Con-artist Sandra Lean made the following allegations in her bogus thesis which she submitted to the university of Stirling in 2012.
In what Sandra Lean referred to as the “fulfilment of the requirements of the university of Stirling for the degree of doctor of philosophy”, Sandra Lean alleged;
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.
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.
Of particular concern were dishonest claims that I had previously misled individuals whose cases were highlighted in a book I had written, by leading them to believe I was collecting their stories for a PhD study.
The potentially negative impacts for the study (access to wrongly accused/convicted persons and their families, campaigners, etc) were greatly eased by existing contacts, with whom relationships of trust and respect had previously been built, making contact with potential participants, reassuring them that the “hate campaign‟ was malicious and dishonest, and that I was trustworthy, with no “ulterior motives,‟ as had been suggested.
It was as a result of these people’s kindness and integrity that the part of the study covering Scottish cases was able to be conducted to the extent it was, and the effects of the “hate campaign‟ so successfully minimised.
Clearance for the research proposal was received from the Ethics Committee of the Department of Applied Social Science, University of Stirling, and the study was carried out within the Code of Ethics of the British Society of Criminology (see Appendix V).
Excerpts by Sandra Lean from pages 108, 109 and 110 of her ‘thesis’ headed Hidden In Plain View
The case Sandra Lean was referring to was that of sadistic murderer Luke Mitchell, who committed his first murder less than a month shy of his 15th birthday – on the 30th of June 2003.
In reality guilty killer Luke Mitchell and scammer Sandra Lean’s innocence fraud scam was being exposed, which demonstrated Sandra Lean had zero credibility or integrity and she could not be trusted as a reliable source.
However Stirling university seemingly failed to recognise and address this fact.
Sandra Lean told numerous bare faced lies about many cases and individual’s and the ‘internet “hate campaign” she alleged was her own, aimed at other people, in which Sandra attempted to “discredit” many people – especially those who saw through her and her former boyfriend and co-director of the WAP organisation, un-convicted baby killer Billy Middleton.
And contrary to what Sandra Lean alleged in her bogus 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 actual, factual, guilty killers (and other criminals) she deeply desired to free from prison, or portray those individuals who had stood trial and been found “not proven”, as innocent victims of a criminal justice system run amok.
Stirling University’s Lack Of Ethical Governance
Before submitting her bogus thesis to Stirling university Sandra Lean made the following statement;
Interviews for the PhD must be kept anonymous, and are a completely separate issue from any books.
This is made absolutely clear to anyone who is participating in the research.
Furthermore, cases which have been featured in the book cannot be used for the PhD.
Again, documented evidence is available
Sandra Lean – 10th April 2010 here
“Cases” Sandra Lean wrote about in her first, now withdrawn, innocence fraud book were used in her bogus PhD thesis.
Something Stirling university again appear to have failed to recognise and/or address.
Where is this “documented evidence” Sandra Lean referred to and what exactly did it say?
Sandra Lean’s first discredited innocence fraud book No Smoke was also referenced throughout Sandra’s bogus thesis – which again was the same book Sandra had allegedly withdrawn from publication in October 2019.
“Allegedly” because Sandra Lean’s book No Smoke was still being sold in December 2022, some 3 years later!
Stirling university also appear to have failed to recognise the cases Sandra Lean claimed she had studied were not in fact “of factually innocent persons” but of actually, factually guilty persons, like for example dangerous and psychopathic murderer and predator Simon Hall.
Stirling university also failed to recognise and/or address the very real innocence fraud phenomenon and enablers like Sandra Lean.
Who, by also using her bogus PhD, attempted to re-write history, re-brand dangerous and psychopathic murderers and predators into ‘factually innocent persons’ and cause no end of psychological harm and suffering to innocent peoples lives in the process.
Sandra Lean’s Diabolical & Harmful Behaviour
On the 4th of December 2008 Sandra Lean attended a protest in Edinburgh, where she carried a banner which included a photograph of one of the psychopathic mass murderers and terrorists of the 21st of December 1988 Pan Am flight 103 Boeing 747 aircraft bomb.
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi’s photograph can be seen in the top left hand corner of Sandra Lean’s banner in the below photograph;
The bomb planted on the Boeing 747 aircraft went off whilst in flight over the Scottish town of Lockerbie.
All 243 passengers were killed, as well as 16 crew members and 11 residents of Lockerbie, who were on the ground.
The names of the 270 people who died can be read here.
Mass murderer Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was represented by Alan Dershowitz and Michael Mansfield on appeal. Read more here. Michael Mansfield also represented guilty killer Simon Hall on his appeal.
As well as a photograph of one of the Lockerbie bombers Sandra Lean also felt entitled to carry a photograph of convicted armed bank robber William Beck aka Wullie Beck.
William Beck was not happy with Sandra Lean’s entitled behaviour, and following a public statement made by killer Luke Mitchell’s mother and enabler Corinne Mitchell (as per below);
oh dear!……..I haven’t had access to my computer for a couple of days and I am somewhat dismayed at some of the recent posts.
Corinne Mitchell – 15th April 2010
All I did was defend Sandra Lean who has been a Godsend to myself and others.
I find it rather sad someone is so Hellbent on badmouthing the very woman who carried a banner, with his face on it, for The Silent Walk for Justice.
So, I am going to bow out now. Just returned from the doctor and I have to keep my blood pressure down and all this is raising it somewhat!
Bye!
William Beck made some of the following statements;
I did not want to reply to this topic again but I feel Corinne is dragging it back to have a go at me for Sandra Lean holding up a photo of me at the silent walk.
I did not want to damage Sandra Lean any further but here we go Corinne..
Please tell me though who gave Sandra Lean permission to do this, Certainly wasn’t me.
If I remember rightly I did not want to be involved in the silent walk which turned out to be the silent walk for Megrahi.
So is this once again a classic example of Ms lean taking other peoples material and using it for her own agendas.
I did not want to divert the issue to the silent walk for Big Wullie hence the reason I did not want my photo on any posters, I did not Ask Sandra Lean to protest for me nor did I ask her to hold up any posters for me.
William Beck Aka Big Wullie – 19th March 2010
More Manipulation & Fabrication
In 2009 Sandra Lean came into contact with un-convicted baby killer, sexual deviant, abusive predator and con-artist Billy Middleton – who was referred to in Part 18b of this blog series;
It is not known exactly when Sandra Lean began dating “fiend’ Billy Middleton but the pair of them began travelling around together in an old red post office van by the end of 2009.
Sandra Lean purchased the old red post office van and ripped the seats out of the back of the van and made a makeshift bed and MDF wooden seating area in place of the original seats.
Billy Middleton would go on to refer to the van on his social media as “hotel justisica”.
Sandra Lean made reference to the former postal van as a “camper van” in her 2012 thesis stating;
Again, given the manner in which the study was conducted (travelling in a camper van to keep costs down),
Excerpt from page 104 of Sandra Lean’s February 2012 thesis headed Hidden In Plain View
Sandra Lean included un-convicted baby killer, sexual deviant, abusive predator and con-artist Billy Middleton as one of her “case studies” for her bogus PhD thesis, as can be seen on page 186 (Read more here Hidden In Plain View).
Sandra Lean had previously misrepresent Billy Middleton and falsely claimed baby Annalise’s murder was “accidental”.
Sandra Lean attempted to rebrand un-convicted baby killer Billy Middleton as “an innocent man’’ and posted the following on an Internet forum, which further demonstrated her obvious bias, hypocrisy and inability to remain impartial;
I have, until now, chosen to ignore the personal comments posted here, on the grounds that they are of no bearing on the discussions at hand.
This latest post, however, leaves me no option but to respond. Mr Middleton was acquitted.
Much of what you post here is the same sensationalist media garbage that plays such a huge part in convicting innocent people.
I note you fail to mention that Mr Middleton set up an organisation to help other wrongly accused people, www.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk and has devoted himself to that organisation since being acquitted.
I was honoured to be asked to join that organisation, and am proud to be part of it.
How you can attempt to pass yourself off as a champion of those suffering injustice, when you can stoop to these depths to smear an INNOCENT man, in your attempts to discredit me, is beyond me and, I suspect, any right thinking person.
Did you at any point stop to think about the appalling suffering you would cause Mr Middleton? Using the tragic accidental death of a baby, and the terrible grief of an entire family, to score points in a petty campaign to rubbish me is unforgivable.
Shame on you, Mr Beck.
It will, of course, be for Mr Middleton to decide whether he wishes to take legal action regarding the content and intention of this post.
Sandra Lean
Sandra Lean – 28th February 2010 here
On page 110 of her bogus thesis Sandra Lean stated;
Ensuring that potential participants understood that the study could not, in any way, assist individual cases was imperative
But this is exactly what Sandra Lean’s bogus thesis and online manipulation was designed to do, as is evident by many her deceptive statements.
To date Billy Middleton has failed to prove he did not deliberately start the two fires in his home in Lerwick, Shetland in September 2008.
And Billy Middleton’s behaviour towards his then wife suggested he was using coercive control, which did not become illegal in Scotland until 2018.
If coercive control had been recognised as a criminal offence at the time of Billy Middleton’s trial for murder, two counts of attempted murder and a count of sexual assault it’s highly likely he would have been found guilty – as opposed to not proven.
INNOCENCE FRAUD WATCH 
One thought on “Killer Simon Hall: Scammer Sandra Lean’s Fabricated ‘PhD’ Should Be Revoked With Immediate Effect, Stirling University’s Lack Of Ethical Governance & Alan Dershowitz – Part 18g©️”