Sandra Leans book "No Smoke" should be re-vised or withdrawn

[Stephanie]

Dr William Long, who said his role was to assess any risk posed by Simon Hall to others, described him as "a very articulate man; good-humoured."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-suffolk-36462066

Did anyone, anywhere, ever assess the possible impacts of Simon's mental health on the making of the confession? Were the details of the confession checked against all of the known information? Were there any aspects of the confession that didn't match the known information, or that didn't fit logically with what was claimed? Did anyone bother to check?

In January 2013, Simon Hall said he didn't need counselling for mental health issues and would talk to his wife if needed, the jury heard.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-suffolk-36462066

A month later, he overdosed. Three months later,

Steven Garner said Simon Hall triggered the prison monitoring system again between 28 March and 2 April 2013, due to comments to a nurse that he "wanted to scream all the time" and was "going crazy".
Hall was part of that review, saying that he did not want to self-harm and was frustrated he had been lying to his wife over the last 18 months.

So between January and July, Simon's behaviour triggered "reviews" but, it seems, because he was "articulate and good humoured"  the state of his clearly deteriorating mental health was not formally addressed? By 2nd April, he told a nurse he had been "lying to his wife," but he didn't confess then? In fact, he doesn't appear to have said what it was he was lying about - he had already said he was "going crazy" - is it safe to conclude that the lying to which he referred was about his guilt?

All this post shows is that you are cementing what a hypocrite you are Sandra and reaffirming your dishonesty.

Your ability to send out mixed messages surpasses you.

What efforts did you make, if any, with regards to your concerns for Simon Hall's mental health following his confession.

[Stephanie]

I was working full time by then. I cannot have leave between May and August. Not really a choice, was it?

We only have your word for that Sandra.

And based on my previous dealings with you, that doesn't account for much.

We all have choices Sandra, if you were working you had the choice to explain to your employer how important it was that you attend the inquest. You could have suggested, as you did to me following the confession, that your life times work depended on it, for example.

[Stephanie]

Those of us, and there are many, who have questions about the circumstances of the confession and the confession itself. do you think people don't talk about this elsewhere?

Oh I know how people like you behave Sandra, on and offline. Yes I am fully aware people gossip and some like to give others misinformation in order to stir things up and cover the truth as opposed to being honest and admitting to having made mistakes.

[Stephanie]

No, I said I was considering withdrawing my book:

email of 18th August 2013: I'm sorry this is the standpoint you are taking, and sorrier still that you have chosen to respond in the manner you have. As a matter of courtesty, I mentioned the decision about No Smoke, as six other families are immediately affected by the reports of Simon's confession, and it may be in their interests to simply withdraw the book from circulation altogether.

I then contacted those involved, and, as previously stated, they did not want the book withdrawn.

Yes I remember your nonsensical emails and my concerns then were the same as my concerns now. That being,  you were clearly only interested in number one and looking out for your best interests.

Your emails may have suggested you were considering withdrawing your book, I am not referring to your emails. I am referring to what you said to me following the confession. I recall well how you reacted and indeed what you told me and what your priorities were at that time.

I feel sorry for those family members you are continuing to mislead and I feel even more sorry for them if they are genuine miscarriage of justice victims.

If any of those family members are reading the board, I would suggest to them they question Sandra's genuine motives.

[sandra L]

We only have your word for that Sandra.

And based on my previous dealings with you, that doesn't account for much.

We all have choices Sandra, if you were working you had the choice to explain to your employer how important it was that you attend the inquest. You could have suggested, as you did to me following the confession, that your life times work depended on it, for example.

You're funny!

Do you think I'm going to post my employment and contract details on here to "prove" what I say? Don't be silly!

I withdrew from all wrongful conviction work in 2014. I'm 53 years old, I became involved in MoJs in 2003 - 13 years ago, when I was 40 - hardly my "lifetime's work". The inquest was about Simon's suicide, not the confession.

[Stephanie]

You're funny!

Do you think I'm going to post my employment and contract details on here to "prove" what I say? Don't be silly!

I withdrew from all wrongful conviction work in 2014. I'm 53 years old, I became involved in MoJs in 2003 - 13 years ago, when I was 40 - hardly my "lifetime's work". The inquest was about Simon's suicide, not the confession.

Please try to remain mature about this Sandra, there is nothing funny about what I am posting.

You withdrew, your book was not withdrawn. Remember I am asking you about your book.

Yes, I recognise it was several years ago since the confession and since you claimed you had stopped working within the wrongful conviction community and you've naturally had time to reflect since then.

"A life-long fascination with the workings of the human mind, and especially the workings of the "criminal mind," led Sandra Lean, at the age of 32, through the doors of Napier University in Edinburgh. A single parent of two young children, she studied Psychology and Sociology to Honours Degree level. A Masters' Degree in Forensic Psychology seemed like the most obvious next step, until a local, high-profile murder hit the headlines. Behind the scenes, Sandra Lean began sifting through the facts, only to discover that all was not as it seemed. What she found led her to other, similar cases, and more patient, methodical sifting, in an investigation that was to last almost four years. The result was a shocking, but true, discovery. Innocent people are being locked up in our prisons, convicted of the most horrific crimes, on a regular basis. These are not one-off, tragic mistakes, but rather, a routine, everyday occurrence. For every high-profile miscarriage of justice that we hear about, there are dozens more that never make the news. No Smoke examines just some of these cases, highlighting the very human tragedy of wrongful conviction, and pointing out the unthinkable: this could happen to any one of us. https://www.amazon.co.uk/No-Smoke-Shocking-British-Justice/dp/184685704X

The Luke Mitchell case http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,551.0.html

[Stephanie]

"A life-long fascination with the workings of the human mind, and especially the workings of the "criminal mind," led Sandra Lean, at the age of 32, through the doors of Napier University in Edinburgh. A single parent of two young children, she studied Psychology and Sociology to Honours Degree level. A Masters' Degree in Forensic Psychology seemed like the most obvious next step, until a local, high-profile murder hit the headlines. Behind the scenes, Sandra Lean began sifting through the facts, only to discover that all was not as it seemed. What she found led her to other, similar cases, and more patient, methodical sifting, in an investigation that was to last almost four years. The result was a shocking, but true, discovery. Innocent people are being locked up in our prisons, convicted of the most horrific crimes, on a regular basis. These are not one-off, tragic mistakes, but rather, a routine, everyday occurrence. For every high-profile miscarriage of justice that we hear about, there are dozens more that never make the news. No Smoke examines just some of these cases, highlighting the very human tragedy of wrongful conviction, and pointing out the unthinkable: this could happen to any one of us. https://www.amazon.co.uk/No-Smoke-Shocking-British-Justice/dp/184685704X

These statements aren't true Sandra and are somewhat ambiguous, especially given the content of your book.

Will you be reflecting on and revising your methodology in order for your book to reflect what you uncovered following it's publication and the impact of the content of your findings.

For example; the following cases -

William (Billy) Middleton
Luke Mitchell
Adrian Prout
Nick Ward

To name but a few.

[Stephanie]

You see, to this day, we have only Stephanie’s word about the circumstances leading up to the confession, the circumstances of the confession itself, the state of Simon’s mental and emotional well-being (or otherwise), the content of the confession etc. We have no information about how the confession was given or accepted (it was reported at the inquest that he “told his wife” who then “told him to tell the prison.” I have no idea if that is true or not – it was reported in the media, after all.) I’m not inclined to simply take Stephanie’s word (or anyone else’s for that matter) at face value.
But, of course, that is my opinion, one I’m perfectly entitled to hold.

The point you appear to missing Sandra is that it's not my integrity that is in question here, it's yours! It's not me who has showed I do not have strong moral principles nor is it me who had showed an inability to be honest.

[Stephanie]

Those of us, and there are many, who have questions about the circumstances of the confession and the confession itself. do you think people don't talk about this elsewhere?

You may be thought highly of by the odd one or two people Sandra

Sandra is someone I think very highly of.  We have private messaged each other and I am always keen to learn her opinions on certain cases

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.

[Stephanie]

We will never know if Simon Hall’s confession was genuine, or the confused utterings of a crumbling sanity. The decision about whether to take up, or continue to carry, the baton for claimed Miscarriages of Justice is a matter for the person deciding to do so, and their own conscience.[/i]”

Now this statement is both telling and indeed offensive for many reasons, though I imagine that was your intention.

I object wholeheartedly to the continued mind games your appear to be playing with others, though my objections will no doubt be ignored by you once again. I pity you Sandra and feel sorry for those people who you are knowingly misleading.

However, as Simon's then wife, I would not have publicly supported any confession if I did not believe it to have been truthful.

Any prisoner who eventually admits guilt should imo pat themselves on the back for having finally showed the courage to take responsibility for their actions.

I have carried out extensive research over a period of several years and have come to learn much of the human conscience and indeed of the many personality disorders that come under the umbrella of psychopathy as well as the various personalities who support alleged miscarriages of justice.

As a result of my experiences and indeed my research I question your conscience Sandra, as is my right.

Your public stance on the confession and indeed events that followed not only show you to be disingenuous but indeed show you do not have the courage of your convictions.

You may attempt to appear to be objective when you post here and may fool some people but you don't fool me, though you did once when I foolishly believed the content of your book. And, as I told you following the confession, I now know why some people were so outspoken about it when I first joined the debate about alleged miscarriage of justices. And I also now know why their personal agendas and grievances were a priority - not dissimilar to how you are choosing to behave now.

Do you need reminding of the following
http://shirleymckie.myfastforum.org/index.php?component=content&topicid=545&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=110

[Stephanie]

When I revise No Smoke, the quote I posted earlier, give or take, will be the revision for Simon's case. Take it or leave it!

I don't think you will have the nerve to carry this out. But I do think you get a kick out of misleading people and keeping misinformation going round and round. 

[Stephanie]

What I find really interesting about it is the length of time the loyalty of such an arrangement continues, often for years, and even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary -  while other publications, over time, may start to shift their positions, the front/fore runners remain immoveable in their approach - presumably to ensure they get chosen for the next big story?

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7775.msg371161.html#msg371161

[nugnug]

so tell me steph when did you find out about the seamen.

[Stephanie]

so tell me steph when did you find out about the seamen.

Isn't that the Kevin Nunn case?

Nugnug this thread is specifically about Sandra Leans book No Smoke. If you have any questions about the case there is a thread already set up. I won't be responding to any of your questions here.

However, it was Sandra Lean who put me in contact with Billy Middleton who she said would help set up a website for SH. Billy was suggesting at the time he had been wrongfully accused. It turns out he more than likely got away with murdering his baby daughter. Many others also looked at his case, spoke with his ex wife (As did I) and others, and it turned out Billy wasn't this wrongfully accused person he attempted to portray. He too was a fraud and indeed fraudster. It's why he wrote a malicious piece aimed at me following SH's confession.

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

[nugnug]

im sorry i was under the impression that seaman was mentioned in the simon hall case as well is that not true then.