Sandra Leans book "No Smoke" should be re-vised or withdrawn

[sandra L]

Strange isn't it that only you and Sandra are carrying this on. 

I have posted 8 times in this thread, nugnug has posted 7, Stephanie has posted 33 times, 7 of those aimed directly at me while I was clearly offline today after I left for work.

Out of those 33 posts of Stephanie's, only 7 or 8 can be realistically claimed to be questions about my book.

Who is "carrying this on?"

The thread meandered into Jeremy Bamber's family, guess the poster, something about Cliff Richard, etc, before finally coming back to the original question - sort of - now it included the question of whether I was "still going around telling people SH was innocent. So, for the record, I'm not telling anybody anything - I've asked questions about the circumstances of the confession, and the confession itself. Revising the book with "Simon Hall confessed" would, as Stephanie rightly points out, be only part of the story - I'm asking for the whole story so that any revision is as accurate as it can be. Withdrawing the book is not an option, since so many others asked me not to (majority vote!)

As I've said already, I'm not prepared to take the confession story at face value. Stephanie is perfectly entitled to not like that. I am perfectly entitled to ask my questions. Stephanie is not obligated to answer those questions, but without the full details of the confession, I can't write an accurate revision - it's not really difficult to understand.

[nugnug]

so steph steph did you mention seaman in relation to ex husbands case or did you not.

[sandra L]

You may be thought highly of by the odd one or two people Sandra
but you went down in my estimations when your honesty, personal agenda and indeed public opinions were called into question and since your true colours came to the surface several years ago.

If you really did have questions with regards the validity of the confession you could have always spoken with Jackie, who is never afraid, according to her, to air her views both privately or publicly. She would have set the record straight for you.

From the minute I heard about the confession, I had questions about its validity, which I expressed directly to you, Stephanie. After six months of no contact, I emailed you on hearing about the confession - I explained I'd emailed "to let you and Simon know that many people did not believe the "confession" as reported was genuine, or had been truly voluntarily made." That was 18th August 2013.

[Stephanie]

I have posted 8 times in this thread, nugnug has posted 7, Stephanie has posted 33 times, 7 of those aimed directly at me while I was clearly offline today after I left for work.

Out of those 33 posts of Stephanie's, only 7 or 8 can be realistically claimed to be questions about my book.

Who is "carrying this on?"

The thread meandered into Jeremy Bamber's family, guess the poster, something about Cliff Richard, etc, before finally coming back to the original question - sort of - now it included the question of whether I was "still going around telling people SH was innocent. So, for the record, I'm not telling anybody anything - I've asked questions about the circumstances of the confession, and the confession itself. Revising the book with "Simon Hall confessed" would, as Stephanie rightly points out, be only part of the story - I'm asking for the whole story so that any revision is as accurate as it can be. Withdrawing the book is not an option, since so many others asked me not to (majority vote!)

As I've said already, I'm not prepared to take the confession story at face value. Stephanie is perfectly entitled to not like that. I am perfectly entitled to ask my questions. Stephanie is not obligated to answer those questions, but without the full details of the confession, I can't write an accurate revision - it's not really difficult to understand.

From the minute I heard about the confession, I had questions about its validity, which I expressed directly to you, Stephanie. After six months of no contact, I emailed you on hearing about the confession - I explained I'd emailed "to let you and Simon know that many people did not believe the "confession" as reported was genuine, or had been truly voluntarily made." That was 18th August 2013.

This one makes 34

http://thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2016/06/20-diversion-tactics-highly-manipulative-narcissists-sociopaths-and-psychopaths-use-to-silence-you/

[nugnug]

so steph steph did you mention seaman in relation to ex husbands case or did you not.

is it possible you could address this question steph.

[Stephanie]

is it possible you could address this question steph.

Can you provide a source or news article regarding this

[nugnug]

why do you need a source its a very simple qustion to answer did you ever mention swaman in relation to your ex husbands case yes or no.

[Stephanie]

why do you need a source its a very simple qustion to answer did you ever mention swaman in relation to your ex husbands case yes or no.

what gives you the right cross examine other posters about everything

Can you provide a source or news article regarding this

[nugnug]

why are you afraid to answer.

[Stephanie]

why are you afraid to answer.

Why are you afraid to provide a source

[nugnug]

because I shouldn't need a source to get answer that because you know the answer and can easly provide it

was mentiod in relation to your husbands case.

the source is actually on this forum on threads you have already linked to. but only you can confirm weather its true or not.

you still havent answered thisd qustion why not.

[Stephanie]

because I shouldn't need a source to get answer that because you know the answer and can easly provide it

was mentiod in relation to your husbands case.

the source is actually on this forum on threads you have already linked to. but only you can confirm weather its true or not.

Why do you state it's only me who can confirm whether it is true or not?

It is only you and Sandra Lean who are suggesting the confession was false, yet you want me to say whether what you keep referring to is true or not. Why do you repeatedly ask me this question if you will not accept what I say to be true or not?

It's Interesting though isn't it that in 2009 Billy Middleton and Sandra Lean were given copies of paperwork related to the then forthcoming appeal following the CCRC's decision to refer the case to the COA. Contained within those documents were references to forensics.

And interestingly it's ONLY you Nugnug who continues to attempt to deceive posters into believing there are forensics linked to others. There are no forensics linked to others because Simon Hall acted alone.

Which reminds me, why does Jackie Preece agree with you on some posts but doesn't point out to you the error of your ways when you attempt to suggest others were responsible for the murder? 

I came to learn Sandra and Billy could not be trusted and were in fact frauds. And anyone following the Hall case at that time would be also aware that he wrote to Billy in order for him to take down the website because Billy insisted he would not take my word for it and would only accept the word of Simon Hall. This is why he then when on to publicly admit he did not like Simon Hall much... See "A Time to Take STock thread...

We only have Sandra's word that you nugnug are someone else. But Sandra's word cannot be trusted because she has a track record for dishonesty. You and her continue to attempt to assassinate my character by suggesting I have lied about the Hall confession because the pair of you are frauds and are afraid to admit you made mistakes.

In fact it's not just Simon Hall's guilt you both refuse to publicly accept.

Billy Middleton and Sandra Lean would not publicly confirm or accept the guilt of several other cases.

They would not publicly admit to having been duped by Adrian Prout either.

It is my firm belief the pair of them are attention seekers and target vulnerable individuals into duping others for their own personal gain. Neither of these individuals are to be trusted.

[Stephanie]

It's Interesting though isn't it that in 2009 Billy Middleton and Sandra Lean were given copies of paperwork related to the then forthcoming appeal following the CCRC's decision to refer the case to the COA. Contained within those documents were references to forensics.

And interestingly it's ONLY you Nugnug who continues to attempt to deceive posters into believing there are forensics linked to others. There are no forensics linked to others because Simon Hall acted alone.

http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/simon-hall-appeal-decision/?PHPSESSID=eh34p84vj4pvgpvps1gd17an23

[Stephanie]

I came to learn Sandra and Billy could not be trusted and were in fact frauds. And anyone following the Hall case at that time would be also aware that he wrote to Billy in order for him to take down the website because Billy insisted he would not take my word for it and would only accept the word of Simon Hall. This is why he then when on to publicly admit he did not like Simon Hall much... See "A Time to Take Stock thread...

http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/re-simon-hall-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/

This was written by Dr Sandra Lean and forwarded to Billy Middleton and the pair of them decided to publish it. Billy Middleton and Sandra Leans deception and manipulative tactics are clear for all to see.

She does the same in her book No Smoke.

She attempts to deceive readers into believing I was somehow responsible for her being accosted in her local shop. The lengths these people will go to.. 

"On both of these occasions, Stephanie had made public accusations, apparently without any thought of consequence, and was doing so again regarding the closing/removal of Simon’s site.

We had decided that the best course of action would be to ignore the public accusations and write to Simon for further clarification, however this evening’s events have forced a decision based on other factors.

Entering a local store this evening, I was approached by a man who greeted me with the following:

 “You are one f*cking sick little bitch. How long did you think folk were going to take your lies and p*sh? Weren’t happy destroying one family’s life, eh? Now you’ve started on somebody else’s. How many more you twisted little f*ck? Yours is coming, don’t you worry about it. You’ll get yours you twisted little c**t – there’s plenty just waiting their chance.”

I assume this came about as a result of various claims being made on various websites. In principle, I would not back down to such bullying and threatening behaviour. However, I have to live here, as do my family, and in view of the fact that Simon’s appeal is imminent, it is with a very heavy heart that I have asked Billy to remove everything relating to Simon’s case from the site.

I would emphasise wholeheartedly that my support for Simon and Stephanie is unwavering, and I hope with all my heart that the appeal is successful, and they are able to begin to build their life together, as they should be.

[Stephanie]

Dr Sandra Lean writes:

http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/re-simon-hall-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/
Entering a local store this evening, I was approached by a man who greeted me with the following:

 “You are one f*cking sick little bitch. How long did you think folk were going to take your lies and p*sh? Weren’t happy destroying one family’s life, eh? Now you’ve started on somebody else’s. How many more you twisted little f*ck? Yours is coming, don’t you worry about it. You’ll get yours you twisted little c**t – there’s plenty just waiting their chance.”

I do however agree with this. Sandra Lean is a fraud. She goes out of her way in an attempt to confuse people, then plays the victim. This is what abusive people do. They will go to any length in order to hide behind the lie. 

I am presuming the family they are referring to are Jodi Jones family. The someone else appears to be the Simon Hall case. Unless if was another one?