Killer Simon Hall: Continued.. Sandra Lean’s Fabricated ‘PhD’ Should Be Revoked With Immediate Effect & Wrongly Accused Person Organisation Struck Off By Regulator – Part 18h©️

A criminal psychologist, Professor Robert Hare spent most of his life studying psychopaths and learning what makes them tick. (Hare is the creator of the PCL-R, the assessment most commonly used to identify psychopathic traits in an individual.)

In an interview with the Telegraph, Hare described psychopathy as “dimensional,” suggesting that many psychopaths tend to blend in. 

“There are people who are part-way up the scale, high enough to warrant an assessment for psychopathy, but not high enough up to cause problems. Often they’re our friends, they’re fun to be around. They might take advantage of us now and then, but usually it’s subtle and they’re able to talk their way around it.” 

We generally think of emotionally intelligent persons as kind and helpful. 

But a number of psychologists have also highlighted the “dark side” of emotional intelligence: how a person could use their knowledge of emotions to strategically achieve self-serving goals, with little or no concern for others.

Note psychopath’s ability to “talk their way around” their tendency to take advantage of others.

Intellectually, we may identify what they’re doing…we may even call them out for it.

But these persons play on our emotions to get us to dismiss their behaviour. 

Research supports these conclusions–that some individuals are highly skilled at using the ability of emotional influence for selfish gain. 

By Justin Bariso article headed Neuroscience Shows Psychopaths Can Use Emotional Intelligence to Harm. Here’s How to Protect Yourself dated 25th July 2018

On page 369 and 370 of her bogus thesis, which Sandra Lean submitted to the university of Stirling in 2012, she referred to the “fulfilment of the requirements of the university of Stirling for the degree of doctor of philosophy”.

Sandra Lean included excerpts from the Code of Ethics for Researchers in the Field of Criminology in her bogus thesis;

The purpose of this Code is to offer some guidance to researchers in the field of criminology in keeping with the aims of the Society to value and promote the highest ethical standards in criminological research.

The British Society of Criminology’s general principle is that researchers should ensure that research is undertaken to the highest possible methodological standard and the highest quality in order that maximum possible knowledge and benefits accrue to society.

1. General Responsibilities
   
   vi) correct any misrepresentations

From pages 367 and 370 of Sandra Lean’s February 2012 ‘thesis’ submitted to Stirling university headed Hidden In Plain View

Sandra Lean made numerous “misrepresentations” in her bogus thesis including the following “misrepresentations” on page 270;

An apparently successful campaign for one high profile case in 2009/2010, which drew several hundred supporters, collapsed amidst a very public, bitter and acrimonious dispute between various contributors. 89

89. This campaign was beset with difficulties introduced by control issues, contributors who were ignorant of the actual legal processes involved, defensiveness, a tendency for contributors to interpret criticisms and suggestions as personal attacks, and the recurring difficulties of malicious and disingenuous contributors posting under numerous false identities.

There were several consequences, including some contributors and supporters withdrawing from internet advocacy, others withdrawing from some campaigns whilst supporting others, and the creation of a general rift in what had, prior to that, been an encouraging and cohesive group.

Anonymous and malicious posting, and posters using multiple online identities, have been an ongoing difficulty for online campaigns (and campaigners), with smear tactics and dishonesty being used to discredit individuals and cases, sometimes spilling over into physical threats and arrests 90.

Sandra Lean – page 270 of ‘thesis’ headed Hidden In Plain View

In reality – actual, factual guilty killer Simon Hall’s innocence fraud public relations (PR) spin campaign had “collapsed” by 2007/08.

Stephanie Bon, who was killer Simon Hall’s former girlfriend, had headed up guilty killer Simon Hall’s online innocence fraud PR spin campaign from around 2003, along with his adoptive parents Lynne and Phil Hall and his brother Shaun Hall.

This was until they all had a falling out with one another.

There is no doubt “control issues” were behind this “collapse” but killer Simon Hall was not “ignorant of the actual legal processes involved” and neither would Sandra Lean have been.

A few months after submitting her bogus thesis to Stirling university Sandra Lean made the following public statement;

The personal attacks and divisions are very sad – they direct attention away from what really matters, dilute the strength that could be built by everyone working together, and, in my opinion, they scare people off who might otherwise become involved.

Sandra Lean – 18th July 2012 here

The “personal attacks” scammer Sandra Lean referred to were her own.

Diversionary Tactics That Distort The Reality Of Their Victims & Deflect Responsibility

An online article headed 20 Diversion Tactics Highly Manipulative Narcissists, Sociopaths And Psychopaths Use To Silence You is worth reading at this point.

As previously stated in Part 18g of this blog series (tap on above button), con-artist Sandra Lean also made the following allegations in her bogus thesis;

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.

Excerpts by Sandra Lean from pages 108 & 109 of her thesis headed Hidden In Plain View

Again, in reality – the “internet hate campaigns” were her own!

And the “many lies” to which scammer Sandra Lean referred to in her bogus thesis, were also her own!

It is not known what “developments” in convicted killer Luke Mitchell’s case Sandra Lean was referring to, if indeed there were ever any real “developments” around this time.

However Sandra Lean ended up having un-convicted baby killer, sexual deviant and abusive predator Billy Middleton move into her home with her and her youngest adult daughter, after Sandra and Billy returned from travelling around the UK together during parts of 2010.

Within just a few weeks of this new arrangement taking place, Sandra Lean contacted Stephanie (Hall) one Sunday morning in November 2010 to inform her that an incident had occurred between her and un-convicted baby killer Billy Middleton.

Sandra Lean claimed her youngest adult daughter had to intervene in order to protect her mother Sandra.

According to Sandra Lean, following a night of drinking alcohol, Sandra claimed that Billy Middleton had threatened her and got up in her face, so much so that Sandra Lean’s youngest adult daughter (who had apparently witnessed the incident) had helped pack Billy Middleton’s belongings and “kicked him out” of her and her mothers home.

Some hours after Billy Middleton had been forced to leave Sandra Lean’s home, Billy apparently contacted Sandra via telephone saying he was “lost”.

Sandra Lean then claimed that she and her youngest adult daughter had then gone out in a motor vehicle searching for Billy Middleton, eventually finding him in a street in Edinburgh with his face evidently “covered in blood”.

Following this event Sandra Lean had apparently given Billy Middleton some money in order to help him travel back to his parents home in the Shetland isles, as he was allegedly at this point “pennyless”.

It is not known why Sandra Lean chose to contact Stephanie (Hall) about the incident between her and Billy Middleton, but by this time Stephanie (Hall) had made it clear to Sandra Lean she no longer trusted or believed Billy Middleton’s version of events regarding the night of the two fires in which baby Annalise had died.

Stephanie (Hall) had also made it clear she wanted nothing whatsoever to do with Billy Middleton.

Stephanie (Hall) had previously been told by killer Simon Hall that he also did not want to be associated with un-convicted baby killer Billy Middleton or his WAP website and wanted everything related to his case removed from Billy and Sandra’s website.

Killer Simon Hall had said he did not “like” or “trust” Billy Middleton, after having met him face to face a few months earlier when Billy and Sandra Lean had visited him at HMP Kingston in Portsmouth.

Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton had also attended killer Simon Hall’s preliminary appeals hearing at the appeal court in London on the 10th of March 2010.

Stephanie (Hall), who unbeknown to her at this time was being groomed, conned and exploited by actual, factual guilty killer, sexual deviant, predator and dangerous, psychopathic innocence fraudster Simon Hall (And others – which included Sandra Lean) spoke to an ex RUC police officer called John Lamberton about the incident and some of these disclosures were posted online by John.

Dishonest, Unreliable, Lack Of Integrity & Trustworthiness

Not long after the incident involving Sandra Lean and un-convicted baby killer and abusive predator Billy Middleton, Sandra and Billy began an online smear campaign aimed at Stephanie (Hall), and in turn John Lamberton.

Exactly two weeks before killer Simon Hall’s appeal began at the court of appeal in London, Sandra Lean wrote the following which she had Billy Middleton publish to their WAP website;

ADMINISTRATORS NOTE: I HAVE BEEN SENT THE FOLLOWING BY SANDRA AT 20:59 

It is with extreme sadness and regret that I am making this post, but the events of this afternoon have left me with no choice. Whether people accept it or not, posts on internet sites have real life consequences.

Almost two months ago, at the beginning of October, Stephanie requested that Simon’s caseblog be closed, pending the appeal. I explained at the time, on the forum, that this is quite common practice in the run up to an appeal.  At that time, there were also discussions regarding taking down all facebook related content connected with Simon’s case (which Wrongly Accused Person had no connection with whatsoever) as Stephanie felt she was being attacked from many angles. The forum at Wrongly Accused was not one of the places this was happening.

Stephanie was happy with this arrangement at the time, and posted to that effect on the forum.

It was confirmed on October 3rd that Billy had closed Simon’s caseblog, and put up a message stating that this was pending the appeal. For reasons which will become clear, however, he advised Stephanie that he would be writing to Simon asking him to confirm future changes, etc, to the site. 

The following series of events covers recent claims about the closing of the site:

November 17th at 12.52: an email was received at Wrongly Accused, addressed to Billy, which began, “Dear Billy, you may or may not have received a letter from Simon requesting that his site be taken down from Wrongly Accused.” It goes on, “We ask that you please remove all content relating to Simon’s case, and that the thread on the wrongly accused be locked.”

November 18th at 15:40 (less than 27 hours later) another email was received stating that Billy “appeared to be ignoring emails.” A facebook post was also made, on Stephanie’s behalf, asking that Billy read his “private emails.”

November 19th 10.48am: a request was made to let Stephanie know if Simon’s letter had been received, and on November 20th, it was confirmed that it had not yet been.

November 20th  at 10.04am: Stephanie posted on the forum “Simon has been asking for over a week to have his caseblog closed down completely and for this thread to be locked.” This post was less than 72 hours after the initial email regarding a letter Billy “may or may not have received.”  

November 21st:The  post was re-posted on the McKie site 

November 22nd, at 1.09 (which is 12.09, real time): Stephanie posted “After two weeks of Billy ignoring Simon’s express wishes and requests…..” (this was 5 days after the initial contact.)

November 22nd at 6.12pm (5 hours after the above post) an email was received at Wrongly Accused from Stephanie as follows: “It would appear you have received Simon’s letter. Therefore, please remove entirely his caseblog. I think you will find, if he asked for a message to be put up, he meant within the thread, bearing in mind he is in prison and does not understand how it all works. We wish the site to no longer be found in a search, it’s that simple.”

This was the first reference to the site “no longer being found in a search.”

However, Simon’s letter had, indeed, been received by then, and a clear difficulty had arisen. It would be both unethical and unprofessional to post the letter in its entirety without Simon’s permission, but the pertinent parts state the following:

“I understand the website is closed pending appeal but other bits relating to the site are open. Is that right? If so, please stop everything to do with my case, and that includes forums, walls or whatever else people insult each other on. Also, could you change the “closed pending appeal” to the following:

“In the interests of justice and pending Mr Hall’s forthcoming appeal, this website is temporarily closed. Simon would like to thank everyone for their support and their continued interest in his case.”

We were faced with a dilemma – Simon’s letter does not talk about taking everything down, or making his case unable to be found in a search – indeed, he is quite clear that he wants a message displayed on his site, and has included the word “temporarily,” which did not feature before. He asks that everything be “stopped.” The caseblog had been closed since early October, and the forum was locked on November 21st, so Simon’s requests had already been dealt with.

Stephanie’s requests, on the other hand, had changed, and continued to change, from closing the site, to taking everything down completely, to ensuring nothing could be found in a web search (something, incidentally, we could not guarantee, even if we took the entire site down.) Even her last email is unclear – how could a message from Simon be posted in “a thread” if the forum had also been removed? 

The disingenuous portrayal of delay, posted publicly within 72 hours, was deeply concerning, as there had been previous instances of such behaviour.

Between October 2nd and October 4th, at a time where I was extremely busy, I had received 20 emails from Stephanie, between private messages and those which had come through wrongly accused, along with a number of texts. I had not had time to respond to these, but Stephanie concluded that I was “ignoring” her.

I wrote a long email on October 4th, explaining the circumstances. Part of that email, however, referred to a post Stephanie had put on the Wrongly Accused forum meantime, in her belief that I was ignoring her.  (Note this is only a 48 hour period.) I wrote, “I’m also interested in why you chose to use my facebook post (adapted) to post on wrongly accused. Following from Shirley’s post as it does, it makes it look like one of the “un-named” individuals is me. I have never attacked you, criticised you or made any other negative comment about you anywhere – I may simply be reading too much into it, but that is certainly how it came across.”

Stephanie responded:“….yes, I did use your post on facebook on the wrongly accused, and when I did I knew you would be more annoyed over that than you are about what I am going through at the moment. And I have a couple of friends that will verify that. “

I was extremely concerned at this, as it appeared that Stephanie was happy to have me painted in a dishonest light, simply because I had not responded immediately to her emails. Other things going on behind the scenes had alerted me to the possibility that Stephanie was not being entirely straight with me.

The next difficulty arose over the claims that outsider/smiffy was Billy. John Lamberton was posting some pretty damning claims about things Stephanie had purportedly told him. Worried that these claims might reflect badly on Stephanie, I attempted to pre-empt further claims by suggesting a possible source of John’s assumption that outsider/smiffy was Billy. Stephanie immediately PM’d me and emailed me, but before I had even had a chance to read her messages, and respond, she had posted on the forum claiming that my post was “untrue.” I emailed Stephanie privately, although she continued to post. Part of my last message, on November 15th  was, “Before I had had a chance to respond to your messages, you were posting that what I had said was “untrue.” By the time I had clarified the situation, you were still claiming in your emails that what I had said was “untrue.” It seems to me you simply did not understand, or chose not to believe, what I was saying. There’s nothing I can do about that – what hurts is that you could not step back, knowing me as I thought you did, and ask yourself, is there perhaps another explanation for this. Nope, instant public condemnation, in the belief that you were being attacked, when, in fact, I was trying to defend you.”

I finished this email by saying, “I can only finish by saying that I am truly heart-broken at how these events have panned out. That your words are being used to paint me as dishonest and unreliable, and that in turn is being used to undermine Luke’s case, is probably one of the worst experiences in all of this. I thought you were my friend.”

On both of these occasions, Stephanie had made public accusations, apparently without any thought of consequence, and was doing so again regarding the closing/removal of Simon’s site.

We had decided that the best course of action would be to ignore the public accusations and write to Simon for further clarification, however this evening’s events have forced a decision based on other factors.

Entering a local store this evening, I was approached by a man who greeted me with the following:

 “You are one f*cking sick little bitch. How long did you think folk were going to take your lies and p*sh? Weren’t happy destroying one family’s life, eh? Now you’ve started on somebody else’s. How many more you twisted little f*ck? Yours is coming, don’t you worry about it. You’ll get yours you twisted little c**t – there’s plenty just waiting their chance.”

I assume this came about as a result of various claims being made on various websites. In principle, I would not back down to such bullying and threatening behaviour. However, I have to live here, as do my family, and in view of the fact that Simon’s appeal is imminent, it is with a very heavy heart that I have asked Billy to remove everything relating to Simon’s case from the site.

I would emphasise wholeheartedly that my support for Simon and Stephanie is unwavering, and I hope with all my heart that the appeal is successful, and they are able to begin to build their life together, as they should be.

Written by Sandra Lean and published by Billy Middleton on 23rd November 2010 at 10:12:25 pm

Again, Sandra Lean included Billy Middleton as one of her case studies for her bogus PhD thesis, as can be seen on page 186 Hidden In Plain View.

Sandra Lean also stated on page 367 of her bogus thesis;

Arrangements will be made to provide links (telephone numbers, addresses, web addresses) to support organisations and mechanisms for prisoners and families who participate in the study (for example, Miscarriages of Justice Organisation (MOJO,) Wrongly Accused Persons Organisation, Innocent, etc), in the event that participation causes distress. 

From page 367 of Sandra Lean’s February 2012 ‘thesis’ submitted to Stirling university headed Hidden In Plain View

Wrongly Accused Person Organisation (WAP) was originally set up and run by un-convicted baby killer, sexual deviant and abusive predator Billy Middleton.

Sandra Lean become a co-director of the WAP organisation after it received charity status on the 13th of December 2010.

The Wrongly Accused Person organisation no longer exists after it was struck off by the Scottish charity’s regulator for failing to publish any accounts.

Link to Part 18i here