Around a year ago flying monkey Louise Reid stated on Facebook;
If you going to put yourself out in the public
Make sure the evidence, facts and truth are correct
Or you will be targeted by #lukesarmy cause that’s what we are (sic)
Louise Reid
Flying monkey Derek Edmond responded to Louise’s veiled threat on the ‘official’ Facebook group for killer Luke Mitchell, as can be seen in the below screenshot;
Derek has recently claimed to be “a man of integrity” and says he doesn’t “take too kindly to people spreading lies about” him and has stated;
Once bullet holes have been shot through their theories, all they have left is to become nasty and toxic
Derek Edmond
Derek has also left numerous messages for the author of the newWhat They Found video on killer Luke Mitchell including;
I have some further feedback for you
Perhaps not being so sensitive to honest feedback would be a good starting point with your feedback
Derek Edmond – 4th May 2023
and;
The moment you started posting absolute bollocks about me, you poked a hornet’s nest as the outreach I have regarding supporter’s of the case (worldwide) is unreal
Derek Edmond – 4th May 2023
Derek appears to be projecting and also appears to have a habit of making statements he cannot back up with any tangible evidence.
Is it not known exactly when Sandra Lean became involved with killer Simon Hall’s fraudulent public relations spin campaign, but as mentioned in Part 17g (Which can be read by tapping on the button below), it is thought Stephanie Bon may have met Sandra Lean through a mutual contact via their fraudulent public relations campaigning;
Someone who used the alias Reuben stated in March 2010 “She approached the family telling them she was doing a PHD”.
Reuben stated;
I too was reading in silence but now need to comment as a close friend of Mr Hall’s family..
I have followed the case since the beginning and can guarantee that S Lean DID NOT work on the Simon Hall case AT ALL.
She approached the family telling them she was doing a PHD (as she told everyone she wrote about) and wanted to use the case as an example.
She then just used the info in the public domain and changed a few words here and there, book made.
At the time the book was published we all read it and were asked for comments, everyone was quite disappointed at the result but then thought it could be good publicity, still the book hasn’t really had the success his family was promised.
I would be interested to know when these people received these e-mails because strangely enough I received the exact same type of e-mail last year asking for an Interview for her PHD.
Does this mean another book is on the cards if she is sending these e-mails again ?
Personally I would call this stealing if someone is taking material from someone elses sites and claiming it for themselves.
Corinne you have obviously read this book !
Does it at any time say the material was not her own or that it was obtained under false pretences ie; “PHD’s”
Big Wullie – 14th March 2010
On the following day Reuben stated “Mr Hall’s family was approached about a PHD in 2006”;
As I said you may be right with YOUR facts, but not about others…not one bit!
Mr Hall’s family was approached about a PHD in 2006, the book came after, 2007 / 08.
I never said they were connected, I said that the PHD was the reason behind the first contact from S.L.
You need to read what people are saying, a PHD in 3 different places??? Perhaps in different times?
Reuben – 15th March 2010
Big Wullie then stated;
Reuben is correctly pointing out the “PHD” is an issue I was raising as misleading
If Ms Lean is sending people e-mails asking for interviews for a PHD since 2006 and still continuing to do so surely something is wrong.
To seek information for a PHD then use it in a book is morally and ethically wrong, If she had told people straight up that the info might be used in a book then that would be different.
Since I am getting the same e-mail others got in 2006 asking for an interview for a PHD, are we to take it that another book is on the cards ?
Perhaps we should all put the e-mails up for comparison !
Hi, > > I wondered if I could ask a favour of you? I’m just about to embark on the main research for my PhD, and wondered if you would be interested in doing an interview for me about your experiences? > > Kind regards > > Sandra
Big Wullie – 15th March 2010
Yet Corinne Mitchell stated;
Corinne Mitchell
never was a PHD mentioned…..you are not in the book so you have no personal experience of sandras approach. we were all given our chapters to read and got the opportunity to change anything we were not happy about. she hasn’t “mislead” anyone. she has written facts and gained her information from many sources
Corinne Mitchell – 15th March 2010
Various Versions Of Events
It is also not known when exactly Sandra Lean first began posting on internet forums about Jodi Jones killer or when exactly she became involved with the killer’s mother Corinne Mitchell and her and her sons fraudulent public relations spin campaign.
There are various versions of when exactly Sandra Lean became involved, including the various versions given by Sandra Lean.
On the day after Jodi Jones sadistic and psychopathic teen killer was found guilty for his murder of Jodi, GerardKeegan, who set up the Gerard Keegan psychology forum (Also referred to in Part 23 here), started a thread on his forum called “Luke Mitchell” and on the 22nd June 2005, using his alias The Wee Man posted the following;
Just over a week after Gerard Keegan had made the above post, psychology student Colin Bowman (using the alias bobbiedog) posted the following;
Has anyone entertained the notion that he might be innocent?
Or, if not convinced of his innocence, been concerned by the nature of his prosecution?
bobbiedog Aka Colin Bowman – 31st of January 2005
Around eight hours after the above someone using the alias FairTrial posted;
I don’t know if he’s innocent or not, but I was very concerned by the flimsy and circumstantial nature of the evidence brought forward against him and by the way in which he was demonised by the police from virtually the time the murder was committed.
I was also disgusted by the way in which most of the “evidence” against him seemed to be about unsavoury personal habits and “disturbing” (to adults) reading and viewing material.
Demonstrating that he wasn’t a model of young adolescent behaviour is not the same thing as proving him guilty of murder.
FairTrial – 31st January 2005
Then around an hour and a half later someone using the alias thinksoutsidethe box stated;
On the Verdict of this case The Police stand and congratulated themselves on a job well done.
They left a murder scene uncovered during a night of rain, moved the body, allowed refuse bins to be emptied and an ajoining field to be ploughed the next day.
Had one person in their sights from the first day Luke Mitchell.
Even although there was a published article in the Scotsman of a person not fitting Lukes description seen to be following her on the night she was murdered with curly hair.
A distant cousin with Curly Hair (Ferris) shaves his hair off himself the next day.. admits to being on the path at the time of her death.
Although no admission to the Police until five days later , as in his own words did not think that was so important.
On the night of the murder did not meet with friends as had been planned and has now moved out of the area completely and is said to have changed personality…
Jodi Jones had over 347 Mutilations how did Luke Mitchell clean all the evidance …
They took away the plumbing in his house…. not one shred of dna….took away the log burner no evidence of clothes left over or dna.. Jodi had bruises and cuts on her hands from fiercely defending herself.. not a single mark on Luke not a scratch.
None of Lukes dna on her body , under her fingernails . absolutely nothin……But oh yes he did it according to the Police,, And they are never wrong .. no-one before has been sent down for something they didnt do ….
He maybe likes Marylin Manson…maybe smokes a fair bit of dope ..And we all know how angry and violent that makes you..He claimed to smoke massive amounts of joints to cover up for dealing that is his crime .
They are all coming out the woodwork now the girls who were threatned with knives and now probably offered cheques to talk to tabloids where were all these people during the prosecution .
People who now will not be named but dont mind saying . He has killed animals and threatened people with blades.
Luke Mitchell is in Polmont awaiting sentance..
Having followed this case from the beginning I cannot believe the current position and feel the Donald Findlay has put to the Court a very feeble case for this young mans defence
thinksoutsidethe box – 31st of January 2005
Just under a couple of hours later bobbiedog aka Colin Bowman stated;
thinksoutsidethebox, I’ve personally spoken to Mrs Mitchell by phone, and to a professional prison worker also in contact with the family: and we have shared concerns about the case.
I am mindful to remain in contact with the family, and become part of a loose network supporting Luke and his family: and to over time, and cooperatively make the whole matter of the prosecution’s material something that we chew over; and, perhaps, seek a long term push to have the verdict overturned as unsafe.
I think that every aspect of the “evidence”, from local Dalkeith, through the police and the media, and including the expert testimony: leaves ground for grave concern.
I take it to be something of a ground breaking case: perhaps legitimating new canons of evidence.
bobbiedog Aka Colin Bowman – 1st of February 2005
On the 7th of March Gerard Keegan as The Wee Man stated;
This thread has attracted huge interest inside and outside the psychology community in Scotland.
Thanks to all contributors thus far.
I would recommend readers have a look at unconstitutedonreds excellent blog sittingdock.blogspot.com
He is a law student from England who steps outside the box.
We need a lot more like him!
Gerard Keegan aka The Wee Man
In March 2005bobbiedog (Aka Colin Bowman) here posted to say he was setting up a forum called Luke Mitchell Fact and Myth.
See screenshot of his original forum post below;
Sandra Lean used the alias Jigsawman on the Luke Mitchell Fact and Myth proboard forum after joining the forum in August 2005;
In September 2008 Sandra Lean posted a blog to her new website and under the header Believing the lies she included a link to the Luke Mitchell Fact and Myth forum.
The reason I put the book out is if I were forced to give up so if anything happened to me I don’t think there’s anybody else in Scotland got the level of knowledge of the case that I’ve got and the idea was put everything in there and then if anybody else wants to come along and take over the informations there
Statement by Sandra Lean at approximately 50:00 here podcast aired on 31st March 2019
There was a discussion recently about whether AO (Jodi’s mother’s partner) gave evidence at trial. I wasn’t able to answer definitively, because I couldn’t remember seeing any media coverage and I know I hadn’t seen transcripts, but neither of those confirm the situation one way or another. Someone very kindly found the article below and shared it with me, so now we have the answer- he did (albeit reported in the middle of Jodi’s mum’s evidence in this article)
Sandra Lean – 2022
But interestingly, that which has been pointed out to me, Sandra Lean does not even know the correct spelling of this mans name. So not even the mere basics are correct?
Sandra Lean tells us that anything from the book that is “missing was also missing from the defence papers” Sandra Lean also states repeatedly of evidence/information that was not inclusive as being “hidden” and “buried” or wilfully handed over incomplete. And again, for those who somehow fail to pick up on or know this. When a list of witnesses for the Crown are given to the defence, they themselves then choose to carry out precognitions of these witnesses. They are for the most part, also handed the statements and so forth to do with these witnesses, who will testify for the prosecution. And kept in those papers will be areas that the defence, they themselves would use? Now I am not going to apply that this would therefore fall under this “hidden” or “buried” where not being included in the defence papers matter, that would be silly.
It is firstly this “I wasn’t able to answer definitively ———-” Now I am not an expert but neither do I believe for one moment, that inclusive of one’s defense papers will not be a list of those witnesses called to testify, perhaps there was not? But without doubt there will be enough, with or without court transcripts to tell, that Allen Oven’s was one such witness who gave evidence at this trial. That IF indeed Sandra Lean did not know he had testified then why not? That is the question one should be asking, should they not? This person is advocating themselves as being an expert on this case, that she is putting out “everything” people need to know of Luke Mitchell V Her Majesty’s Advocate?
So no, it is not simply that it revealed without doubt, that one had not sat through the trial, confirmed that one had not had access to court transcripts in full, but showed once more, just how much is missing from what this woman has had access to? That reliance upon the media for information. Or, and as I stated last year, that willfulness to play dumb, to let those conspiracies do their rounds, as to why this key witness had not been called to give evidence? It served purpose, did it not? to have any concentration away from Luke Mitchell and evidence, upon these ‘others‘ Namely the police here, who the conspiracies were being fed around. We had talk of statements “buried in drawers” and the likes.
Such a small statement, full to the brim with important information. It not only questions what one had access to to, those clear limitations, but highlights dishonesty, does it not? Shows that one’s concentration (that tunnel vision and bias), has been to feed as much as possible around whatever one was putting together, with the help of the Mitchell’s. Devouring eagerly every media report, anything in those case papers, to build as much upon of one’s ‘others‘ as was possible.
’And shows us that those questions are hardly surprising at all, are they not? It is no wonder one has questions into areas that she has been completely blind to? And poses ones whilst lying by omission in other areas. But it has not stopped the innuendo, that supposition and borderline liable. It has been carefully set out, to have one’s own case (aided by the Mitchells) put out for all to see? And if one has read the book, they can see that scraping at the pits of the barrel, picking their way through anything they have managed to source upon those ‘others. We have 12 pages on mobile phones belonging to the Jones family but nothing of Allen Oven’s testifying at court?‘And shows us that those questions are hardly surprising at all, are they not? It is no wonder one has questions into areas that she has been completely blind to? And poses ones whilst lying by omission in other areas. But it has not stopped the innuendo, that supposition and borderline liable. It has been carefully set out, to have one’s own case (aided by the Mitchells) put out for all to see? And if one has read the book, they can see that scraping at the pits of the barrel, picking their way through anything they have managed to source upon those ‘others. We have 12 pages on mobile phones belonging to the Jones family but nothing of Allen Oven’s testifying at court?
INNOCENCE FRAUD WATCH 