Author Topic: Sandra Leans book "No Smoke" should be re-vised or withdrawn  (Read 16978 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: Sandra Leans book "No Smoke" should be re-vised or withdrawn
« Reply #120 on: January 13, 2017, 01:40:AM »
http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/re-simon-hall-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/

The following was written by Dr Sandra Lean and published by Billy Middleton (November 23, 2010, 10:12:25 pm)

Sandra & Billy post this 8 days before Simon Hall's Appeal , suggesting the attention should be on them/Sandra not Simon Hall thus dismissing any thought of what Stephanie may be going through at the time. The attention & focus must remain on them/Sandra at all times
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-11914466

"It is with extreme sadness and regret that I am making this post, but the events of this afternoon have left me with no choice. Whether people accept it or not, posts on internet sites have real life consequences.

Almost two months ago, at the beginning of October,  Stephanie requested that Simon’s caseblog be closed, pending the appeal. I explained at the time, on the forum,  that this is quite common practice in the run up to an appeal.  At that time, there were also discussions regarding taking down all facebook related content connected with Simon’s case(which Wrongly Accused Person had no connection with whatsoever) as Stephanie felt she was being attacked from many angles. Stephanie was indeed being attacked from many angles. (Will come back to this) . The forum at Wrongly Accused was not one of the places this was happening.

The Wrongly Accused owner, Billy Middleton and then partner, Sandra were covertly attacking Stephanie, mainly behind the scenes via emails..

Stephanie was happy with this arrangement at the time, and posted to that effect on the forum.

Stephanie's focus was on Simon Hall and his forthcoming appeal. Therefore she was too busy to recognise Sandra's emotional manipulation tactics at the time.

It was confirmed on October 3rd that Billy had closed Simon’s caseblog, and put up a message stating that this was pending the appeal. For reasons which will become clear, however, he advised Stephanie that he would be writing to Simon asking him to confirm future changes, etc, to the site.

Billy Middleton and Sandra Lean were already assassinating Stephanie's character in order to keep the heat off of them. This is what abusers do.

The following series of events covers recent claims about the closing of the site:

November 17th at 12.52: an email was received at Wrongly Accused, addressed to Billy, which began, “Dear Billy, you may or may not have received a letter from Simon requesting that his site be taken down from Wrongly Accused.” It goes on, “We ask that you please remove all content relating to Simon’s case, and that the thread on the wrongly accused be locked.”

November 18th at 15:40 (less than 27 hours later) another email was received stating that Billy “appeared to be ignoring emails.” A facebook post was also made, on Stephanie’s behalf, asking that Billy read his “private emails.”

November 19that 10.48am: a request was made to let Stephanie know if Simon’s letter had been received, and on November 20th, it was confirmed that it had not yet been.

November 20th  at 10.04am: Stephanie posted on the forum “Simon has been asking for over a week to have his caseblog closed down completely and for this thread to be locked.” This post was less than 72 hours after the initial email regarding a letter Billy “may or may not have received.” 

November 21st:The  post was re-posted on the McKie site
 
November 22nd, at 1.09 (which is 12.09, real time): Stephanie posted “After two weeks of Billy ignoring Simon’s express wishes and requests.....” (this was 5 days after the initial contact.)

November 22nd at 6.12pm (5 hours after the above post) an email was received at Wrongly Accused from Stephanie as follows: “It would appear you have received Simon's letter. Therefore, please remove entirely his caseblog.I think you will find, if he asked for a message to be put up, he meant within the thread, bearing in mind he is in prison and does not understand how it all works. We wish the site to no longer be found in a search, it's that simple.”

This was the first reference to the site “no longer being found in a search.”

However, Simon’s letter had, indeed, been received by then, and a clear difficulty had arisen. It would be both unethical and unprofessional to post the letter in its entirety without Simon’s permission, but the pertinent parts state the following:

“I understand the website is closed pending appeal but other bits relating to the site are open. Is that right? If so, please stop everything to do with my case, and that includes forums, walls or whatever else people insult each other on. Also, could you change the “closed pending appeal” to the following:

Stephanie was not aware at this time of Simon Hall's guilt, therefore was unaware he was gas-lighting others behind her back. Although Stephanie had called into question Billy's motives she had failed to recognise Sandra's at this point and indeed her husbands.

Between October 2nd and October 4th, at a time where I was extremely busy, I had received 20 emails from Stephanie, between private messages and those which had come through wrongly accused, along with a number of texts.  I had not had time to respond to these, but Stephanie concluded that I was “ignoring” her.

I wrote a long email on October 4th, explaining the circumstances. Part of that email, however, referred to a post Stephanie had put on the Wrongly Accused forum meantime, in her belief that I was ignoring her.  (Note this is only a 48 hour period.) I wrote, “I'm also interested in why you chose to use my facebook post (adapted) to post on wrongly accused. Following from Shirley's post as it does, it makes it look like one of the "un-named" individuals is me. I have never attacked you, criticised you or made any other negative comment about you anywhere - I may simply be reading too much into it, but that is certainly how it came across.”

Stephanie responded:“....yes, I did use your post on facebook on the wrongly accused, and when I did I knew you would be more annoyed over that than you are about what I am going through at the moment. And I have a couple of friends that will verify that. “

I was extremely concerned at this, as it appeared that Stephanie was happy to have me painted in a dishonest light, simply because I had not responded immediately to her emails. Other things going on behind the scenes had alerted me to the possibility that Stephanie was not being entirely straight with me.

The next difficulty arose over the claims that outsider/smiffy was Billy. John Lamberton was posting some pretty damning claims about things Stephanie had purportedly told him. Worried that these claims might reflect badly on Stephanie, I attempted to pre-empt further claims by suggesting a possible source of John’s assumption that outsider/smiffy was Billy. Stephanie immediately PM’d me and emailed me, but before I had even had a chance to read her messages, and respond, she had posted on the forum claiming that my post was “untrue.” I emailed Stephanie privately, although she continued to post. Part of my last message, on November 15th  was, “Before I had had a chance to respond to your messages, you were posting that what I had said was "untrue." By the time I had clarified the situation, you were still claiming in your emails that what I had said was "untrue." It seems to me you simply did not understand, or chose not to believe, what I was saying. There's nothing I can do about that - what hurts is that you could not step back, knowing me as I thought you did, and ask yourself, is there perhaps another explanation for this. Nope, instant public condemnation, in the belief that you were being attacked, when, in fact, I was trying to defend you.”

I finished this email by saying, “I can only finish by saying that I am truly heart-broken at how these events have panned out. That your words are being used to paint me as dishonest and unreliable, and that in turn is being used to undermine Luke's case, is probably one of the worst experiences in all of this. I thought you were my friend.”

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.

What Sandra fails to tell her readers is that she had told Stephanie she had allegedly been abused/assaulted by Billy Middleton and their intimate relationship had now come to an end after she had driven him back to the airport and apparently paid for him to fly back to his home in Shetland, as he had no money of his own.

Sandra dismisses any concern Stephanie may have had for her well-being following disclosure of the alleged assault by Billy, preferring instead to dismiss what has happened to her and blame Stephanie for daring to share details of the alleged abuse/assault.
Stephanie's only mistake was attempting to fight Sandra's battles for her.

What Sandra also fails to tell the reader is that Stephanie had called Billy out on his maladaptive behaviors and no longer trusted his motives to be genuine (as is supported by the request to close down Simon Hall's website) and was questioning his guilt in relation to the 2 fires started in his home that claimed the life of his baby daughter.

"Emotional manipulators are excellent guilt mongers. They can make you feel guilty for speaking up or not speaking up, for being emotional or not being emotional enough, for giving and caring, or for not giving and caring enough. Any thing is fair game and open to guilt with an emotional manipulator. Emotional manipulators seldom express their needs or desires openly - they get what they want through emotional manipulation. Guilt is not the only form of this but it is a potent one. Most of us are pretty conditioned to do whatever is necessary to reduce our feelings of guilt. Another powerful emotion that is used is sympathy. An emotional manipulator is a great victim. They inspire a profound sense of needing to support, care for and nurture. Emotional Manipulators seldom fight their own fights or do their own dirty work. The crazy thing is that when you do it for them (which they will never ask directly for), they may just turn around and say they certainly didn’t want or expect you to do anything!

« Last Edit: January 25, 2017, 10:41:AM by Stephanie »
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: Sandra Leans book "No Smoke" should be re-vised or withdrawn
« Reply #121 on: January 13, 2017, 02:41:AM »
After you have read the above it may be helpful to read the following http://thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2016/06/20-diversion-tactics-highly-manipulative-narcissists-sociopaths-and-psychopaths-use-to-silence-you/ and see how many boxes Sandra's highly abusive,  offensive, deceptive, misleading and indeed malicious published BS it ticks.

I will be breaking the whole piece down and filling in the crucial parts she left out. Readers will then be better placed to make an informed decision and will no doubt see for themselves Dr Sandra Lean is a fraud who exploits, mistreats and abuses peiple who are in vulnerable situations.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2017, 03:01:AM by Stephanie »
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
« Last Edit: January 13, 2017, 03:33:AM by Stephanie »
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline Real justice

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4770
    • Trial related photographs
Re: Sandra Leans book "No Smoke" should be re-vised or withdrawn
« Reply #123 on: January 13, 2017, 05:54:AM »
so asking somone a question is an attack now is it.
Read post 58 Steph says she will not be answering, you have asked her about 11/12 times since then why she will not answer, as Jane said this is not a court room it's a forum, members have a right to answer if they want or do not wish to answer, YES to keep badgering someone to answer your question and they don't want to is an ATTACK. 
« Last Edit: January 13, 2017, 06:08:AM by justice »

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 960
Re: Sandra Leans book "No Smoke" should be re-vised or withdrawn
« Reply #124 on: January 13, 2017, 06:49:AM »
Quote
And what is it with Sandra's obsession with the 'criminal mind?'

A slight misrepresentation here - the actual quote is "A lifelong fascination with the workings of the human mind, and especially the workings of the "criminal mind"..."

"Criminal mind" is in quotes and italics because I was questioning whether what we label a criminal mind is accurate and correct.

What causes people to become "criminals?" We stopped looking at that a long time ago, and are happy now just to blame. Surely, though, it would be better to avoid or prevent criminality in the first place? My original hope had been to work with young offenders in the field of rehabilitation, however, life had a different plan for me.

Whether we like it or not, the vast majority of people serving prison sentences are going to be returned to our communities - wouldn't it make more sense to have them return as functioning, contributing members of those communities, able to create positive and meaningful lives for themselves, rather than have them return brutalised, mentally destroyed by drugs far more freely available in prisons than elsewhere? In order to do that, we'd have to understand what made them offend in the first place.

And the facts of the matter are, we do label people "criminal" who are not - how much worse when people like that are destroyed by the prison system?

So my questions about Simon's mental health are in keeping with my questions of the last 20 years (I started my first degree in 1996) - what made him think what he did, believe what he did, feel like he did? And could that have been changed?




Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: Sandra Leans book "No Smoke" should be re-vised or withdrawn
« Reply #125 on: January 13, 2017, 07:13:AM »
A slight misrepresentation here - the actual quote is "A lifelong fascination with the workings of the human mind, and especially the workings of the "criminal mind"..."

"Criminal mind" is in quotes and italics because I was questioning whether what we label a criminal mind is accurate and correct.

What causes people to become "criminals?" We stopped looking at that a long time ago, and are happy now just to blame. Surely, though, it would be better to avoid or prevent criminality in the first pla

ce? My original hope had been to work with young offenders in the field of rehabilitation, however, life had a different plan for me.


Whether we like it or not, the vast majority of people serving prison sentences are going to be returned to our communities - wouldn't it make more sense to have them return as functioning, contributing members of those communities, able to create positive and meaningful lives for themselves, rather than have them return brutalised, mentally destroyed by drugs far more freely available in prisons than elsewhere? In order to do that, we'd have to understand what made them offend in the first place.

And the facts of the matter are, we do label people "criminal" who are not - how much worse when people like that are destroyed by the prison system?

So my questions about Simon's mental health are in keeping with my questions of the last 20 years (I started my first degree in 1996) - what made him think what he did, believe what he did, feel like he did? And could that have been changed?

Yet the book is about alleged miscarriages of justice. All that waffle for what? Don't even get me started on your thesis!?


Sandra Lean
author and researcher
2003 – Present (14 years)
"For ten years, I have researched and written about cases of wrongful conviction and factual innocence. I have tried to assist a number of people over the years, and campaign, write articles, etc, wherever I am able to help. I obtained a Specialist Paralegal Qualification in Criminal Law in 2010, via Criminal Law Training and Strathclyde University.

I completed a PhD in 2012, the thesis title being "Hidden in Plain View," which studied the factors which lead to wrongful convictions, and why ordinary people are completely unaware of these factors.

I am currently writing two further books, as follow-ups to my first book, "No Smoke, the Shocking Truth about British Justice" which was published by Checkpoint Press, Ireland in 2008.

In my "other life," I specialise in helping people with issues of low self esteem, confidence, and the effects of bullying.

Beginning with the murder of Jodi Jones in 2003, and the subsequent conviction of her boyfriend Luke Mitchell in 2005, I have studied and written about wrongful convictions of factualy innocent individuals in the UK ever since. I currently support a number of campaigns fighting injustice.
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/dr-sandra-lean-4b499a43
« Last Edit: January 13, 2017, 07:47:AM by Stephanie »
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: Sandra Leans book "No Smoke" should be re-vised or withdrawn
« Reply #126 on: January 13, 2017, 07:17:AM »
Why do you find it so difficult to admit you are wrong?
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline sandra L

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 960
Re: Sandra Leans book "No Smoke" should be re-vised or withdrawn
« Reply #127 on: January 13, 2017, 07:18:AM »
I don't! I'm just asking questions to clarify things in my own mind.

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: Sandra Leans book "No Smoke" should be re-vised or withdrawn
« Reply #128 on: January 13, 2017, 07:35:AM »
I don't! I'm just asking questions to clarify things in my own mind.

Your mind is warped. Everything was clarified before he died. I don't forget what came out of your mouth then. Why I phoned you after I was visited by the prison that morning to tell me he had been found hanging from cut up bed sheets I'll never know. Obviously I was in shock! There's not a decent bone in your body Sandra.

We have a member here called Steve. He's a teacher. I'm hoping he'll take the time to read your thesis and give his conclusions on it. You see I think you have more than your reputation to lose.

You dare to come here and insult my intelligence.

And attempt to question the validity of Simon's confession. He deserved praise for admitting the truth. Yet here you are going out of your way to attempt to protect your life's work.

You've taken things too far, as usual Sandra. It's time people get to see the real you, The workings of that mind of yours and the lengths you'll go to in order to attempt to destroy the lives of others.

You told me you didn't like Dr Michael Nauhgton and suggested he were a misogynist. You were jealous of him. Your thesis was a real eye opener btw. https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/11691/3/Thesis%2Babsolute%2Bfinal.pdf

"Hidden in Plain View" - Yes you were hidden in plain view alright Sandra  ::) under a guise of normalcy, attempting to play the victim at every turn. Seeking pity from others, when there was no pity to be sought.

And I suspect you also knew many of those people who were claiming innocence were also 'hidden in plain sight.'  ::)
« Last Edit: January 13, 2017, 08:15:AM by Stephanie »
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: Sandra Leans book "No Smoke" should be re-vised or withdrawn
« Reply #129 on: January 13, 2017, 08:52:AM »
Your thesis was a real eye opener btw. https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/11691/3/Thesis%2Babsolute%2Bfinal.pdf

Relationships & Sponsors - Codes of ethics. Indeed. I wonder if you followed the code of ethics when carrying out your research?
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: Sandra Leans book "No Smoke" should be re-vised or withdrawn
« Reply #130 on: January 13, 2017, 10:13:AM »
I haven't done enough research into this yet, but it does seem to suck the sanity out of people very quickly.

No Sandra, toxic people attempt to suck the sanity out of people very quickly. 

Billy Middleton wrote:
"Which is more probable, that after Simon’s last appeal was rejected, knowing that it was the best chance he was ever going to have, which was followed my months and months of psychological abuse and mind games by the person who drove every last one of the thousands of supporters he had away with vile and malicious on and offline feuds such that he finally couldn’t take any more, he cracked, http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6640.msg313153.html#msg313153

You and Billy Middleton have been playing a very dangerous game for many years now. You've even had the audacity to subtly allude to me being responsible for Simon's death in custody.

You may fool some Sandra but you stopped fooling me when you conned me (Again) back in March 2014.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2017, 11:14:AM by Stephanie »
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: Sandra Leans book "No Smoke" should be re-vised or withdrawn
« Reply #131 on: January 15, 2017, 11:09:AM »
The inquest was about Simon's suicide, not the confession.

Before the inquest proceeded there were several pre inquest hearing reviews.

The inquest proceeded on the basis that Simon Hall was guilty of murder and his confession had not been influenced by any third party.



Back to your book and the 6 families to which you refer:

Derek Christian http://www.thescarboroughnews.co.uk/news/crime/pensioner-s-murderer-inreview-hope-1-1404145

John Taft http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,3352.msg133854.html#msg133854

Gordon Park http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7892.msg374321.html#msg374321

Luke Mitchell

Susan May http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6094.0.html

Sion Jenkins http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7310.msg346879.html#msg346879

« Last Edit: January 15, 2017, 11:33:AM by Stephanie »
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: Sandra Leans book "No Smoke" should be re-vised or withdrawn
« Reply #132 on: January 15, 2017, 11:56:AM »
Derek Christian http://www.thescarboroughnews.co.uk/news/crime/pensioner-s-murderer-inreview-hope-1-1404145

The husband of murder victim Margaret Wilson was found hanging in a garden shed at his home in Burton Fleming in 2002.

In your book No smoke Chapter 2 pages 27/28

Sandra Lean writes:

"Letter from Mr John Townsend MP to K C Christian

Thank you for your letter of 22nd February 1999. Whilst I appreciate your feelings, as the brother of Derek Christian. It is very difficult for you to deal with this matter dispassionately. I very much believe in British Justice and I am afraid I cannot comment on the case, other than to say that the jury, according to your papers, brought in a unanimous verdict. They sat through and heard all the evidence, and were therefore in a much better position to come to a correct verdict than reading papers which have been produced by friends of the defendant.

With regards to your second request about Derek Christian's prison sentence, my view is that if he is not guilty, then he should not be in prison at all and clearly the judiciary thought the trial had been correct otherwise they would not have refused grounds for appeal, but if he is guilty, as you say it was a henious crime and I think in terms of imprisonment of 20 years is not excessive. Indeed, speaking generally, for the worse crimes I have consistently voted to bring back the death penalty.

I know my letter will be a disappointment to you but I am sure you will appreciate the position I take.
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: Sandra Leans book "No Smoke" should be re-vised or withdrawn
« Reply #133 on: January 15, 2017, 12:14:PM »
Gordon Park http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7892.msg374321.html#msg374321

Gordon Park, who died on 66th Birthday, was found with a plastic bag over his head and a cord around his neck. The Inquest concluded he intentionally took his own life in prison in 2010.

Will you also be re-vising your book in relation to the other cases you have highlighted Sandra and revisiting and revising your methodology? I refer you to your imaginary 12 point system found at the beginning of your book.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2017, 12:18:PM by Stephanie »
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"

Offline Stephanie

  • Veteran Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7614
  • The facts leading to the Simon Hall confession
Re: Sandra Leans book "No Smoke" should be re-vised or withdrawn
« Reply #134 on: January 15, 2017, 12:27:PM »
Sandra you suggested that Gordon Park ended his life because he couldn't put his family though any more suffering but the inquest suggests it was his own suffering that was of concern to him. Apparently he felt 'wounded' an Evangelical church elder was stopped from visiting him a month before his death.

Was Gordon's 3rd wife ever made aware he could have had a personality disorder and was she aware of the traits to look for?
« Last Edit: January 15, 2017, 12:29:PM by Stephanie »
“The only people who are mad at you for telling the truth are those people who are living a lie. Keep telling the truth"