The word hybristophilia was apparently derived from the Greek word hubrizein meaning “to commit an outrage against someone” and seemingly links back to a man called John Money who is said to have been a pro-pedophile pervert.
Hybristophilia appears to have been bastardized over the years and was used by David Wilson in a November 2021 article he wrote for the Daily Record headed We need to stop our caged killers getting fan mail from groupies where he stated in part;
Having worked with a number of high profile, media-savvy offenders in prison I became immediately aware of the phenomenon known as hybristophilia – the sexual interest that some women have for those who have committed violent crimes.
Last month the Danes introduced a law to ban life-sentenced prisoners from receiving fan mail from new pen pals, and limiting their contact to friends that they had had before they were convicted for the first 10 years of their sentence.
As the Danish justice minister Nick Haekkerup said when introducing the bill, convicted criminals “should not be able to use prisons as dating centres, or media platforms.”
Excerpt by David Wilson from a Daily Record article headed We need to stop our caged killers getting fan mail from groupies dated 29th November 2021
Danish justice minister Nick Haekkerup also stated around the time;
We have seen distasteful examples in recent years of prisoners who have committed vile crimes contacting young people in order to gain their sympathy and attention
This must obviously be stopped
Excerpts from a Guardian article by Jon Henley headed Denmark to outlaw life sentence prisoners starting new romances dated 21st September 2021
In response to David Wilson’s article Innocence Fraud Watch tweeted the following;
What David Wilson @ProfDavidWilson omits to mention in his @Daily_Record article is the ‘fan mail’ of these killers also includes letters from lawyers, students, criminologists, authors, journalists & others
Do these individuals also suffer from the ‘hybristophilia’ phenomenon?
Cammilla Kurstein was a 17 year old schoolgirl who appears to have been exploited and groomed by psychopathic killer Peter Madsen after she apparently wrote to him wanting ‘to know what happened in the man’s head’
Interested to know why you would appear to attach the ‘hybristophilia’ phenomenon to a 17 year old school girl yet seemingly discount it (Or not recognise it) in some lawyers, students, criminologists, authors & journalists etc. who also write letters to killers
Excerpts by Innocence Fraud Watch here
David Wilson has seemingly done a 180 degree turn on his “…convicted criminals ‘should not be able to use prisons as dating centres, or media platforms” spiel, and has added his support to 14 year old Jodi Jones’ murderers’ fraudulent public relations (PR) spin campaign and written a bizarre article for the Scottish Herald.
David Wilson made the following obscene statement;
..there is literally nothing – nothing – I could uncover that warranted Luke even being charged with Jodi’s murder, never mind being sent to trial
Excerpt by David Wilson for The Herald dated 12th April 2023
In January 2005 Rosalind McInness wrote an article for the BBC headed A uniquely hard case, in which she referred to some of the difficulties reporters faced reporting on the murderers 42 day trial.
This included “protecting vulnerable participants”, like the other young teenage girls who gave evidence about the violent assaults they had suffered at the hands of the then future killer.
After his murder trial, it came to light that other girls had been threatened with a knife held to their throats by Luke Mitchell, who clearly had an undiagnosed “conduct disorder with callous-unemotional traits”.
Tap on the below link to read about some of the facts which came to light regarding the murderers apparent undiagnosed “conduct disorder with callous–unemotional traits”
When Luke Mitchell decided to commit his murder, he “repeatedly struck” Jodi Jones “on the head and body, compressed her throat and restricted her breathing and caused her to fall to the ground”.
He took his brown handled folding Jack Pyke knife, or “something of this ilk” and slashed Jodi Jones throat, “cutting the main artery in her neck seven-eights of the way through”.
Jodi Jones “jugular vein had also been cut right through and the main nerve had also been nicked”. The knife “slash” had “gone through all three structures”, and according to professor Anthony Busuttil this was “fatal almost immediately”.
Tap on the link below to read more on sadistic murderer Luke Mitchell’s murder TIMELINE;
David Wilson started his Herald article with;
I’ve never needed to be convinced that miscarriages of justice happen in Scotland.
Excerpt by David Wilson for The Herald dated 12th April 2023
Jodi Jones’ murderer PR spin campaign is yet another example of the very real innocence fraud phenomenon, not the outdated “miscarriage of justice” phenomenon.
There has not been a “breach of the carriage of justice” in this case!
The PR spin campaign is one of fraud ie; “intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain”.
There are many examples in Scotland of the innocence fraud phenomenon and the sadistic murderer Luke Mitchell’s is up there as one of the worst examples.
The PR spin campaign has been headed up by a duplicitous gaslighter and fraud called Sandra Lean, who did not attend the 42 day trial. For around 16 years or so, Sandra Lean has misrepresented the actual facts of the case, which is something she has form for in several other cases and PR spin campaigns.
This ongoing blog series has debunked a lot of Sandra Lean’s nonsense and propaganda. The Index can be found by tapping on the link below;
What is extremely interesting about David Wilson’s article, is that he chose to omit to mention Sandra Lean’s name and instead claimed;
I have been able to: read transcripts from Luke’s trial; consult various appeals that were made on his behalf; looked at a range of newspaper commentary (some of which supported his conviction); watched Murder in a Small Town and also part of the Trials that Shocked Scotland series; listened to a podcast about the case – which also devoted most of an episode to Luke Mitchell speaking from prison (and he clearly is an intelligent man); and delved into some social media – which I can assure you is not for the faint-hearted.
Excerpt by David Wilson for The Herald dated 12th April 2023
David Wilson telling porkie pies when he stated;
I have been able to: read transcripts from Luke’s trial..
Excerpt by David Wilson for The Herald dated 12th April 2023
What transcripts could David Wilson have possibly been able to read, given the fact there are no transcripts available to read in the public domain, and a large volume of evidence heard during the trial has never been transcribed.
Innocence Fraud Watch are of the firm opinion David Wilson was, and is blagging.
David Wilson’s following statement was also interesting, as it appears to have been about Jane Hamilton and he appears to have attempted to throw her under the bus;
…looked at a range of newspaper commentary (some of which supported his conviction)
Excerpt by David Wilson for The Herald dated 12th April 2023
Jane Hamilton wrote a few articles in 2021, calling out the two part innocence fraud propaganda TV show called Murder In A Small Town, referred to by David Wilson.
As a result, Jane Hamilton was subjected to a malicious and fabricated smear campaign orchestrated by Sandra Lean; something else she has form for.
The TV show rewrote history and the narrative told was based on the false and misleading narrative told by Sandra Lean in her second innocence fraud book, which she callously called ‘Innocent’s Betrayed’ (David Wilson published a book in 2002 called ‘Innocence Betrayed’).
The podcast David Wilson referred to, was also based on Sandra Lean’s false and misleading narrative, which Innocence Fraud Watch will be addressing in due course;
It would be interesting to learn what ‘social media’ David Wilson was referring to, as it is clear he did not carry out any due diligence. Sandra Lean is not a reliable narrator and source and has told no end of lies.
David Wilson does however appear to have noticed one lie perpetuated by Sandra Lean, and the murderer and his mother Corinne Mitchell, as he stated;
..nor is it true that his clothing was destroyed by his mother after the event
Excerpt by David Wilson for The Herald dated 12th April 2023
On page 34 of her innocence fraud book Sandra Lean stated;
..according to the prosecution..
Luke then coolly returned home and had his mother destroy a parka jacket he wore during the attack, in a log burner in the back garden and between them, they arranged for the disposal of the murder weapon
Sandra Lean – Page 34 IB
The prosecution never told the jury that Corinne Mitchell had burned her sons parka jacket in the back garden. This was another manufactured innocence fraud narrative;
Alan Turnbull prosecuting, also told the jury at the High Court in Edinburgh that Mitchell, 16, thought he was ‘untouchable’.
He said Jodi’s injuries had been “inflicted with calm deliberation”
He added:
“Her killer had a cold, calculating presence of mind and it is not difficult to look to Luke Mitchell as her killer. He discussed these awful events in a TV interview with not a tear, not a quiver, not the slightest indication of upset”
Excerpts from the Daily Record by Ian Dow article headed Murder jury hear of morbid interests dated January 2005
He said Mitchell even had the presence of mind to plot his defence immediately after the murder by phoning Jodi’s home and burning a parka he had worn during the attack.
DS Craig Dobbie stated;
We know clothes were missing from Luke’s wardrobe and we know the burner was used
Was the clothing burned? It’s a distinct possibility
Statements made by DS Craig Dobbie reported by Jack Mathieson for the Daily Record dated 22nd January 2005
Another lie told by Sandra Lean is as follows;
Judith’s claim that she woke Joseph at around 10.30pm, because Jodi was missing, was clearly mistaken – it was not until 10.40pm that Judith discovered Jodi had not been with Luke
Sandra Lean – page 89 IB
Judith Jones sent a text message to killer Luke Mitchell’s phone at 10:20pm, reported by the Herald here.
Sandra Lean also stated in her book;
Something is very wrong here. Judith did not know and could not have told anyone else that Jodi had not been with Luke that evening, until after she hung up the call with Luke at 10.42:40pm
Sandra Lean – page 142 IB
Sandra Lean’s bare faced lies about Jodi Jones’ loved ones are abhorrent and they are intentional, told to mislead, deceive and gaslight anyone who doesn’t have a basic comprehension of the facts of the case.
David Wilson appears to be an egomaniac with no scruples who has jumped on the bandwagon of a lost cause and has used his waning “celebrity” status in an attempt to keep himself relevant.
David Wilson is a hypocrite who has committed an outrage to Jodi Jones memory, to Jodi Jones loved ones and he has committed an outrage to all the other innocent people caught up in this blatant innocence fraud PR spin campaign.
The website Investopedia.com stated;
Fraud is an intentionally deceptive action designed to provide the perpetrator with an unlawful gain or to deny a right to a victim.
Types of fraud include tax fraud, credit card fraud, wire fraud, securities fraud, and bankruptcy fraud.
Fraudulent activity can be carried out by one individual, multiple individuals or a business firm as a whole.
Excerpt from Investopedia.com
The website also stated;
Fraud involves the false representation of facts, whether by intentionally withholding important information or providing false statements to another party for the specific purpose of gaining something that may not have been provided without the deception.
Often, the perpetrator of fraud is aware of information that the intended victim is not, allowing the perpetrator to deceive the victim.
At heart, the individual or company committing fraud is taking advantage of information asymmetry; specifically, that the resource cost of reviewing and verifying that information can be significant enough to create a disincentive to fully invest in fraud prevention.
Excerpts from Investopedia.com
As already stated in Part 15 of this ongoing blog series, which can be read by tapping on the button below, the criminal cases reviews commission (CCRC) made the decision to refer actual, factual guilty killer Simon Hall’s conviction for his murder of Joan Albert to the court of appeal (on the 14th of October 2009) based on what they claimed was “new evidence relating to fibre evidence”
In reality the CCRC committed fraud, which if the three court of appeal judges picked up on – they chose to not address or comment on in their judgement.
What was however stated by the court of appeal judges in their 11th of January 2011 judgement was that;
The Crown acknowledged that the central feature of its case against the appellant was the evidence of fibre analysis
Excerpt from court of appeal judgement dated 14th January 2011 [2011] EWCA Crim 4
Simon Spence was instructed by Suffolk’s crown prosecution service (CPS) at the time of the December 2010 appeal.
It is not known if it was Simon Spence’s decision alone to make this false acknowledgement, or if he consulted with other people at the CPS who also agreed to go along with this.
However Simon Spence does not appear willing to address these serious matters.
How many other cases of the innocence fraud phenomenon has Simon Spence and the CCRC been involved with?
Prosecutor Graham Parkin made it clear in his closing speech* during killer Simon Hall’s February 2003 trial for his murder of Joan Albert, the “central feature” of the case were Simon Hall and the Hall families (Lynne, Phil and Shaun) lies and concoctions “woven into the general framework of the case”.
*The closing speech of a prosecution or defence lawyer is a summary of evidence heard during a trial and is the final attempt to address the court.
Graham Parkin stated;
Simon Hall was wrong in our submission when he said that this case is all about those fibres
Graham Parkin
Although Graham Parkin went on to state;
True it is that the finding of fibres is central to the prosecution case and of course without them there would be no case.
Graham Parkin
Graham Parkin also made it clear when he stated;
But it doesn’t rest simply on your assessment and your decision based on those fibres in Mrs Cunnison’s evidence. No it does not.
Graham Parkin
Graham Parkin also went on to state;
In fact I’ll go so far as to say this, the prosecution now have more evidence in this case for you to consider than we could ever possibly imagined we were going to have when I stood up to open it to you to outline it to you in other words just over a fortnight ago.
Now members of the jury we did not know nor indeed could we know that Simon Hall’s case was to develop well beyond what he had ever said before.
More particularly during the course of long detailed sensible interviews concluded by police officers in the presence of his solicitor throughout.
We did not know that his defence would include some material, and I’m going to say this, I’ll use the word deliberately and explain to you why I say it in a moment.
We couldn’t know that his case was going to involve material, which has been concocted.
Made up.
If you find it so to be you’ll have to ask yourselves the question why has it.
Because concocted means deliberate and dishonest.
To be woven into the general framework of the case, the general framework of his movements on that particular weekend of his lifestyle and those of his family generally.
It is a serious submission that I make to you.That Simon Hall aided by members of his family his rehearsed story, which they know in important parts not to be true.
He’s done it for an obvious reason the Crown say to escape proper justice. To stave a conviction for murder.
Others in his family have done it for a perfectly understandable reason, wrong though it is in the result.Perfectly understandable isn’t it?
Mrs Hall said as you would have expected to, they can’t she can’t begin to believe that he Simon could do the thing which he is accused of.
And I’ll add to that what mother could?
Excerpts from the prosecutions closing speech by Graham Parkin starting at the bottom of page 16 continuing onto page 17 here
John Curtis who was the case review manager responsible for investigating killer Simon Hall’s conviction stated in January 2015;
The Commission’s contribution to society is important.
Miscarriages of justice remain a reality, as are the challenges to the organisation charged with their investigation.
Excerpt by John Curtis for Counsel magazine article headed Righting Wrongs dated 12th January 2015
What about the very real innocence fraud phenomenon?
How and why did John Curtis and the three CCRC commissioners James/Jim England, Julie Goulding and Ewen Smith ignore all the evidence against killer Simon Hall, and his family members (and others) who lied for him, in order to make their referral in October 2009?
Some of that evidence has been published and presented in The Truth Behind Actual, Factual Guilty Killer Simon Hall & His & His Deceitful Enablers Innocence Fraud Scam ongoing blog series.
What logic and reasoning did John Curtis and the three CCRC commissioners use during their review, investigation and decision making which allowed them to ignore all of this, and other evidence?
A few months after John Curtis’s article was published the annual symposium of the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) was held at the Wardman Park Marriott in Washington, D.C.
On the 30th of April 2015 John M Collins stated;
“Exonerations are extremely serious”
Collins told the audience of approximately 150 guests on the final day of the symposium.
“For our criminal justice system to go back and say that the decision of a judge or jury who decided to put a particular individual in prison [was wrong] . . . and suddenly say that the individual shouldn’t be there – and is therefore free to return to life in the public – is very, very serious”
Excerpts from an article headed ‘Innocence Fraud is Real’ Warns Crime Lab Report’s Chief Managing Editor dated 6th May 2016
Although the three court of appeal judges did not exonerate killer Simon Hall and upheld his murder conviction in January 2011, the CCRC were reviewing his murder conviction for a second time and were seemingly still focusing on the fibre evidence and were not perturbed by the Zenith burglary and other revelations around this time.
So whilst killer Simon Hall’s actual, factual guilt to his murder of Joan Albert was unravelling and being exposed, the CCRC were wasting further time, money and resources still looking for a route back to the court of appeal in an attempt to discredit the fibre evidence.
John M Collins spoke to Roberta Glass via her True Crime Report podcast in 2019 about how/why forensic science is being denigrated and challenged by the Innocence movement;
John M Collin wrote and published the Crime Lab Report: An Anthology on Forensic Science in the Era of Criminal Justice Reform in October 2019.
Crime Lab Report compiles the most relevant and popular articles that appeared in this ongoing periodical between 2007 and 2017. Articles have been categorized by theme to serve as chapters, with an introduction at the beginning of each chapter and a description of the events that inspired each article. The author concludes the compilation with a reflection on Crime Lab Report, the retired periodical, and the future of forensic science as the 21st Century unfolds. Intended for forensic scientists, prosecutors, defense attorneys and even students studying forensic science or law, this compilation provides much needed information on the topics at hand.
You will never be able to make some people understand or accept something if they are too stubborn or unwilling to learn or notice
It is not known if Sharon Indy Sunshine (Aka Sharon Young) is one of these people who is “too stubborn” but she is definitely one of these people who is “unwilling to learn or notice”.
On the 24th of October 2022 Sharon Young made a statement on the cult-like Facebook group promoting the innocence fraud of sadistic and psychopathic killer Luke Mitchell, in response to a Facebook post made by Emma.
Emma posted the below;
I’m just starting Sandra’s book and I’ve got a few questions.
Has Jodi’s family said anything about this book or what others might consider this as theories?
Putting myself in their shoes I’d be furious there was all of this (groups, books, podcasts,etc), I’d do everything in my power to shut them off and shame them for tormenting my family.
I find it odd, this all goes on and they just sit back.
What’s Luke position now?
If I’m getting my timing right, it must be soon he’s able to be released or up for parole?
I told someone I was reading the book and how I really don’t think Luke done it and explained why.
But they said that there was evident of blood on the clothing items his mum burnt that night in the garden.
I remember reading or watching about it, that the fire didn’t happen that night and the parka wasn’t burnt. Can someone clear that up for me please?
I signed the petition last year, did it gain enough signatures to be discussed or did it fall short and that’s why we need to write to MSPs and have a peaceful/silent protest?
Emma
In response to Emma, Sharon Young posted the following;
Hi, please continue to read the book by Dr Sandra Lean it is all based on the provable facts from the case files anyone else only has an opinion which is just that, an opinion based on things such as the media wrote.
Well, one way it has been received was with a serious death threat to Dr Sandra Lean at her home in front of witnesses by JoJ. Dr Lean writes about that in her book.
Sharon Indy Sunshine Aka Sharon Young – 24th October 2022
Sharon Sunshine’s above statement is a bare faced lie.
Sandra Lean’s book is not based on “provable facts”!
Sandra Lean’s book is based on killer Luke Mitchell’s defence evidence, which was proven in 2005 in be a lie!
Emma’s question was ‘Has Jodi’s family said anything about this book’.
Why does Emma assume Jodi Jones family would have read renowned liar and fraudster Sandra Lean’s book?
Sandra Lean’s 2nd book (“this book”) was published in October 2018.
Referring to “this book” Sharon stated “Well, one way it has been received was with a serious death threat to Dr Sandra Lean”.
The visit by the brother of Jodi Jones to ask Sandra Lean to end her corrupt and fraudulent smear campaign occurred in 2010, eight years before Sandra published her second book!
There was no “death threat” as Sharon falsely stated – this was concocted by Sandra Lean in an attempt to smear the brother of Jodi Jones.
Sharon’s serious and false allegation (published as a fact) regarding the brother has never been proven to be true.
Sharon’s apparent lack of reasoning and logic is one of the reasons why someone like charlatan and fraudster Sandra Lean (who is the main protagonist of killer Luke Mitchell’s corrupt and fraudulent public relations spin campaign) would use Sharon as one of her “flying monkeys’’ – to do her bidding.
Sharon may think it’s okay to be making serious, false and unproven allegations like this, but it could be someone like Sharon who could be “sued” and made an example of for repeating Sandra Lean’s unproven nonsense.
It is not known what story scammer Sandra Lean has chosen to tell about the day Jodi Jones brother asked her to end her corrupt and fraudulent spin campaign.
However Sandra Lean apparently had her then boyfriend, un-convicted baby killer, predator and sexual deviant Billy Middleton living with her and her youngest adult daughter Ellie at the time.
Both scammers Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton were and are renowned for making things up to suit their agenda’s.
Stephen A Bennett and all those people involved in the channel 5 TV Show Murder In A Small Town were possibly not aware of all that had gone on before regarding scammers Billy Middleton and Sandra Lean.
Stephen A Bennett and all those people involved in the channel 5 TV Show, also did not attend the killers trial and hear all the evidence presented.
Many of the websites and forums associated to what went on before, linked to Sandra Lean and/or Billy Middleton, have since been removed from the WWW.
Therefore a lot of statements that were once public, for example by psychology student Colin Bowman, have also been removed from the WWW.
Unless you know the back story, prior to the airing of the TV show, you won’t be familiar with all the facts of this corrupt and fraudulent spin campaign and of the various actors involved.
And it’s highly unlikely Sandra Lean would have written about the incident between her and un-convicted baby killer Billy Middleton and her daughter Ellie in her second book.
You can read some background into Billy Middleton and the WAP website by tapping on each of the buttons below;
Sandra Lean alleged back in 2010 that when Joseph Jones knocked on her door to ask her to end her corrupt and fraudulent spin and smear campaign, she stated she had told him she wanted to go through the paperwork regarding “the DNA results” with Joseph.
If Sandra Lean viewed Joseph Jones ans any kind of threat, as alleged, why would she offer to go through “the DNA results” with him?
In 2012 Sandra Lean stated (here);
I have offered to meet with Judy, and I offered to show Joseph the DNA results the day he was at my door
Sandra Lean – 21st August 2012 here
What Sandra Lean, and Corinne Mitchell (and others) were falsely claiming back in 2010 was that Stephen Kelly’s blood and semen “were on Jodi’s T-shirt” and that Stephen’s “description and clothing matched” that of a male seen “following Jodi”.
Of course none of this was true (other than the semen transference which was a red herring) but Sandra Lean wanted to speak to Joseph Jones about what she then wrongly thought she had learnef from the paperwork she had at the time.
Excerpts from a 2010 article which picked up on and published these false allegations read;
But his mum recently posted on an internet forum that evidence points to someone else.
“X’s semen and blood were on Jodi’s T-shirt…his description and clothing matched a witness statement of a male ‘following Jodi’…he was known to the police.
Is it me or is anyone else adding things up here?
Excerpts from Deadline news article by Cara Sulieman headed Mitchell’s mum points finger at another man for Jodi killing 20th June 2010
“Description of man seen behind Jodi – grey hooded top.
“Several days after the murder X hands his grey hooded top to the police saying it has been washed.
“At 5pm X’s alibi is Janine (Jodi’s sister).
“The police accepted that Janine said, ‘he was with me’ and from him ‘ I was with her’.”
And Sandra Lean, author and researcher on miscarriages of justice, added: “Our Mr X is emerging as more and more suspicious.
“The info that’s coming our way is shocking, especially as the police should have been onto this stuff right from the beginning.”
If Sandra Lean really thought Joe Jones was any threat to her, why would she claim to have been inviting him then, or to come back another time to sit and go through “the DNA results” with her?
Did Sandra Lean write in her second book that in 2010 she and Corinne Mitchell were falsely accusing Stephen Kelly?
Did she explain in her second book how she claimed she attempted to tell Joe Jones, that Stephen Kelly was to blame for sadistic killer Luke Mitchell’s murder of his sister?
Sandra Lean bare faced lied years later and claimed she had made “one typo” in her first book about Stephen Kelly “following Jodi”.
She also claimed that when Joseph Jones had left, un-convicted baby killer Billy Middleton was rigging up recording equipment so that if/when Joseph Jones returned they could secretly record him.
It was not long after this that Sandra Lean’s youngest daughter witnessed her mother being threatened by Billy Middleton, so much so that Ellie apparently kicked Billy and his belongings out of their home.
According to Sandra Lean (when she recounted this incident to a third party not long after) Billy Middleton had got up in Sandra’s face threatening her.
Her exact words were that you couldn’t “fit a cigarette paper between“ her and Billy Middleton.
Apparently some hours after Billy Middleton had been kicked out by her daughter Ellie, he contacted Sandra saying he didn’t know where he was.
According to Sandra Lean, her and her daughter then apparently drove around Edinburgh looking for Billy Middleton and she claimed she found him in a street “covered in blood”.
Sandra Lean also claimed she was concerned what Billy Middleton’s parents and sister would say about the “cuts and bruises” on his face when he returned to their home in the Shetland Isles.
Sharon also stated in her reply to Emma;
When you get to the section about the log burner you will see that zero forensic evidence of burned fabric was recovered or zips studs and rivets etc which normally people who burn things overlook in the disposal process. The wood burner only had remnants of organic materials in it.
Sharon Indy Sunshine – 24th October 2022
Sharon did not attend killer Luke Mitchell’s trial and has no idea exactly what was said about the fires in the Mitchell’s back garden that night.
Green fibres were found in the log burner.
Corinne Mitchell stated that during the trial she “could have been burning pampas grass”.
What else was said during the trial about the fires in the Mitchell’s back garden?
What did Shane Mitchell say when he was asked about those fires?
Killer Luke Mitchell had told the police his brother Shane and his mother Corinne had had a fire in the garden that night.
Why didn’t Sandra Lean include the answers to these questions in her 2nd book, which Sharon claimed to Emma was “all based on the provable facts from the case files”?
Sharon also stated “normally people who burn things overlook in the disposal process”.
Why would Luke Mitchell’s leave zips, studs and rivets in the remnants of the log burner to be found by the police?
Did Sharon base her statements on the fact dangerous, psychopathic killer (of humans and animals) and rapist Steven Avery “overlooked” Teresa Halbach’s bones and teeth in the “burn pit” and “burn barrel” that he and rapist and killer Brendan Dassey used in their “disposal process” attempt?
Even Pro Knox woman’ Michelle Moore’s husband gouger and innocence fraud promoter Steve Moore wasn’t prepared to back these two dangerous killers and the fraudulent spin campaign which promoted them (Read more here).
Read more about killer Luke Mitchell and those fires by tapping on the buttons below;
Sharon also stated;
Luke did not own a parka before Jodi’s death it was purchased afterwards when the police took every stitch of clothing he had they even got the receipt for the parka. Many people said they saw MK wearing a parka around Dalkeith so not Luke.
Sharon Indy Sunshine – 24th October 2022
Killer Luke Mitchell did own a khaki green parka style jacket before he and his mother Corinne Mitchell purchased a replacement from FLIP in Edinburgh a few days after his murder.
Paragraph 19 of the court of appeal judgement clearly stated;
There was evidence that the appellant had owned and worn a parka-style jacket in the months prior to the murder
Excerpt from paragraph 19 of the court of appeal judgement
Sharon also went on to state;
I would say to people, take their grievances up with the fact we do not have FOIA in this country. It is not us hiding things from people or wilfully being blinded.
Sharon Indy Sunshine Aka Sharon Young
It is because of what sadistic killer and pathological liar Luke Mitchell told police during his initial interviews, and his mother and brothers police statements and interviews, and their evidence given during his trial – that helped prove his guilt.
Sharon appears to be a renowned sympathiser for many dangerous, psychopathic killers and rapists.
There is zero doubt Sharon is “wilfully being blinded”.
INNOCENCE FRAUD WATCH 