*Guest Blog*
Do you know what I really like about the forum linked? That Sandra Lean doesn’t drive the narrative but neither is she treated with the distain shown to her here. She is merely another source of information. It is, however, an excellent dissection of the flaws in the case and why Luke’s conviction should be considered unsafe
Absolutely and most definitely did become another source of information of which much is dissected also. On the basis that it is nothing other than factual?
Rolfe Instantly picked up on the comment of Luke Mitchell not sticking his middle finger up to the police but that of putting his seat belt on?
Where Rolfe rightly points out that it most certainly looks like the middle finger to her, that one would use their other hand for the seatbelt.
Granted this is nothing, and as she rightly points out. What if he did?, a typical gesture perhaps considering the claimed unwarranted attention.
But what does stand out here is that of Sandra Lean, yet again, of excusing all and everything as not happening? “half a mars bar” situ.
This boy could do no wrong?
Distain or not on this forum, the majority of which is critique of Sandra Leans stance and work. The dissection of her flaws? And rightly so.
Some see beyond this claim of having no reason to lie or manipulate to gain a killer freedom?
That Sandra Lean would only do as she does on the basis of complete belief in innocence. And that is correct, no one is disputing Sandra Leans beliefs. But they are first and foremost, hers.
But is that absolute non acceptance of the real possibility that he did indeed kill his girlfriend?
Of the strength of the evidence starting first and foremost with this young couple meeting and of no alibi.
Does it Stem from an earlier connection?
And it is still a bit of a puzzler is it not, as to why these two woman became entwined in September 2003, is it important?
It is, as it could give reason as to why so much of what Sandra Lean says as being flawed?
DNA being one of the strongest, the multiple suggestion of everything and all of the rest.
Very much personal rather than professional? Not independent.
A girl is murdered, the neighbourhood are on guard and worried, there is a killer on the lose.
Parents are worried for the safety of their children.
Sandra Lean has two daughters, she has this drive to make sure the police have gotten the right man, this statement however does not apply to Luke Mitchell until much later, until after Luke’s arrest.
She is at this moment in time the same as any other parent. There is indeed a killer walking the streets. Protection over all else.
By July the 4th a warrant is issued for a search of the Mitchells house, we need not go into reason as to why other than that of suspicion.
It is clear at this point that the police were suspicious of Luke Mitchell.
There is further attention in the media and by August Luke Mitchell has his face in the papers.
No one at this point in the public domain knows if Luke Mitchell killed Jodi Jones only that he was suspect to having done so.
They know absolutely nothing of the investigation, of what may have warranted this suspicion and for it to remain upon him.
Sandra Lean, as with many others no doubt, may very well have wondered, why has he not been arrested yet?
A stranger however is more inclined to think of IF’s rather than that of certainty.
Onto being a parent of anyone not just Sandra Lean.
A claimed stranger, who knew not Luke Mitchell or his mother.
Whom therefore would not have an inkling of the investigation of it’s merit or otherwise and more importantly as a parent, that Luke Mitchell may well have been his girlfriends killer, he may not have been.
That unknown factor of protection amongst strangers.
We had a friend of Luke’s at the graveyard, someone pointing out this could have been a friend of Luke’s.
Someone who had reason at this point of the investigation to only have a ? of doubt over their friend, however trust first and foremost.
But Sandra Lean is a stranger, a mother of two girls. What could possibly have given rise to the following?
That she would claim to have absolute faith and trust in knowing that this stranger was not Jodi Jones killer.
That irrespective of personal feeling towards what may have been in the media.
They are still claimed strangers.
Not to have known each other.
There is at this point a shadow of doubt strong enough to not know if he was responsible.
Is it feasible at all to suggest that Corinne Mitchell got wind of ? what exactly about Sandra Leans concerns or feelings of what?, that on the basis of ?, she is claimed to have sought Sandra Lean out at her place of work?
It could not have been, there is someone who believes/knows my boy is innocent, this is in the weeks shortly after the murder?
It could not have been that of someone understanding what Corinne Mitchell was going through.
Sandra Lean had never been in this situation.
It most certainly was not on any professional level.
Sandra Lean had no standing.
She was just a mother of two girls working to earn a living.
Not a lawyer, not actively known in any field, MOJ’s or otherwise.
And of course, this is the early days, there is no MOJ. It is within those first 2-3 months.
Someone pointed out a ‘sympathetic ear’
What would have been the need for Corinne Mitchell to call upon a stranger?
Where were Corinne Mitchells family?, friends for this sympathetic ear?
The mother of the girl at the graveyard?
There would be no need to call upon any stranger or was it a friend? An acquaintance?
One does not call upon strangers when one is no doubt guarded against outsiders becoming part of this personal plight?
They would ultimately stay with those they have complete trust in? Not a stranger IMO.
Mention recently of that common link, of camping/caravanning?
How many holidays had Sandra Lean been on with the girls doing what she appears to love. Of being out in the open, away from it all.
Camping/caravanning?
Sandra Lean stayed/stays in a small village and in this same village is Scotts Caravans.
Where better to pick up supplies to hire or buy equipment?
Whatever this connection was, it was not that of a total stranger IMO.
A total stranger does not give cause to have absolute belief, that suspicion upon an another complete stranger of murder is unwarranted, without knowing absolutely anything of the people nor the investigation?
And it does matter?
It does for much of what Sandra Lean touts out is so far removed from the actual evidence, the main focus is away from the Mitchells and onto others.
Of this constant cry of “Why were these others treated differently?”
Rather than that of “Why did suspicion fall upon Luke” Why could he not be eliminated?
There are no appeals dragging these others up before the magistrates from highly professional bodies, from Luke’s own defence at the time.
From the inability of gaining further defence, the fall outs? Who had access and more to what Ms Lean had/has.
From “No Smoke” to “Innocents Betrayed”
Very personal writings and feelings of being aggrieved?
Personally being aggrieved for this stranger from those very early days of this murder actually happening.
Of having the exact same stance of Corinne Mitchell – That this boy could do no wrong, everything is down to others, they are to blame?
(Original forum post here)
INNOCENCE FRAUD WATCH 