When someone dismisses advice by stating that whoever gave it doesn’t have proper credentials, so their advice must be wrong or unimportant. Here’s why you should never make this dismissal again:
First, a definition.
Credentials are any qualification, degree, or achievement that demonstrate suitabilty to comment on something, generally because they imply expertise. For example, having a PhD could be viewed as approporate credentials in the scientific field.
So, why is this dismissal problematic?
It’s problematic because credentials ≠ expertise.
Just because someone doesn’t have tangible proof of their expertise in a field doesn’t mean that they don’t have expertise in that field.
You can be an expert without credentials.
Society has become obsessed with credentialism.
This is the phenomenon of over-reliance on credentials in situations where they aren’t relevant or necessary.
Remember: You can pay for credentials but you can’t pay for expertise. One is bought and one is earned.
Advice should be treated on logic and merits, not on the source.
Dismissing advice because of who it originates from is a fallacy. To avoid using this fallacy, you should focus on addressing arguments rather than the credentials of those who made them.
By Alex Brogan here
Logic & Merits
Scott Forbes and Sandra Lean’s ‘expertise’ is to confuse the unsuspecting public with as much information, misinformation and disinformation as possible in relation to Jodi Jones sadistic and psychopathic killer and the case against him.
When and how did Sandra Lean ‘finally get access to the case papers’?
On the 28th of March 2021 Sandra Lean stated here (from approximately 10:44);
Next thing on this weeks agenda
Scott Forbes
Now I’ve seen so much stuff about Scott all over the place some of it very disparaging so I’d like to set the record straight on Scott’s involvement in all of this
So in 2006 this man walked into Scott’s caravans to speak to Corrine about some information that he had that he’d been trying to give to, initially the police and laterally Luke’s legal team, and nobody was listening to him
So that was where Scott Forbes involvement began
He was, obviously, trashed by the prosecution erm they they made up all sorts of utter nonsense about him to discredit his story and that that in itself was bad enough if you like
Now fast forward a couple of years and I’m studying for my PhD at Stirling university and Scott’s also studying at Stirling university so we started we we’d meet up for coffee now and again ‘cos I wasn’t up in Stirling very often we we’d meet up for coffee and we’d chat about the case
And then Scott became involved with Luke’s legal team as a trainee solicitor
He also became involved in another case in Scotland that he did some absolutely fantastic work on
Erm so yes Scott was involved both voluntarily and as a trainee solicitor with Luke’s legal representation and all these people saying that you know that he’s making it up
No no it’s absolutely true
Erm some people were talking about potentially a conflict of interest with Scott working on Luke’s case after he’d pointed out this information about Mark Kane
Now what I have to tell you is when I finally got access to the case papers every single thing, with the exception of the essay, every single thing that Scott Forbes said was backed up by the informa information in the case papers
So the scratches on Mark Kane’s face
Scott Forbes was not the only witness to those
The agitated behaviour he was not the only witness to those
Mark Kane being on the Newbattle Road that night which Scott actually didn’t say because he said Mark Kane couldn’t remember where he was
The information about him being on the Newbattle Road that night was in the case files from other witnesses
So I wanted to get that absolutely cleared up once and for all
Erm because I think erm doing the right thing, which Scott did, actually cost him dearly and to see him still being slagged off to this day for doing the right thing I thinks says everything that needs to be said about this case if we’re being totally honest (Sic)
Statements by Sandra Lean on the 28th of March 2021
But on the 1st of September 2022 Scott Forbes, using one of his numerous aliases Ambedker here on Twitter contradicted what Sandra Lean stated in March 2021 (above), and claimed Sandra Lean gave him ‘the paperwork in 2006’ as can be seen in the below screenshot;
On the 8th of February 2010 using the alias Angeline, Sandra Lean stated;
Trial transcripts are not “public documents” here in Scotland. It is possible to apply for transcripts, but it is very costly to do so, and given the length of Luke’s trial, you could be looking at a small mortgage for transcripts of the whole thing.
In England and Wales, following conviction, the paperwork relating to the case is returned to the convicted person or someone chosen by them (family, etc).
In Scotland, the only way an individual can get access to their own paperwork is if they choose to try to represent themselves – so long as a solicitor is working on the case, the documents officially are the property of the solicitor, and not the client. Many people find this quite shocking – the solicitor can choose not to show his/her own client paperwork relating to their case, and furthermore, is forbidden to disclose any documents to a “third party.”
This, of course, makes getting paperwork to journalists rather tricky, since solicitors face action by the law society if they are caught passing documents to anyone.
Angeline aka Sandra Lean – 8th of February 2010
And on the 11th of April 2010 Sandra Lean, using the alias Angeline stated;
The extent of the DNA evidence was not known to the family until they changed legal teams, following the failed appeal, as the previous team had not disclosed it to them. The DNA from Falconer was known about, as was the match to Kelly. Kelly was brought up at trial, and the presence of his DNA allowed to be “explained away.”
Angeline aka Sandra Lean
For reasons which were never explained, the team dropped interest in Falconer during the appeal. As Corinne has pointed out, they were not told a great many things that they should have been told.
The family did not know, until after the failed appeal, that there had been a “misunderstanding” between SLAB and the defence team – they were told that the DNA could not be tested for the defence because SLAB had refused to fund it. Numerous questions regarding paying for testing themselves were ignored.
The rest of the DNA evidence has come to light since legal teams have changed.
Scott Forbes also made the following claim via Twitter on the 2nd of March 2021;
And Scott Forbes recently stated of Graham Mann;
In 2010, solicitor, Graham Mann and myself tracked Ms Bryson to a house in Newtongrange. After making inquiries at her old property, she called our office. She was angry that we were trying to trace her but agreed to meet with us.
We assured her we only wished to ask a few questions regarding the identification of Luke Mitchell. When we arrived at her home, her husband and mother-in-law were in attendance. They were angry that we had been looking for them and Graham Mann reminded them that it was our job.
Scott Forbes – August 2022
Scott Forbes above statement, ‘and Graham Mann reminded them that it was our job’ adds yet further weight to Mark Kane’s statement below where he refers to Sandra Lean;
Anytime I contacted her on the ‘Luke Mitchell’ is innocent website she got right onto her cronies and I would receive death threats over the phone, be visited n public places by he man with the long and hash criminal record who would make threats against and my family. He even went to my mothers door, she is her Sixties and disabled just to show me she could be got at! What type of human being does such a thing? He assaulted me in full view of half a dozen people after I had left a comment on Ms.Leans web pag. All of this I reported to the police.
Mark Kane Aka Mr.Rabbit
Why hasn’t Scott Forbes published his own statement(s), along with Mark Kane’s statement(s), and when does he, or Sandra Lean, plan to do so?
INNOCENCE FRAUD WATCH 