Marty;

You have made it abundantly clear that my posts are “totties“, still to fathom what this means.
I’ll take a guess here and assume it is not complimentary.
Amongst numerous posts I have put forward – there lies some of these examples. 
Now perhaps would be a good time to read them, if you can be bothered of course. 
I will however take the time to give you a handful of examples, from the list of 47 I have, to date.

Here, is a post that someone made, in response to Sandra Leans podcast.
Tell me if you believe this to be a lie, misleading or blatant misrepresentation of the facts, that Sandra Lean put out?
That warranted the following response; 

I am shocked that the police took a polaroid photo of Luke Mitchell and showed only that photo to a witness.
This is not allowed and police should have shown a selection of photographs.
What they did was suggestive and leading.

We know of course that Andrina Bryson was shown 12 pictures not just one – it was a photo identification process. 
Now for this, it is irrelevant how a person may feel about these 12 pictures.
Is this a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts? 
The truth, the fact is, she was shown 12 pictures.
Used to imply that Andrina Bryson was shown one picture only – it worked with the above poster. 

Both Corinne Mitchell and Sandra Lean state that the search trio “had to walk passed Yvonne Walker’s whilst heading directly to the path”
Is this a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts?

The relevant point, is not – what these two feel this search trio should have done, the relevant point is the blatant misrepresentation of facts. 
That fact is, the truth is – they did not have to walk passed here, they would have had to walk backwards to do so.
Used, to imply this search trio, should have popped in to this lady’s house whilst walking passed it.  

“The search trio had to come from the top of Mayfield”
Is this a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts? 
The truth is, the fact is – this search trio came from a bottom end of Mayfield.
Used to imply this search trio had much further to walk. 

“Steven Kelly was only alibied by his girlfriend Janine Jones”
Is this a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts?
The truth, the fact is, Steven Kelly was in the company of both his girlfriend and father. 

Several witnesses were identified as having been on the path at the critical time that evening. In total there were a minimum of five – John Ferris, Gordon Dickie, his father, David Dickie, Stephen Kelly, a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall, and the “mystery man” seen following Jodi onto the path. Yet of the four who have spoken to police, none makes any mention of having seen either Luke or”

Sandra Lean – excerpt from her discredited book No Smoke published in 2007/08

Is this a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts?

Sandra Lean explained this away – claiming that all she had to go on, were, media reports and court transcripts. 
And the word of both Luke and Corinne Mitchell.
Was that a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts, as;
In this very same book, we have; 

Careful examination of these statements, however, reveals that crucial aspects of them cannot possibly be true

Sandra Lean – excerpt from her discredited book No Smoke published in 2007/08

Therefore Marty – around my various pieces of written work, It interests me, as to what motivates a person – repeatedly;
To lie, to mislead and blatantly misinform people. 
Amidst these studies – I have gained further insight into this case, and realise, fundamentally, why suspicion upon Luke, fell.
I have come to a conclusion, in part – as to why these lies and so forth, are pushed out – in this case.
That there is little, in the way of actual evidence – to prove that Luke is innocent.
Therefore the above – may be used for multiple purpose, but only the perpetrators, know the truth behind their own reasoning.
Only they know the answer. 
Unfortunately – is this claimed search for the truth, for Justice – the truth itself is not being put forward. Is this Just, to do so?.

Information about the leading nature of the photographs shown to Andrina Bryson has been in the public domain since 2008. Top experts have commented on how misleading the photo spread was -John Scott, for example, said they didn’t have an arrow pointing to his head, but they may as well have done. Was John Scott lying, misleading or blatantly misrepresenting the facts?

Sandra Lean

Sandra Lean, yet again, shimmies away from the point – the point being, that this campaign is wrought with lies and misleading information. 
Ignores what I have said completely – highlights John Scott, who is not being misleading, as he is discussing the 12 pictures. 
And it is ok for Sandra Lean to lie and mislead – as the information is available to the public?
So it is OK to lie – people can see the truth elsewhere, if they can be bothered.
Therefore the lies matter not – no harm done? 
Messy.

Did they check Yvonne’s flat to see if Jodi was there? No, they didn’t. Had Jodi been found in Yvonne’s flat previously when she was not where she was supposed to be? Yes, she had. Was Janine sent to walk the couple of minutes to Yvonne’s to see if Jodi was there on previous occasions? Yes, she was. So why not that night? Why not, since they were out anyway, take the couple of minutes to check the flat?

Sandra Lean

And again – completely ignores the point. 
Of the blatant lies being told by both Sandra Lean and Corinne Mitchell.
And gives her opinion instead, of what she FEELS should have happened. 
Thus believing her lies are justified? 
The lie being “That the search trio HAD to walk passed YW’s whilst heading DIRECTLY to the path“

I have repeatedly put out the police timings for the walk from Alice’s house to the junction of the paths and the V point – the length of time that walk took is a fact that matters. If Luke was at the Newbattle end of the path at 10.59 and this family didn’t leave Alice’s house until 11.05 at the earliest, they could not have been at the junction of the paths prior to 11.25pm FACT.

Sandra Lean

And again – excuses the lies, justifies them on behalf of Corinne Mitchell.
The lie is “That the search trio had to walk from the top of Mayfield“
The relevant point – is the lies.
That the people campaigning for innocence.
Are lying.
Messy.  

Steven Kelly was only alibied by his girlfriend Janine Jones
The truth, the fact is, Steven Kelly was in the company of both his girlfriend and father

Parky41

Until 2014, that claim was not made known to the defence. Why not?

Sandra Lean

Rubbish: Let us digest and dissect that a little. 
First of all, power of attorney (POA), does not excuse Sandra Lean from being – overtly defensive of Luke, to the point of lying repeatedly.
Putting herself in the shoes, of being his defence does not equate to – “that claim was not made known to the defence”
Let us step back to 2004-5.
Steven Kelly, his statements.
Janine Jones, her statements.
Mr Kelly (Steven Kelly’s father) – his statement.
The defence – Findlay and Co.
Access to these statements.
Precognitions. 
The SCCRC.
So whilst Sandra Lean claims – not to have actually read this fathers statement.
It does not equate to the defence not being aware of this alibi.
Is Sandra Lean, yet again, simply excusing herself here – from those very lies.
Caught in her own web of deceit.
More so – even IF Sandra Lean did not read this statement until 2014 it is 2019.
Corinne Mitchell also – still lying for 5yrs at least? 
Messy.

Several witnesses were identified as having been on the path at the critical time that evening. In total there were a minimum of five – John Ferris, Gordon Dickie, his father, David Dickie, Stephen Kelly, a witness who claimed to have heard a disturbance behind the wall, and the “mystery man” seen following Jodi onto the path. Yet of the four who have spoken to police, none makes any mention of having seen either Luke or”
Is this a lie, misleading, blatant misrepresentation of the facts?

Sandra Lean – excerpt from her discredited book No Smoke published in 2007/08

That was a typo for which I apologised and took immediate steps to correct. No lie, no blatant misrepresentation, a simple error

Sandra Lean

And yet again, excusing herself as this being a simple error, typo.
The typo may be – Steven Kelly rather than Leonard Kelly.–a typo of several letters not one of course. Very odd typo.
David Dickie was not on this path at the crucial time – the crucial time, being between 5 and 5.30pm. 
The mystery man was not seen following Jodi onto this path.
And completely ignores the reason (lie perhaps) she gave before for this.
Of this being prior to having the case papers, of becoming POA.
In this very same chapter of the book – she refers to reading the case papers. 
The statements.
Messy.

I have come to a conclusion, in part – as to why these lies and so forth, are pushed out – in this case…. but only the perpetrators, know the truth behind their own reasoning

Parky41

So what is your conclusion, Parky? Just because you choose to interpret information as lies, misleading or “blatant misrepresentation” doesn’t make it so.

Sandra Lean

And again – only Sandra Lean and Corinne Mitchell will know the reasons behind these lies, behind those blatant misrepresentations of the facts.
For that is what they are – no interpretation needed.

So after sifting through 16years of someones work trying to catch them out, this utter pish is all you can come up with in your writings😂😂😂. Idont know what or who your supposed to be but how long have you wasted on that muck.
You cant win the arguement mate so turning you venom to hate. Just for the record nearly everyposter on here has admitted to not reading your posts at some point wonder why? I have just wasted my time on points that have been answered time and time again. But not from professor parky of course.

Marty

Marty:

Perhaps a simple thank you would have been more appropriate. 
I do however agree, that these lies, blatant misrepresentation of facts, are indeed – “utter pish“
Whilst is may be admiral, to jump, to only Sandra Leans defence in your attack upon myself personally, not just my post. 
Reading through these forums, online evidence and so forth – has been a far cry from sifting through 16rs of Sandra Leans work. 
The lies and so forth, in abundance from these alone – plain for all to see, if they take the time. 
One therefore dreads to imagine, how much more there is – amongst those 16yrs of actual work. 
Such strong, personal words to use of “venom to hate” towards someone, who has highlighted some of these. 
One’s time would be better served, checking what they post – prior to joining forces, of promoting lies and misinformation. 
Just a suggestion, of course. 
No arguments to be won Marty, how petty and somewhat futile to enter into some form of game play, of scoring points. 
It matters not who may read what I post Marty – it does however matter from the campaigners side, who may read or listen to them. 
Perhaps the reason why this campaign has gotten no-where, when it is founded upon lies, blanket misinformation. 
Those very people who seek truth and Justice are neither truthful or Just in their actions, do you not feel that is wrong? That something is amiss?
Silly question really – when you, yourself have treated people unjustly, an innocent man from a funeral directors, being but one. 
If you, were truly just the messenger of this “slipped, cat out of the bag info” Do you feel you were being used Marty?
Someone to pedal their wares, so to speak.- wares in the form of misinformation, lies? 
Coughing up this coffin information – mistakenly, coughing up “utter pish” to boot?
Flying with the craws Marty?
Yet to see any explanation for the lies Marty – just some steadfast shimmying around them. 

(Original forum posts here)

Link to Part 121 here