoofblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/simon-halls-blogs/)

[Nicholas]

Killer Simon Hall wrote a blog in reply to the letter and he wrote it to give the impression his then wife had composed it, which she hadn’t.


‘’To the cowardly author who wrote to my husband, your letter arrived today.
Thank you for sharing your opinions and showing your narrow mindedness, thank you for confirming to us that you have ‘joined the pack’ and thank you for reminding us that you have very little knowledge.
You appear to be a bit of a nosy parker, so it would follow that you are probably also a curtain twitcher, have you got a neighbourhood watch sticker on your window.
We have noted the post mark and know that the letter was sent from Edinburgh.
The handwriting of the letter looks female but the words and tone are that of man. So for the time being, you could be female or a very effeminate man.
Never the less, you are one of the lucky ones. I have decided to commission a fingerprint expert along with a handwriting expert and fund this myself in order to find out your true identity. This will enable me to give your details to the police & prison security and add your name to the increasing list of nuisance mailers/harassers.
(Under 9th Feb 2013 here https://therealmrshspoofblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/simon-halls-blogs/)

Why would Sandra Lean choose to privately contact Stephanie (Hall) on the 3rd Feb 2013 to make the claim she didn’t write the letter?

A copy of the ‘letter’ was posted here ⬇️  (Under 4th Feb 2013) 
https://therealmrshspoofblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/27/the-burglary-omission-smear-campaign-hindsight/

Sandra Lean(3rd Feb 2013)
While I appreciate that fighting a MOJ is an uphill struggle, and a steep learning curve, there are some "mistakes" which cannot be explained as ignorance, enthusiastic but misguided belief, or any of the other well trodden routes most people take on their journey towards justice.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg384705.html#msg384705

[Nicholas]

And Sandra Lean indicated around the time she was seemingly concerned people might think she wrote/sent it

Was it Sandra Lean again who ‘suggested’ this person read the Bamber forum? 🙄

A copy of it was posted here ⬇️  (Under 4th Feb 2013) 
https://therealmrshspoofblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/27/the-burglary-omission-smear-campaign-hindsight/

Was Sandra Lean aware of the identity of author of the letter?

And was she also communicating with Shaun Hall and/or Stephanie Bon around this time?

”Maybe you should take that advice yourself, you rant night and day about the abuse you receive, if you look way back you’ll see your own behavior was responsible, you love to play the victim, when in fact the opposite is true. SL’s biggest mistake was lending you that laptop, which in turn allowed you to spread your personality around the WWW like a disease. This threads a f***ing car crash, much like your husbands case, well done.”
(Under the 3rd Feb 2013 here https://therealmrshspoofblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/27/the-burglary-omission-smear-campaign-hindsight/)

[Nicholas]

A copy of the ‘letter’ was posted here ⬇️  (Under 4th Feb 2013) 
https://therealmrshspoofblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/27/the-burglary-omission-smear-campaign-hindsight/

Suffolk police were not ’convinced her murder was a burglary gone wrong’ 🙄

Early indications show Suffolk police thought Joan Albert’s murder was sexually motivated ⬇️

https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2021/12/19/wrongful-convictions-miscarriages-of-justice-innocence-fraud-whats-the-difference/

Part 2 will be dropping in a few days

[Nicholas]

/
Sandra Lean(3rd Feb 2013)
While I appreciate that fighting a MOJ is an uphill struggle, and a steep learning curve, there are some "mistakes" which cannot be explained as ignorance, enthusiastic but misguided belief, or any of the other well trodden routes most people take on their journey towards justice.
https://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8086.msg384705.html#msg384705

Yet more gaslighting and smears and Sandra Lean’s attempts at emotional manipulation

Some examples of which will be included in the UK’s Innocence Fraud news series

[Nicholas]

She’s similar to Amanda Knox

who also chooses to treat Meredith Kercher’s family like imbeciles 

‘They can’t separate their emotions from their ability to rationally observe objective evidence’

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CckT0twVsDQ

Latest podcast on Innocence fraudster Amanda Knox
👇
https://www.spreaker.com/user/7811742/amanda-knox-controls-the-internet-feat-s

[Nicholas]

SF on the scene well before this, this new workmate claims to have been a friend who had doubts,  who was scared to voice them for fear of the locals? Full of contradiction once more. Plays the "was done with it" packing all her many years of study away. Entering that new life of an easy  9 - 5 work role. That one was in a place that discussion of the case, as a "rule of thumb" did not happen (In that office) . Only a "select few" knew of her and that connection to the case there. This is the reason one was wary, was the new start a friend or foe? Wary as then states her place of work was "filled with mainly locals?" (Big office?) Least that is the impression. - contrast to other areas of the book, of everyone knowing her, those embellished attacks and all else, so much so (as stated before), that one had to ask her daughters to lie at school, to say no if they were asked "is your mother------"

What year was this and what school did her older daughter who didn’t live with her attend?

[Nicholas]

Further opinion, by invite of "make of it what you will?"

Something to digest: In IB Nicholas, SL refers to the fall out during the time of the SCCRC report being in. It is put across as things becoming strained between CM, that they could not agree on which was the best way to proceed. That once the report came through communication had broken down in their relationship, so much so that CM (who loves a note?) put another note through SL's door stating she had been stripped of POA - then refers to the WAP, that it had to be taken down as one no longer had the case files to back up what was being put out!

Interesting but so full of holes. The strain in the relationship it would appear was due to what had been happening on the WAP forum. Dispute between four people and not two, those four being SL, CM, LM and of course BM. (The latter co founder and runner of the WAP and also partner of SL?) Which was not simply about a disagreement on how best to proceed. 

There were other cases involved here also, which due to losing their 'prime' target, that high profile murderer, the rest and any organisation to fight their cause were simply surplus, no longer worth keeping that forum running for? Yet when IB was released, that promise of wonderful new things, a new organisation to act in pretty much the same fashion as the WAP. Using the Mitchell case, that high profile murderer as their prime target to draw support! The 'others' and that vague promise to help those in similar situations, is simply not enough to give incentive to carry on, is it? (Where an organisation is concerned) One needs paid, so it is far from being mercenary, is it not?

But this dispute and that note, the demand that one is no longer able to hold those case files, that stripping of POA is not down to CM it is down to LM. In the exact same fashion as to that which has happened of late. It is not these other supporters, it is not CM, these are ultimately the actions of LM. They are his case files, his permission only to give and strip POA and not his mothers.

One talks of being both pushed to the "brink of mental and emotional collapse (after the fallout and failed review attempt). Everything it seemed had been for nothing" (IB SCCRC) - say what? History is simply repeating itself, is it not? Those years from becoming involved with the Mitchells, that massive help they have been to SL throughout those years. A writer and student needs material, and they source and study for this. What exactly in reality is this "Everything it seemed had been for nothing?"

Going back to study was always an option, she tells us this but it had to be at the right time. A continuation from one's psychology degree in 2000? Wanted to further study crime and chose that route of the Justice system (It's flaws), but mostly one wanted to use whatever was gained to be an author and writer. Three years back into study and one had put out their first book around 7 cases. Cases based upon opinion and attempts to match them to what can happen in the world of MOJ's. Taken an elective in paralegal work whilst doing that PHD. In short, those years (8 approx until that submission), the involvement with the Mitchells and others has been invaluable to SL, run alongside her true vocation, have they not? SL really owes a lot to them contrary to what impression people are under of sacrifices?

The waiting game, that cherry on the icing at this point - the report and feed back from the SCCRC was to determine what would be the decider of one's next move. That book however always in the pipeline, was it not? But LM stripped SL of her POA status, took those files back and ultimately without his permission, of that draw and contents from his case files - there would be no IB as it stands, that is simple fact. Was this the drain, the "Everything it seemed had been for nothing?"

As, there was very little hope of success with SCCRC, one tells us this and the next step forward ultimately to get the word out there, to sway public opinion and gain attention another way, by means of putting it all out there in that book. Flatlined, dead in the water, without LM and his mother? MOJO was to be the next hope, but they state clearly that their offices were merely to "provide storage for those case files" Which actually makes sense, these files in reality, should have always been in a secure place should they not have? Not simply stored in one's house in the middle of a scheme? A bedroom/make shift study? SL tells of that visitor to her door, to then getting security cameras to her house, so nothing there to protect any files before this then? No security. Which as anyone knows, hold very sensitive material? Perhaps they were under lock and key, perhaps not.

Let us be realistic here, those pop ins from SL over the time there (MOJO), served dual purpose once more, did it not? Still putting together content for that book. Where we are told that it came about by another stranger posing that question to her, getting  it all down in writing and hey presto, within months that book is written! The first draft she tells us was not satisfactory (Did LM not approve of the first?), to then have it ready for press and released by '18'

So they merged together again, permission for certain contents allowed to be included in the book. The new legal team on board (The two PI's?). Done multiple podcasts and so forth to promote the book, to promote both SL and of course the Mitchell case. They get or were approached by C5, that carrot of having this killers voice aired publicly at a time where, there, was/is massive interest in this type of viewing? That best shot has been had for now, and history once more repeats itself, as:

Purpose has been served for both SL and LM once more, and again she is stripped from having his case files, that demand to hand them back, by him. Not CM and not those supporters together on side with her, It is his decision, exactly as before to take back what is rightfully his. It is foolish, is it not? To imagine for one moment that SL was ready and willing to take on any role of endless campaigning, manning an organisation whilst being fronted by both LM and his mother! I do not imagine for one moment that any of them are the 'forgive and forget' type? Do you?

Stir crazy, the influx of support, people willing to charge through the streets on horseback (I kid you not!) Never mind "Picnic at Hanging Rock" It was picnics at RDP for many western families and their kids, lots of lovely memorial "pics" of their children at the murder site! But reality was to hit home, not was at all how it should be, there was no stepping up to the mark from either CM or SL on behalf of Luke, was there? Not where these others were concerned, they could not understand why the gates of hell themselves were not being chained to? Disputes going on that had been going on for years between three people (LM, his mother and SL). And one by one people began to wake up and fall to the wayside, what was the point of them doing all the dirty work? When the main people were at loggerheads with each other?

Realism to the present day, the one person and again, who is really in charge is of course LM, has asked in the best way possible so as not to lose any more support - fed his fans a carrot, a message of hope? His lovely poem and a thank you for all their hard work, especially SL. To keep things low key and not feed the media. His mother and support on that side, are they eerily quiet or simply doing as requested? Where the other side, the group and support of SL have found this extremely hard, and why should one person remain quiet? That deal is done and dusted, the book is written and can not be taken back, the author has put a lot of work into this and like any author, promotion and sales are what come first!  Are they not?

And yes it is opinion, one can not see into the true workings of those three in a bed together for their own cause, but it really does speak for itself does it not? If one takes any time to actually work their way through those years, as opposed to the present day and the writings of a book. Three people who have ultimately served purpose for each other, selfless acts? - not.

Further food for thought and that request to keep things low key, and to make that split ultimately public. This claimed new legal teams advice, may very well have a real basis of truth in it. LM is due to begin preparation for parole hearings in the not so distant future. His 20yrs are up come April 2024. And contrary to what many people may have been led to believe, there has never been an option for any early release in this case, it was a minimum 20yrs tariff, before being eligible for applying to the parole board. He simply could not have held his hands up and been out on the streets. But without doubt he may very well be wanting things low key, taken advice due to that preparation for those hearings?

One simply does not know, but then it certainly would appear that his last "legal team" were those two ex cops touting for their new PI business? Certainly no others have come to light, or if there were then they too saw nothing in this case that even hinted at a MOJ. Don't let the experts fool one, whilst it is all very well a lawyer putting out opinion on questions asked of them, it is another thing entirely putting money where their mouths are, not so keen to take this case on, are they?

And without doubt, this case will rear it's head time and again, more broadcasts one way or another via media source of all kinds. It attracted attention and status then, it will do so again without doubt. A different spin, and who knows, maybe one day LM himself may write his own book? There will always be something to top what has already passed? Human nature in all forms thrives for attention, to make their mark, nothing better than something that has already gained notoriety. We may even see a third book from SL on this case, most definitely, IF by some miracle LM were to be innocent by some default in law (doubtful) Perhaps one along the lines of 'My time with a killer' - Who knows, anything is possible, is it not? But for now, LM remains both factually and legally guilty of the murder of his girlfriend. No amount of opinion is going to change that. IB is one big IF, it is not based upon evidence and facts that matter, it is opinion and most definitely in parts by permission of LM. 

This split which also holds interest in another area of the book, where by there is virtually nothing from any interviews or statements from CM herself. We have some of LM's interviews (by permission) and one says his mothers was just pretty much more of the same, therefore no point in putting them up? There are continuous red flags in the book, it is missing the very heart of anything that points towards Injustice, directly from the accused and convicted.

Therefore, this fiasco, deliberate or not, simply always the intention - Three people knew those files were to be handed back prior to it being made public, someone was obviously dragging their heels. Propaganda indeed, look at me?

Parasites all three of them!



http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/27/warped-minded-abuser-gaslighter-con-artist-hypocrite-scott-forbes-his-blatant-lies-part-30/

[Nicholas]

Abuser Sandra Lean & Her Lies, Deliberate Manipulation, Smear Campaigns & Gaslighting  (Part 1)
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/29/quite-a-hall-tale-part-18%ef%b8%8f/

[Nicholas]

Abuser Sandra Lean & Her Lies, Deliberate Manipulation, Smear Campaigns & Gaslighting  (Part 1)
👇
http://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/29/quite-a-hall-tale-part-18%ef%b8%8f/

Part 2
👇
https://theerrorsthatplaguethemiscarriageofjusticemovement.home.blog/2022/08/29/quite-a-hall-tale-part-18a%ef%b8%8f/

[Nicholas]

I had been reading Ms Leans thesis

Did you check it for plagiarism ?

Sandra Lean
Ronnie Mothersole Not quite, Ronnie. The parka story began with Fleming and Walsh (one of them said it "might have been" a parka jacket - just like it "might have been" Luke, when we know it could have been MK), then grew arms and legs

[Nicholas]

Sandra Lean stated, (13th June 2021 during her live Facebook video)

“I don’t work with people who are dishonest with me” (cough cough 🙄)

She then went on to state,

“here are some of the comments I’ve had from Luke’s supporters
‘Drop the drama’
‘Stop making it all about you’
‘Get is sorted’
‘If you’d don’t want to be here then you don’t have to be’
‘The balls in your court’

and then,

‘now the balls in your court means we’ve done everything we possibly can it’s up to you now
I’ve been doing everything I possibly can for 18 years yeah the balls in my court

Corinne Mitchell would surely fall under the category of ‘Luke’s supporters’

So were - or have - any of these comments made about Sandra to Sandra been made directly or indirectly by Corinne or
maybe even killer Luke Mitchell?

Sandra then goes on to state,

‘’now so these these are difficult things to try to negotiate and to bring together and it kinda of became apparent that there was no will to negotiate’ (sic)

Was this really all about ‘negotiation’  or was this Sandra Leans attempt to assert her perceived authority?

Was this Corinne Mitchell saying these things ?