Jeremy Bamber Forum
OTHER HIGH PROFILE CASES => Other high profile cases => Topic started by: Stephanie on January 08, 2017, 01:09:PM
-
I posted not long ago that Sandra Lean's book "No Smoke the Shocking Truth about British Justice" should be re-vised or with drawn.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8025.msg380412.html#msg380412
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8025.msg380589.html#msg380589
Now that we have the author here with us today I would like to ask her directly why she has not re-vised or withdrawn her book?
-
Where did the discussion about benefit and benefit fraud go?
-
Where did the discussion about benefit and benefit fraud go?
I've no idea as I would have been more than happy to debate with you about politics and social issues, however
Now that we have the author here with us today I would like to ask her directly why she has not re-vised or withdrawn her book?
-
Sandra, Simon Hall was guilty. As yet you haven't publicly acknowledged this fact and I'd like to ask you why.
You see whilst your book remains as is, you are knowingly putting erroneous information into the public domain.
Have you considered the social and political aspects of this and the impact of such erroneous information on other innocent victims?
From the point Simon Hall murdered, everyone he came into contact with was an innocent victim; not least of all the person he chose to murder. That includes you Sandra! I was reminded of this by a senior police officer who worked on the murder investigation in 2001/02 and who also had the unfortunate job of being at JA's post mortem. He also told me that once you are able to accept you are a victim you will be able to move forward.
And he was right imo. I had to accept I had been a victim in order to heal and move forward from the experience.
I recognise I cannot save all other victims from men like Simon Hall but I am appealing to your better nature to consider the impact your book could have on others. Whilst I fully understand you probably want to put it all behind you, there will be a point in the future imo where these matters will need addressing. Why wait when you can do something about it now?
-
how come your demanding answers of others but never answer qustions on the case yourself.
-
how come your demanding answers of others but never answer qustions on the case yourself.
I am not demanding anything nugnug. It is Sandra Leans choice to choose to do what she wishes.
However she came here today posting about social and political matters. I took the opportunity to ask her a question about similar issues. I spoke to her behind the scenes not long after Simon Hall confessed. I will not repeat on the board what we spoke about but I'd like her to put her money where her mouth is as opposed to appearing to jump on the bandwagon regarding benefit cheats.
From my own experience the impact Sandra Lean's misinformation has on others can also put it's own demands on the benefit system.
Though I want to make it clear; Sandra Lean is not to blame for having been conned. The blame lies squarely at the feet of Simon Hall.
I am in no doubt Sandra Lean is more than capable of answering my question Nugnug and doesn't need you to defend her.
There is a thread dedicated to Simon Hall's confession. If you have any questions maybe you should post them there.
-
you were the one with all the paperwork on the case you were the power of attorney so any missinformation could have only orignated from you.
other people may of republished it but at the end your the only orginal source it of come from.
as that book was written over 10 years ago you had years to corect anything you knew not to be true so why dident you with all the paperwork at your disposal.
-
you were the one with all the paperwork on the case you were the power of attorney so any missinformation could have only orignated from you.
other people may of republished it but at the end your the only orginal source it of come from.
as that book was written over 10 years ago you had years to corect anything you knew not to be true so why dident you with all the paperwork at your disposal.
Sandra Lean was involved with the Simon Hall case long before I came on the scene Nugnug. What paperwork did she see before she wrote her book. Who did she interview; who were her sources?
I wasn't in contact with Simon Hall 10 years ago. I traced Sandra Lean down after I married him. I'd never heard of Sandra before then. I was already under his spell at this point.
I believed in him until the day he confessed. I spoke to Sandra after his confession. I thought she would remove her book then; especially following the conversations we had and the content of the conversations.
Look, this isn't about blaming people for misinformation in the Simon Hall case. I do not believe Sandra Lean knowingly deceived anyone regarding the Simon Hall case; let's make that clear.
She was conned. She too was a victim.
My question is simply, why hasn't she re-vised or removed her book?
-
This post just goes to show the lengths people like you are willing to go to in order to win, no matter the cost. You have no humility! Why is that I wonder?
Quite the opposite Steph. I was very supportive of you. I am trying to win nothing. Just pointing out
you were wrong.
-
Quite the opposite Steph. I was very supportive of you. I am trying to win nothing. Just pointing out
you were wrong.
Buddy you were never supportive of me. You have a very poor memory. I was indeed wrong about Simon Hall.
-
Buddy you were never supportive of me. You have a very poor memory. I was indeed wrong about Simon Hall.
I suggest you review my posts Steph. You convinced me of SH innocence, and I said so. Perhaps you are lacking in the memory department.
-
who created the website that made all sorts of cliams provliaming that simon hall couldent have done it becouse of fornsic evdence that other people were in the house it wasnt sandra lean created that site.
the elphant on the room you called it at the time now were all those clliams false or true.
-
Your posts were removed buddy. I can't show you. You would need to ask a moderator to do that. Goading is what you did a lot of. My memory serves me well.
I may have had some posts removed Steph, but never in the SH case. May I ask the mods to confirm this please.
-
I may have had some posts removed Steph, but never in the SH case. May I ask the mods to confirm this please.
I can confirm that Buddy.
Stephanie - I think you must have confused Buddy with someone else. There were many who attacked you, often viciously, but Buddy has never behaved like that on the forum towards anyone. He has always been direct and straight in his posts, without any hidden agenda.
-
I have indeed Ngb and I apologise for that but I do not believe I am confused with Buddy's agenda. You see I think Buddy is playing us all; that includes the mods.
Truth is my only agenda. I am sorry you think otherwise.
-
So the truth being is you are **** ******* ;D
I'm suspicious that your posts appear manipulative in nature
Harry Webb.
-
I do discuss other cases. I am suspicious of the family
Jeremy Bamber's family? Why are you suspicious of his family? They too are victims.
What cases do you discuss Buddy, apart from the Bamber case and not including UFO's and the ozone..
-
why have we suddenly changed hmm.
-
Before you do that; I have a few questions for you.
Why do you refer to Sheila as the village bike?
and why do you also say Jeremy's only interest was money?
Do you remember posting to Sami?
And why would you make a post asking for help to mod the board?
why has buddy got to answer qustions about his posts exactly what gives you the right cross examine other posters about everything the say and i might a qustion about why your changing the subject on a thread you started in the first place.
-
Jeremy Bamber's family? Why are you suspicious of his family? They too are victims.
What cases do you discuss Buddy, apart from the Bamber case and not including UFO's and the ozone..
The family found ALL the evidence. They were not victims, it was a blessing to them. DEBT FREE.
-
The family found ALL the evidence. They were not victims, it was a blessing to them. DEBT FREE.
Agreed.
-
The family found ALL the evidence. They were not victims, it was a blessing to them. DEBT FREE.
They already had money Buddy. Don't you remember the antique chairs from AE statement? As RB said, no one wins! They didn't win. It wasn't about the money to them. It was the principle. The principle being Bamber deserved NOTHING!!
-
They already had money Buddy. Don't you remember the antique chairs from AE statement? As RB said, no one wins! They didn't win. It wasn't about the money to them. It was the principle. The principle being Bamber deserved NOTHING!!
[/quote
Why did they hurredly dump their farm and move to whf?
-
DB had said " nobody wins ". Not RWB.
Antique chairs had been sold by JB to fund death-duties.
Money was tight in the Boutflour household----the grannie often funded the family.
Next !
-
Why did they hurredly dump their farm and move to whf?
Is there a thread already created on this Buddy?
-
Yes, that's 2 names Buddy has put forward now ::)
As far as I am aware, Cliff Richard's given name is Harry Webb ;D
-
As far as I am aware, Cliff Richard's given name is Harry Webb ;D
I'm a bit confused by this but if it if any help cliff Richard is a distant relative of mine.
-
I'm a bit confused by this but if it if any help cliff Richard is a distant relative of mine.
And I hope he" takes everyone to the cleaners" too !!
-
They already had money Buddy. Don't you remember the antique chairs from AE statement? As RB said, no one wins! They didn't win. It wasn't about the money to them. It was the principle. The principle being Bamber deserved NOTHING!!
[/quote
Why did they hurredly dump their farm and move to whf?
Hi Buddy I thought I read somewhere along the lines, it was to do with the tenancy? Not sure though.
-
And I hope he" takes everyone to the cleaners" too !!
I think he probably will according to the press I think that's the line he is taking.
Never met him myself so couldn't confirm.
-
why has buddy got to answer qustions about his posts exactly what gives you the right cross examine other posters about everything the say and i might a qustion about why your changing the subject on a thread you started in the first place.
Why do you feel as though you are under cross examination? I'm not cross examining anyone. I've asked a valid question. Why is Sandra Lean blatantly avoiding answering my question. What is she hiding?
Is she still going around telling people Simon Hall is innocent? Are you?
-
who created the website that made all sorts of cliams provliaming that simon hall couldent have done it becouse of fornsic evdence that other people were in the house it wasnt sandra lean created that site.
the elphant on the room you called it at the time now were all those clliams false or true.
Which website are you referring to, there were several. I cannot remember how many in total. SH's brother had a page back in/around 2002/03. Then at some point SB had another site, then his parents.
The first website SH had when I became involved was run by Billy Middleton on his wrongly accused person site.
There were indeed many claims made about his innocence but ultimately they all stemmed from SH.
Maybe I should post the jist of the claims from Sandra's book on this thread, then you'll be able to see what was being said way before my involvement. And again, the case was referred to as the elephant in the room long before I ever referred to it as such.
-
Ah, good, I was hoping this would come around again. Stephanie thinks I was “blatantly avoiding” her questions. In fact, the thread had spiralled off in several different directions – I was just waiting until my response made logical sense. So, not hiding anything either.
Stephanie also thinks No Smoke should have been withdrawn or revised. I understand Stephanie’s right to feel that way. While she is also entitled to ask questions, I am under no obligation to answer them. However, on this occasion, I choose to address a couple of matters raised by Stephanie for the benefit of others who may be interested.
I spoke with many people (including others whose cases were mentioned or discussed) about the question of withdrawing the book. Not one of them wanted the book withdrawn. There were discussions about possible revisions which would, of necessity, have taken a great deal of time and effort - time and effort that I was not capable of devoting to the matter at that time.
If it helps, I can give a synopsis of what the revision to the Simon Hall chapter in No Smoke would have comprised, and why:
“In August 2013, it was reported that Simon Hall had confessed to the murder, in what many considered questionable circumstances, after ten years of maintaining his innocence. Some observers (including Simon's family) expressed concerns about Simon's mental health immediately prior to, and at the time of, the confession (a suicide attempt in the months before, for example.)
The confession and the circumstances in which it was made, have never been made public. There were other suicide attempts, the last being in February 2014, when he was found dead in his cell. The confession, whether reliable or not, does not alter the fact that the case on which the conviction was founded was extremely weak, and fell far below the standards most of us would expect when a life sentence is the potential outcome of proceedings.
There can be no doubt that the confession shocked those fighting claimed cases of Miscarriage of Justice, and raised serious questions about whether those fights should continue. However, where the fight is based on the evidence of the case as used at trial and in subsequent appeal proceedings, and that evidence is not robust enough to justify the convictions obtained, then the fight must continue, in the name of true justice.
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.”
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.
And so, I would simply revise the book to reflect the known facts, as they currently stand.
-
Ah, good, I was hoping this would come around again. Stephanie thinks I was “blatantly avoiding” her questions. In fact, the thread had spiralled off in several different directions – I was just waiting until my response made logical sense. So, not hiding anything either.
Stephanie also thinks No Smoke should have been withdrawn or revised.
What do you mean "ah good I was hoping this would come round again? It hasn't been going round. One thread, one topic entitled "Sandra Leans book "No Smoke" should be re-vised or withdrawn
And what do you mean by you were just waiting until your response made logical sense? See you are already posting in riddles. Do you mean you have several responses to my question or did you mean you needed time to think about your logical response before you responded? Or does this statement have another connotation altogether.
Following SH's confession you said you would be withdrawing your book. So let's back track a little before we get ahead of ourselves. It was YOU who said YOU would be withdrawing your book. I said nothing.
The reason I decided to start a thread in order to ask you directly is because it is quite apparent you have decided to do nothing about what YOU said you had intended on doing and you appear to be burying your head in the sand.
I want an open and honest debate about this Sandra, as it's been a long time coming. So let's lay some ground rules shall we.
I would appreciate it if you would show me the courtesy of being honest and not attempt to confuse matters within your first couple of sentences.
-
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.)
"On 23 July 2013 Simon Hall confessed to the murder of Joan Albert to a mental health nurse, after saying he needed to speak with her urgently.
Jurors at Norfolk Coroner's Court have heard that Hall was a user of the former legal high Spice, a strong substance smoked by some inmates.
He was reviewed throughout August 2013. On 8 September he overdosed again. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-norfolk-36460579
And are you suggesting all those witnesses who gave evidence to Her Majesty's Coroner lied?
So you followed the Inquest but are choosing to cherry pick, as usual Sandra ::) not a good start so far is it!
-
Speaking about the moment Hall told her of his guilt Mrs Hall said: “He confessed to me on the telephone on July 23 (2013) and I advised him to tell the prison.
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/widow_of_suffolk_murderer_simon_hall_speaks_out_at_first_day_of_norfolk_inquest_1_4575518
Media wars are not my thing. Misinformation is not my thing. Have at it, 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!
-
Sandra you have been given the opportunity to set the record straight but it appears you are choosing to continue with this disingenuous stance, suggesting your reputation is far more important to you than any social justice or political issues, as you claimed on here recently.
-
Speaking about the moment Hall told her of his guilt Mrs Hall said: “He confessed to me on the telephone on July 23 (2013) and I advised him to tell the prison.
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/widow_of_suffolk_murderer_simon_hall_speaks_out_at_first_day_of_norfolk_inquest_1_4575518
Media wars are not my thing.
Please point me to the media wars you refer in relation to Simon Hall's Inquest. There weren't any!
-
for the benefit of others who may be interested.
It's important the facts are established before we go any further, as I want others to be able to make an informed decision when considering their options.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/No-Smoke-Shocking-British-Justice/dp/184685704X
I didn't get involved with Simon until after your book had been published, therefore all of the information contained in your book on his case had not come from me. I take it you were told of Simon's previous suicide attempts immediately following his conviction. And if you saw his case papers you would have been aware of his suicide ideations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicidal_ideation whilst on remand awaiting trial. I know you were aware of his previous self harming from his time in a YOI as you knew his wrists bore the scars.
Surely the synopsis of the revision for your book should also contain a reference to the Zenith burglary omission along with all the other details that came to your attention in the time leading up to the confession. By leaving these facts out you are again misleading your readers.
Stephanie Bon aka Steffie was heading up the campaign at that time, as her review on your book confirms:
5.0 out of 5 starsJustice 4 Simon, Justice for all
By S. M. Bon on 27 Jun. 2007
Format: Paperback
Miscarriages of justice are happening all around us, everyday, it's fact!!
For anyone who finds themselves in this situation, you are not alone and THERE IS HELP OUT THERE.
Sandra Lean eloquently explores various areas of the legal system and details a few cases amongst so many others.
The current British legal system does not allow people to maintain their innocence without paying the price:- bullying and abuse, "psychological reports" claiming an "in denial" attitude and refusal to admit guilt therefore take responsibility for their actions ending ultimately with no chances of parole.
Many innocent victims have completed their sentences and still await to be released.
There are many organisations such as Innocent, Mojo, The Innocent Network and more who are there to support families as well as advise them in fighting miscarriages of justice. Many Lawyers have also dedicated their careers into overturning wrongful conviction of the innocent.
DON'T make the mistake of thinking that you can rely on the system to put things right, you will be waiting a very long time.
Thank you Sandra for your hard work.
Steffie @ Justice 4 Simon
-
Misinformation is not my thing.
Are you sure about that Sandra? I don't agree with you! However, you chose to not attend Simon Hall's inquest nor indeed did any of the Hall family. His brother (who represented himself and apparently his parents) had made himself an interested person (IP) in the proceedings and as an IP he made several submissions to HMC. I'll come back to these.
However on the day the Inquest began, HMC informed the court that Shaun Hall would not be attending the proceedings. Had you or the Hall family bothered to turn up you would have had the opportunity to hear all the evidence presented. And had Shaun Hall bothered to attend as an IP, he would have had the opportunity to cross examine witnesses; including me.
"Simon Hall was referred to Dr William Long, a senior forensic psychologist with the Prison Service, on the day the confession was made.
Dr Long told the inquest Hall had spent 10 years in prison "as a man who hadn't done what he was accused of, so his risks had changed.
"He had killed a much older woman and he told me there were some sexual aspects.
"He had changed from resisting his conviction to a man that admitted he was seriously violent." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-england-norfolk-36460579
-
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
So, his role was not to examine the confession, or any of the circumstances that led to it - his role was to take it as accurate and figure out if that meant Simon posed a risk to others. 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? Or was it something else that was making him crazy, perhaps making him believe he had done things he hadn't?
Before Stephanie jumps to conclusions, I'm asking questions, not stating facts. These are questions, I believe, that need clarifying before the confession is accepted at face value; a man who, after ten years of proclaiming innocence says he is "going crazy" and then confesses is, I think, an interesting set of circumstances which warrants further investigation.
-
You see, to this day, we have only Stephanie’s word
Who is this we again you will need to expand. Are you referring to you and Nugnug?
-
Following SH's confession you said you would be withdrawing your book. So let's back track a little before we get ahead of ourselves. It was YOU who said YOU would be withdrawing your book. I said nothing
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.
-
Who is this we again you will need to expand. Are you referring to you and Nugnug?
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?
-
However, you chose to not attend Simon Hall's inquest
I was working full time by then. I cannot have leave between May and August. Not really a choice, was it?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
so tell me steph when did you find out about the seamen.
-
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. ::)
-
im sorry i was under the impression that seaman was mentioned in the simon hall case as well is that not true then.
-
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.
-
so steph steph did you mention seaman in relation to ex husbands case or did you not.
-
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.
-
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/
-
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.
-
is it possible you could address this question steph.
Can you provide a source or news article regarding this
-
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.
-
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
-
why are you afraid to answer.
-
why are you afraid to answer.
Why are you afraid to provide a source
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
Below is an excerpt from an email sent from Sandra Lean to Billy Middleton which both decided to publish on the world wide web. (See above)
"The next difficulty arose over the claims that outsider/smiffy was Billy. J*** L******** 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.”
Sandra Lean was NOT worried these claims would reflect badly on me, she was worried these claims would reflect badly on her!
Further evidence of the lengths she was prepared to go to. And again further evidence of her abusive behavior.
-
Sandra Lean was NOT worried these claims would reflect badly om me, she was worried these claims would reflect badly on her!
This is the reason Sandra is not prepared to accept the Simon Hall confession. It isn't, as she suggests, because she only has my word for it, is it because she doesn't want it to reflect badly on her!
And it is why she refuses to revise or withdraw her book. It has nothing to do with the others families (Sandra Lean does not care for any injustice, her focus is the criminal mind - I wonder why?) and it has EVERYTHING to do with Sandra Lean.
-
Further from Sandra Lean:
"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.”
The pity play. The sympathy seeking. It's all there. Sandra attempts to assert she is a victim when in actual fact she is the aggressor.
Sandra Lean is indeed unreliable and dishonest. No one undermined the Luke Mitchell case. Luke Mitchell is also guilty!
-
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.
Did you play the victim to the other 6 families? Did you suggest they contact me directly regarding the validity of the confession, or did you smear my name and they too have been brainwashed by your stories. ::)
-
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?
-
is it safe to conclude that the lying to which he referred was about his guilt?
This is the reason Sandra is not prepared to accept the Simon Hall confession. It isn't, as she suggests, because she only has my word for it, is it because she doesn't want it to reflect badly on her!
And it is why she refuses to revise or withdraw her book. It has nothing to do with the others families (Sandra Lean does not care for any injustice, her focus is the criminal mind - I wonder why?) and it has EVERYTHING to do with Sandra Lean.
Not dissimilar to yourself Sandra, Simon Hall was a highly manipulative and toxic individual! He too attempted to play on the emotions of others in order to claim innocence and hide behind a veil of normalcy.
He murdered an elderly women in cold blood and did not show remorse for his crimes. Just as you show no remorse for yours!
The truth always out in the end Sandra.
I urge everyone to read this link http://thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2016/06/20-diversion-tactics-highly-manipulative-narcissists-sociopaths-and-psychopaths-use-to-silence-you/ as it fits Sandra lean to a tee!
People like Sandra will stop at nothing. It's all about winning. She has no interest in others (Or indeed injustice) her sole focus is to manipulate, deceive and dupe others.
-
"Toxic people feel very threatened when their excessive sense of entitlement, false sense of superiority and grandiose sense of self are challenged in any way. http://thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2016/06/20-diversion-tactics-highly-manipulative-narcissists-sociopaths-and-psychopaths-use-to-silence-you/
-
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.
"When toxic types can’t control the way you see yourself, they start to control how others see you; they play the martyr while you’re labeled the toxic one. A smear campaign is a preemptive strike to sabotage your reputation and slander your name so that you won’t have a support network to fall back on lest you decide to detach and cut ties with this toxic person. They may even stalk and harass you or the people you know as a way to supposedly “expose” the truth about you; this exposure acts as a way to hide their own abusive behavior while projecting it onto you.
Bringing in the opinion, perspective or suggested threat of another person into the dynamic of an interaction is known as “triangulation.” Often used to validate the toxic person’s abuse while invalidating the victim’s reactions to abuse, triangulation can also work to manufacture love triangles that leave you feeling unhinged and insecure.
Malignant narcissists love to triangulate their significant other with strangers, co-workers, ex-partners, friends and even family members in order to evoke jealousy and uncertainty in you. They also use the opinions of others to validate their point of view.
This is a diversionary tactic meant to pull your attention away from their abusive behavior and into a false image of them as a desirable, sought after person. It also leaves you questioning yourself – if Mary did agree with Tom, doesn’t that mean that you must be wrong? The truth is, narcissists love to “report back” falsehoods about others say about you, when in fact, they are the ones smearing you.
-
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?
Toxic individuals lure you into a false sense of security simply to have a platform to showcase their cruelty. Baiting you into a mindless, chaotic argument can escalate into a showdown rather quickly with someone who doesn’t know the meaning of respect. A simple disagreement may bait you into responding politely initially, until it becomes clear that the person has a malicious motive of tearing you down.
By “baiting” you with a seemingly innocuous comment disguised as a rational one, they can then begin to play with you. Remember: narcissistic abusers have learned about your insecurities, the unsettling catchphrases that interrupt your confidence, and the disturbing topics that reenact your wounds – and they use this knowledge maliciously to provoke you. After you’ve fallen for it, hook line and sinker, they’ll stand back and innocently ask whether you’re “okay” and talk about how they didn’t “mean” to agitate you. This faux innocence works to catch you off guard and make you believe that they truly didn’t intend to hurt you, until it happens so often you can’t deny the reality of their malice any longer. http://thoughtcatalog.com/shahida-arabi/2016/06/20-diversion-tactics-highly-manipulative-narcissists-sociopaths-and-psychopaths-use-to-silence-you/
-
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.
Sandra, maybe I should have made it clear to you at the beginning of the thread. I don't care if you do not believe the confession. Nor do I care for your book and what you eventually do with it. I am no longer the person Simon Hall turned me into. I have stepped out of the fog and see people like you for what you are.
My concerns are for the 'many' other people you are knowingly deceiving, though there is nothing I can do about it. But like me, these people will eventually come to realise the truth. They will eventually come to realise why you have such a bad reputation and why it is that people allegedly come up to you in shops and say the things they do (I mean we don't actually know if it happened do we Sandra - we only have your word that it happened ::)). They will eventually come to realise why people like you and Billy Middleton attempt to smear others and behave the way you do.
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?
They too will eventually realise they have been duped by you and they too will eventually see you for what you really are. Just as I have and indeed many others!
You are an extremely cruel women Sandra and your actions are callous and your motives are malicious! Much like those displayed by Billy Middleton; whom has a reputation for his dubious internet activities. You only need google his name and it brings up all sorts.
-
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.
you still havent answered the qustion why are avioding it.
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.
-
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.
you still havent ansered the the qustion its a simple qustion why are you afrraid to answer it.
-
In/around 2009 Sandra Lean had a habit of phoning me to tell me so and so had posted something about her on a public internet forum, related to her book (The forum was about other alleged miscarriages of justice cases). I'd never been on a forum before I met Sandra Lean, it was her who introduced me to them.
I decided to join the forum in an attempt to defend her. I found myself not only defending Simon Hall but also Sandra.
With hindsight, I unknowingly defended not one, but two highly manipulative individuals.
I wonder if Sandra is still up to her old tricks of contacting others to do her bidding for her. ::)
-
In/around 2009 Sandra Lean had a habit of phoning me to tell me so and so had posted something about her on a public internet forum, related to her book (The forum was about other alleged miscarriages of justice cases). I'd never been on a forum before I met Sandra Lean, it was her who introduced me to them.
I decided to join the forum in an attempt to defend her. I found myself not only defending Simon Hall but also Sandra.
With hindsight, I unknowingly defended not one, but two highly manipulative individuals.
so when are you goin to answer my qustion about the seaman why wont you answer it what are you afriad of.
I wonder if Sandra is still up to her old tricks of contacting others to do her bidding for her. ::)
when are you going to answer the question about the seamen why are you afraid to answer this question.
-
In/around 2009 Sandra Lean had a habit of phoning me to tell me so and so had posted something about her on a public internet forum, related to her book (The forum was about other alleged miscarriages of justice cases). I'd never been on a forum before I met Sandra Lean, it was her who introduced me to them.
I decided to join the forum in an attempt to defend her. I found myself not only defending Simon Hall but also Sandra.
With hindsight, I unknowingly defended not one, but two highly manipulative individuals.
I wonder if Sandra is still up to her old tricks of contacting others to do her bidding for her. ::)
Make that 3. I once defended Billy Middleton also, who turned out to be as guilty as sin, even though his case was not proven. His ex wife did all she could to have him re-tried, but it's futile when you are up against these extremely deceptive and highly manipulative individuals, as she found out to her expense.
-
when are you going to answer the question about the seamen why are you afraid to answer this question.
You come here making false and malicious allegations about me and you want me to answer YOUR questions?!
not suprising sine I mentioned fraud.
If I were you I'd stop telling blatant lies, or if you believe them to be true - report them to the police!
-
Sandra
Thank you for your lengthy explanations regarding this thread
-
i just asked was seamen ever mentioned in relations case theres a simple you can yes or no your perfectly aware what the truth is so why dont you just say yes or no.
-
Sandra
Thank you for your lengthy explanations regarding this thread
I wonder if Sandra is still up to her old tricks of contacting others to do her bidding for her. ::)
I hope you also told her about Simon Hall!
Looks like you are repeating the Paul Harrisson fiasco Jackie ::) When will you learn
And why are you clearly obsessed with me (And Simon Hall)? I thought you said you are only interested in the Bamber case? Clearly you aren't being honest with us Jackie!
Further, 'IF' Sandra has indeed sent you a lengthy explanation behind the scenes - this is further supporting evidence of manipulation and also brings into question her previous post where she states she talks to no one.
If she had nothing to hide she would post her lengthy explanation on the board; presuming of course what you say is true. What good does she think it will do in your hands? What does she think you are going to do with it? Make yet more subtle threats; harass me further?
-
so whats wrong with giving a yes or no answer then steph.
-
I hope you also told her about Simon Hall!
Looks like you are repeating the Paul Harrisson fiasco Jackie ::) When will you learn
And why are you clearly obsessed with me (And Simon Hall)? I thought you said you are only interested in the Bamber case? Clearly you aren't being honest with us Jackie!
Further, 'IF' Sandra has indeed sent you a lengthy explanation behind the scenes - this is further supporting evidence of manipulation and also brings into question her previous post where she states she talks to no one.
If she had nothing to hide she would post her lengthy explanation on the board; presuming of course what you say is true. What good does she think it will do in your hands? What does she think you are going to do with it? Make yet more subtle threats; harass me further?
Steph take my advice, just ignore, it's easy. Where Nugnug gets Sailors from I don't know? Your too good and been tthrough to much to get involved.
-
Steph take my advice, just ignore, it's easy. Where Nugnug gets Sailors from I don't know? Your too good and been tthrough to much to get involved.
Don't know about Sailor's, Justice but I feel sure he was talking about 'swimmers' ;) ;D ;D ;D
-
why do certan people go ape shit when you ask a simple question that warrants a simple yes no answer.
-
...Further, 'IF' Sandra has indeed sent you a lengthy explanation behind the scenes - this is further supporting evidence of manipulation and also brings into question her previous post where she states she talks to no one.
If she had nothing to hide she would post her lengthy explanation on the board; presuming of course what you say is true. What good does she think it will do in your hands? What does she think you are going to do with it? Make yet more subtle threats; harass me further?
Let's look at the reasoning here - IF I have sent a lengthy explanation "behind the scenes" - I didn't see that claimed anywhere. Even if it had been, I didn't - the mods will be able to confirm this.
Based on this "if," and without waiting for any supporting information whatsoever, Stephanie concludes that this is "further evidence of manipulation" and "brings into question" my previous post that I "talk to no-one."
So, firstly, it's not evidence of anything - it didn't happen. Secondly, in my previous post, I said "I'm not telling anyone anything" - how did that morph into I talk to no-one? I was explaining that I was asking questions!
Stephanie is, of course, entitled to think whatever she wants about me - that's none of my business. The way I see it, anyone who would take Stephanie's opinion of me, on a forum, at face value isn't worth my time or energy.
So, having got that out of the way, I'll go back to asking my questions -
When Simon confessed, was his mental state assessed? Did he know what he was saying, or why he was saying it? Did the details of the confession fit with the known facts of the case? He had already told a mental health nurse he was "going crazy" - what was the outcome of that? Did anyone ask why he felt he was going crazy, or wanted to scream all the time? Did anyone try to understand what was happening to make him feel like he was going crazy? It was stated at the inquest that he was using Spice - were any questions asked about how that might have impacted on his mental health?
For the record, at no point in this thread have I claimed that Simon Hall was innocent. I am asking questions about the circumstances of the confession and the confession itself
-
Thank you Sandra for making that absolutely clear
You are absolutely entitled to post in this forum as anyone else
-
Having read a lot about spice in prisons, it can totally change a person and turn them into monsters. I can understand the question being asked and wonder just how the prison dealt with it
-
Thank you Lilly15, I've started looking at the effects of Spice (variants of synthetic cannabinoids) or K2. The things that appear to come up again and again are hallucinations, suicidal and homicidal thoughts and actions, intense fear and paranoia.
If we take each of those effects individually, they would have a significant effect on someone who has been incarcerated for more than 10 years, without any reference to the "real world" they knew before. Cumulatively, it's not difficult to see how they might make an incarcerated person feel like they were "going crazy."
-
I watched a documentary not long ago and it showed the prisoners taking spice, what they would do to get it and how they reacted afterwards. The effects were horrific and its making prisons out of control just like the people taking it
I guess the long term side effects are yet to be discovered.
-
Let's look at the reasoning here - IF I have sent a lengthy explanation "behind the scenes" - I didn't see that claimed anywhere. Even if it had been, I didn't - the mods will be able to confirm this.
Based on this "if," and without waiting for any supporting information whatsoever, Stephanie concludes that this is "further evidence of manipulation" and "brings into question" my previous post that I "talk to no-one."
So, firstly, it's not evidence of anything - it didn't happen. Secondly, in my previous post, I said "I'm not telling anyone anything" - how did that morph into I talk to no-one? I was explaining that I was asking questions!
Stephanie is, of course, entitled to think whatever she wants about me - that's none of my business. The way I see it, anyone who would take Stephanie's opinion of me, on a forum, at face value isn't worth my time or energy.
So, having got that out of the way, I'll go back to asking my questions -
When Simon confessed, was his mental state assessed? Did he know what he was saying, or why he was saying it? Did the details of the confession fit with the known facts of the case? He had already told a mental health nurse he was "going crazy" - what was the outcome of that? Did anyone ask why he felt he was going crazy, or wanted to scream all the time? Did anyone try to understand what was happening to make him feel like he was going crazy? It was stated at the inquest that he was using Spice - were any questions asked about how that might have impacted on his mental health?
For the record, at no point in this thread have I claimed that Simon Hall was innocent. I am asking questions about the circumstances of the confession and the confession itself
You have showed us all you are unable to be honest or indeed mature and your manipulation knows no bounds.
IF you have any genuine questions about Simon Hall, his confession or indeed death in custody, I suggest you take them up with the Hall family.
-
His wife when he confessed - the only contact he had with the outside world. His wife when he died - the only contact he had with the outside world.
Was his mental health properly assessed in the lead up to the confession, the suicide attempt before the confession, or at the time of the confession itself?
These are not difficult questions. His family can't answer them because he was estranged from them at the times I'm talking about.
-
I watched a documentary not long ago and it showed the prisoners taking spice, what they would do to get it and how they reacted afterwards. The effects were horrific and its making prisons out of control just like the people taking it
I guess the long term side effects are yet to be discovered.
I haven't done enough research into this yet, but it does seem to suck the sanity out of people very quickly. Thank you again Lilly15 for your input - if I may, I might come back to you on these questions?
-
His wife when he confessed - the only contact he had with the outside world. His wife when he died - the only contact he had with the outside world.
Was his mental health properly assessed in the lead up to the confession, the suicide attempt before the confession, or at the time of the confession itself?
These are not difficult questions. His family can't answer them because he was estranged from them at the times I'm talking about.
As I said, speak to the Hall family. He was in contact with his mother just before he died and indeed others.
He was in prison Sandra. He could contact whomever he wished. The ball and chain are metaphors. ::)
-
His wife when he confessed - the only contact he had with the outside world. His wife when he died - the only contact he had with the outside world.
At the very least your book "No Smoke should be re classified to fiction, along with all the other garbage you sprout!
-
Make that 3. I once defended Billy Middleton also, who turned out to be as guilty as sin, even though his case was not proven. His ex wife did all she could to have him re-tried, but it's futile when you are up against these extremely deceptive and highly manipulative individuals, as she found out to her expense.
I can only imagine how she must have felt when Billy Middleton started highlighting other alleged MOJ cases, including Simon Halls. :-[ http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/fury-as-dad-of-annalise-middleton-sets-1019199
However it wasn't long before he showed his true colours. Filthy, dirty, nasty little man. Can't even look you in the eye when talking to you. Says it all really. How he got off I'll never know.
-
I can only imagine how she must have felt when Billy Middleton started highlighting other alleged MOJ cases, including Simon Halls. :-[ http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/fury-as-dad-of-annalise-middleton-sets-1019199
However it wasn't long before he showed his true colours. Filthy, dirty, nasty little man. Can't even look you in the eye when talking to you. Says it all really. How he got off I'll never know.
Shall have to read up on that one Steph, the Billy Middleton case.
-
And even when he exposed the nature of his true colours to Sandra Lean and indeed threatened her, she went into business with him - setting up a charity.
And here she is today, still supporting Billy and attacking yet more victims of insidious psychological cruelty.
Says it all; as indeed it does about those who support her today. Hypocrisy is rife. Suggesting they are interested in injustice and asking why no one is doing anything about men who sexually assault women. Puh! They should put their money where there mouth is - put up or shut up!
-
As I said, speak to the Hall family. He was in contact with his mother just before he died and indeed others.
He was in prison Sandra. He could contact whomever he wished. The ball and chain are metaphors. ::)
why your perfectly capable on answering that.
-
Shall have to read up on that one Steph, the Billy Middleton case.
I should warn you Justice, it's harrowing. As usual, many of the facts of the case didn't make it into the public domain but there is no doubting he's guilty. The not proven verdict means just that. The court weren't able to prove either way if he was responsible or not. He played the victim till the end and continues to attempt to do so.
Is has always been my firm belief, the reason why he made malicious allegations about the Simon Hall confession is because I never made a secret of knowing what I knew about him. It was his way of attempting to point score. Not unlike Sandra Lean. He attempted to portray me as the aggressor and Simon as the victim. Not dissimilar to what Sandra is attempting to do here.
-
His wife when he confessed - the only contact he had with the outside world. His wife when he died - the only contact he had with the outside world.
Was his mental health properly assessed in the lead up to the confession, the suicide attempt before the confession, or at the time of the confession itself?
These are not difficult questions. His family can't answer them because he was estranged from them at the times I'm talking about.
your not the only one whos been asking that a lot of people.
-
I should warn you Justice, it's harrowing. As usual, many of the facts of the case didn't make it into the public domain but there is no doubting he's guilty. The not proven verdict means just that. The court weren't able to prove either way if he was responsible or not. He played the victim till the end and continues to attempt to do so.
Is has always been my firm belief, the reason why he made malicious allegations about the Simon Hall confession is because I never made a secret of knowing what I knew about him. It was his way of attempting to point score. Not unlike Sandra Lean. He attempted to portray me as the aggressor and Simon as the victim. Not dissimilar to what Sandra is attempting to do here.
Gotcha, I'm beginning to see now. You've had what I call a pincer attack today as well, it just seemed to come and was so obvious and planned. Oh well Steph rise above these things and do what you do best, you have been through enough.
-
Gotcha, I'm beginning to see now. You've had what I call a pincer attack today as well, it just seemed to come and was so obvious and planned. Oh well Steph rise above these things and do what you do best, you have been through enough.
Or the double envelopment, indeed Justice. ;D Wasn't this maneuver used at the Battle of Stalingrad.
Bamber and his supporters must have used just about every attack possible. And still they plot and scheme ::)
-
Or the double envelopment, indeed Justice. ;D Wasn't this maneuver used at the Battle of Stalingrad.
I know sitting bull used it at the little big horn lol. It's been used for thousands of years and used and still is used by dinasaurs?
-
I know sitting bull used it at the little big horn lol. It's been used for thousands of years and used and still is used by dinasaurs?
I have a native american friend, will have to ask him about it ;D ;D ;D maybe he will be able to predict the dinosaurs next move ;D ;D Failing that will have to send out smoke signals ;D ;D 8)
-
I posted not long ago that Sandra Lean's book "No Smoke the Shocking Truth about British Justice" should be re-vised or with drawn.
Back to the book in question.
In the acknowledgements at the beginning of her book, Sandra Lean gives a shout out to a bloke named 'Simon.' Not to be confused with Simon Hall.
She told me she believed him to be a psychopath. Now why would you give a shout out to a bloke in a book about alleged miscarriages of justice cases if you thought him to be a psychopath?
And what is it with Sandra's obsession with the 'criminal mind?'
Unfortunately I no longer have a copy of the book as it went on the fire several winters ago to keep the house warm. But if anyone does have a copy maybe they would post up the reference to which I refer.
And mores to the point are the other 6 families aware of her associations with an alleged psychopath?
-
Gotcha, I'm beginning to see now. You've had what I call a pincer attack today as well, it just seemed to come and was so obvious and planned. Oh well Steph rise above these things and do what you do best, you have been through enough.
so asking somone a question is an attack now is it.
-
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!
-
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.
-
And I haven't forgotten about this either Sandra http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php?topic=5191.0 though you were indeed right Jane, time has indeed made a difference.
Background http://www.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/about-sandra-lean/
http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/criminologist-withdraws-from-fight-to-free-luke-mitchell-1-3478153
http://simplybillymiddleton.myfreeforum.org/archive/sandra-lean-statement-of-support__o_t__t_10.html
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
Why do you find it so difficult to admit you are wrong?
-
I don't! I'm just asking questions to clarify things in my own mind.
-
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.' ::)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
What research did you undertake with regards psychopathy and personality disorders, if any, before you put your book No Smoke together?
Simon Hall's pre trial assessment concluded if he were to be found guilty of the crime of murder, it's likely he had an Anti Social Personality Disorder (ASPD).
What significance, if any, did you give these findings? The same applies to all other cases highlighted. Were you aware of psychopathy and personality disorders?
You keep bringing up mental health and appear to avoid the above. Why? Are you aware of the differences between mental health and personality disorders/psychopathy?
-
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
4 and a half months after Simon Halls suicide, you withdrew from the Luke Mitchell case. Why?
-
No connection between the two. I have stated quite clearly that I still believe Luke is innocent, based on all of the evidence I have seen. I will not be commenting on Luke's case from a campaigner's stance, as I made clear when I started posting here again.
-
What research did you undertake with regards psychopathy and personality disorders, if any, before you put your book No Smoke together?
Simon Hall's pre trial assessment concluded if he were to be found guilty of the crime of murder, it's likely he had an Anti Social Personality Disorder (ASPD).
What significance, if any, did you give these findings? The same applies to all other cases highlighted. Were you aware of psychopathy and personality disorders?
You keep bringing up mental health and appear to avoid the above. Why? Are you aware of the differences between mental health and personality disorders/psychopathy?
so how come you never mentioned it then you must of been fully aware of it.
-
No connection between the two. I have stated quite clearly that I still believe Luke is innocent, based on all of the evidence I have seen. I will not be commenting on Luke's case from a campaigner's stance, as I made clear when I started posting here again.
There is indeed a connection between the two as the following article highlights http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/criminologist-withdraws-from-fight-to-free-luke-mitchell-1-3478153 bith cases featured in your book No Smoke.
Following Simon's confession and death in custody, you told be you saw similarities in Luke's relationship with his mother as those I had described to you disclosed to me by Simon. You told me you would be withdrawing from all MOJ campaigning. A few weeks/months later you did.
Luke Mitchell has since gone on to prove you wrong, and indeed the content of your book, in that he does indeed have a fascination with the occult, among other things.
Whilst you suggest you still believe him to be innocent, I believe if you were now showed a video of him murdering JJ, you would still make up every excuse under the sun to attempt to suggest it wasn't him.
-
No connection between the two. I have stated quite clearly that I still believe Luke is innocent, based on all of the evidence I have seen. I will not be commenting on Luke's case from a campaigner's stance, as I made clear when I started posting here again
No connection between Simon's suicide and my decision to withdraw.
-
No connection between Simon's suicide and my decision to withdraw.
That may be what you suggest to the board Sandra, but I know for a fact you are not to be trusted and that anything you say should be taken with a pinch of salt.
You were given the opportunity to admit you were wrong and in fact were a victim but you have chosen to continue to attempt to distort the truth. Which says much about you Sandra. You may fool some people some of the time but you stopped fooling me a long time ago.
The truth always outs in the end.
You stated on this board, following Simon's confession, that it was me who told you I believed all those maintaining innocence were guilty. This is not what I said but you chose to twist what I said in order attempt to further assassinate my character and call in to question the validity of the confession.
I knew what you were attempting to do then, just as I know what you are attempting to do now.
-
What research did you undertake with regards psychopathy and personality disorders, if any, before you put your book No Smoke together?
Simon Hall's pre trial assessment concluded if he were to be found guilty of the crime of murder, it's likely he had an Anti Social Personality Disorder (ASPD).
What significance, if any, did you give these findings? The same applies to all other cases highlighted. Were you aware of psychopathy and personality disorders?
You keep bringing up mental health and appear to avoid the above. Why? Are you aware of the differences between mental health and personality disorders/psychopathy?
so stephany why do you lie about this in your husbands capaghn you told us he was a perfectly normal guy this clearly shows that wasnt true why did you decive us all then.
-
so stephany why do you lie about this in your husbands capaghn you told us he was a perfectly normal guy this clearly shows that wasnt true why did you decive us all then.
Who is us? Do you work with Sandra?
-
Who is us? Do you work with Sandra?
Makes you wonder doesn't it Justice?
-
Who is us? Do you work with Sandra?
i mean the forum the people stephina blantently lied to do we get an apology.
-
I believe if you were now showed a video of him murdering JJ, you would still make up every excuse under the sun to attempt to suggest it wasn't him
That is, quite frankly, one of the most sick posts I think I've ever seen.
I had two daughters around Jodi's age at the time - why on earth would I make any effort whatsoever to help someone whom I had reason to suspect might be freed back into my own community, where my children lived, to do the same again?
-
i mean the forum the people stephina blantently lied to do we get an apology.
Oh right, will have to look into some of these cases, I see the red forum have commented on this and about the case?
-
so when do we get an apology for being lied to then steph.
-
so stephany why do you lie about this in your husbands capaghn you told us he was a perfectly normal guy this clearly shows that wasnt true why did you decive us all then.
"Lie to US"!!!!!! What gives you the right to come over as so bloody self important, Nugs? Name me one woman, defending her husband, in public, who'll admit to the likes of YOU -by that, I mean those who are attacking her- that she believes he's other than "a perfectly normal guy"? Whatever may be your view of what normal implies. Steph's public views, at that time, certainly come under my own heading of such. I'm certain Steph, NOW, will be the first to admit those views were misguided. You feel deceived? TOUGH! Live with it. Get over it.
-
"Lie to US"!!!!!! What gives you the right to come over as so bloody self important, Nugs? Name me one woman, defending her husband, in public, who'll admit to the likes of YOU -by that, I mean those who are attacking her- that she believes he's other than "a perfectly normal guy"? Whatever may be your view of what normal implies. Steph's public views, at that time, certainly come under my own heading of such. I'm certain Steph, NOW, will be the first to admit those views were misguided. You feel deceived? TOUGH! Live with it. Get over it.
what defending him by lieing to us all dont you think we deserve an apology.
what shes just stated means she knowingly lied.
-
what defending him by lieing to us all dont you think we deserve an apology.
what shes just stated means she knowingly lied.
Frankly, Nugs, I don't believe you 'deserve' anything. You -and others- make a choice about whether or not you join forums like this. I'm certain you'll have heard the saying "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen"? It seems to me that either you've placed yourself in position as Rabble Rouser In Chief" OR you're taking this -and other threads- WAY too personally.
-
"Lie to US"!!!!!! What gives you the right to come over as so bloody self important, Nugs? Name me one woman, defending her husband, in public, who'll admit to the likes of YOU -by that, I mean those who are attacking her- that she believes he's other than "a perfectly normal guy"? Whatever may be your view of what normal implies. Steph's public views, at that time, certainly come under my own heading of such. I'm certain Steph, NOW, will be the first to admit those views were misguided. You feel deceived? TOUGH! Live with it. Get over it.
Well said Jane, I certainly don't need an apology that's why I question us? My wife would defend me to the hilt, (well I think she would lol)
-
Frankly, Nugs, I don't believe you 'deserve' anything. You -and others- make a choice about whether or not you join forums like this. I'm certain you'll have heard the saying "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen"? It seems to me that either you've placed yourself in position as Rabble Rouser In Chief" OR you're taking this -and other threads- WAY too personally.
What is Rabble Rouser in Chief Jane, I've never heard of that?
-
That is, quite frankly, one of the most sick posts I think I've ever seen.
I had two daughters around Jodi's age at the time - why on earth would I make any effort whatsoever to help someone whom I had reason to suspect might be freed back into my own community, where my children lived, to do the same again?
No Sandra, your posts regarding Simon Hall's guilt and alluding to me being responsible for his death in custody in some why are sick.
Stop attempting to emotionally manipulate by bringing your daughters to the board Sandra, it won't wash anymore.
-
Well said Jane, I certainly don't need an apology that's why I question us? My wife would defend me to the hilt, (well I think she would lol)
speak for yourself im sure a lot of other people especaily people who made financail contributions.
-
Frankly, Nugs, I don't believe you 'deserve' anything. You -and others- make a choice about whether or not you join forums like this. I'm certain you'll have heard the saying "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen"? It seems to me that either you've placed yourself in position as Rabble Rouser In Chief" OR you're taking this -and other threads- WAY too personally.
im not talking about me im talking about eveybody steph lied to.
-
im not talking about me im talking about eveybody steph lied to.
What is Rabble Rouser in Chief Jane, I've never heard of that?
A rabble rouser is a person who speaks with the intention of arousing and inciting a crowd of people. Nugs appears to have nominated himself as their spokes person or Chief on every thread on which he posts.
-
Well said Jane, I certainly don't need an apology that's why I question us? My wife would defend me to the hilt, (well I think she would lol)
If there had been a minuscule chance Simon Hall was innocent I would not have allowed the Inquest to proceed on the premise he was guilty. It's only those with a personal agenda who have suggested otherwise.
I had an extremely competent legal team representing me (And in turn Simon) throughout the Inquest proceedings. My solicitors firm had previously represented Simon in relation to prison law and had met with him before and after his confession. My barrister once campaigned for Barack Obama.
-
im not talking about me im talking about eveybody steph lied to.
You'd certainly like us to believe you are.
-
No Sandra, your posts regarding Simon Hall's guilt and alluding to me being responsible for his death in custody in some why are sick.
Stop attempting to emotionally manipulate by bringing your daughters to the board Sandra, it won't wash anymore.
You're the one who thinks I'm "alluding to [you] being responsible for his death." I asked if anything else could be making him feel he was "going crazy" and "wanting to scream all the time." Another poster posted about the effects of Spice. Having spent a lot of time looking at this over the weekend, it really does seem to have a horrifying affect on people's sanity.
As for my questions about the confession, I don't see anything "sick" about asking questions rather than accepting something at face value.
-
"Lie to US"!!!!!! What gives you the right to come over as so bloody self important, Nugs? Name me one woman, defending her husband, in public, who'll admit to the likes of YOU -by that, I mean those who are attacking her- that she believes he's other than "a perfectly normal guy"? Whatever may be your view of what normal implies. Steph's public views, at that time, certainly come under my own heading of such. I'm certain Steph, NOW, will be the first to admit those views were misguided. You feel deceived? TOUGH! Live with it. Get over it.
Many thanks Jane. There aren't many whom have the courage of their convictions like you do.
Some people have a habit of shifting the blame, as opposed to taking responsibility for their own actions.
-
A rabble rouser is a person who speaks with the intention of arousing and inciting a crowd of people. Nugs appears to have nominated himself as their spokes person or Chief on every thread on which he posts.
and im proud to be somones got to be.
-
A rabble rouser is a person who speaks with the intention of arousing and inciting a crowd of people. Nugs appears to have nominated himself as their spokes person or Chief on every thread on which he posts.
Thanks, never heard of that expression before. ;D
-
If there had been a minuscule chance Simon Hall was innocent I would not have allowed the Inquest to proceed on the premise he was guilty. It's only those with a personal agenda who have suggested otherwise.
I had an extremely competent legal team representing me (And in turn Simon) throughout the Inquest proceedings. My solicitors firm had previously represented Simon in relation to prison law and had met with him before and after his confession. And my barrister had once campaigned for Barack Obama.
you dont have any choice in that the inqust will allways be done on the prusumption is guilty for the simple fact that his a prisoner.
-
speak for yourself im sure a lot of other people especaily people who made financail contributions.
Well you seem to be speaking for yourself? I can't see a lot of other people joining you.
-
and im proud to be somones got to be.
THAT depends on your agenda. I experience you as jumping on every available 'cause' in an attempt to disrupt it. I see nothing altruistic in that, whatsoever.
-
Well you seem to be speaking for yourself? I can't see a lot of other people joining you.
Absolutely, Justice. Which rather suggests that he doesn't have the support he'd have us believe.
-
THAT depends on your agenda. I experience you as jumping on every available 'cause' in an attempt to disrupt it. I see nothing altruistic in that, whatsoever.
what couse an i disrupting exactly.
-
Well you seem to be speaking for yourself? I can't see a lot of other people joining you.
Hi Justice I think the reason no one is joining in is because it has got far too personal, and I for one am steering clear.
A lot of people have been duped, misled on here, and is wrong to attack these people.
-
what couse an i disrupting exactly.
I believe the cause/reason to be secondary tom the disruption. IF I allowed you the benefit of doubt, I could venture that you're simply out of kilter with the majority, but I have the distinct impression that it gives you a certain pleasure/makes you feel powerful? to practice disruption for disruption's sake.
-
As for my questions about the confession, I don't see anything "sick" about asking questions rather than accepting something at face value.
I have asked you numerous questions on the board, most of which you have ignored.
I see you got your own way and had the thread taken down re: the WAP Org Charity you set up with Billy Middleton, but you've yet to clarify your position. I ask again, when did your partnership at the WAP org end, or are you a sleeping partner?
-
I believe the cause/reason to be secondary tom the disruption. IF I allowed you the benefit of doubt, I could venture that you're simply out of kilter with the majority, but I have the distinct impression that it gives you a certain pleasure/makes you feel powerful? to practice disruption for disruption's sake.
I am glad I am not alone in my beliefs. No one would listen to me when I, and others, pointed this out years ago.
Does anyone know what happened to the WAP thread? It appears to have disappeared? Could it not have been edited, as opposed to complete removal. Sandra Leans name could have been taken out of the thread title for example?
-
No, it doesn't work that way! I answered your question on the other thread, and you had plenty of opportunity to take my name out of it - I specifically asked you to do so, and you refused. So it's gone now - as soon as I figure out how to do so, I'll send proof of what I say to the mods.
Can anyone help me out with that? Are the mods the people whose names appear in red, and if so, how do I attach documents to private messages to them?
-
No, it doesn't work that way! I answered your question on the other thread, and you had plenty of opportunity to take my name out of it - I specifically asked you to do so, and you refused. So it's gone now - as soon as I figure out how to do so, I'll send proof of what I say to the mods.
Who made you MOD?
I know exactly what you are up to Sandra with your behind the scenes games. No one needs evidence of anything, unless you are referring to you no longer being a partner of WAP and possible civil action taking place because of the activities of Billy Middleton finally catching up with him.
-
No, it doesn't work that way! I answered your question on the other thread, and you had plenty of opportunity to take my name out of it - I specifically asked you to do so, and you refused. So it's gone now - as soon as I figure out how to do so, I'll send proof of what I say to the mods.
Can anyone help me out with that? Are the mods the people whose names appear in red, and if so, how do I attach documents to private messages to them?
I will find out for you Sandra or you could message NGB
-
I believe the cause/reason to be secondary tom the disruption. IF I allowed you the benefit of doubt, I could venture that you're simply out of kilter with the majority, but I have the distinct impression that it gives you a certain pleasure/makes you feel powerful? to practice disruption for disruption's sake.
well when you've worked out whats being disrupted get back to me and ill see what I can do.
-
and im proud to be somones got to be.
You're playing semantics. If you're so proud to do it, you don't need me to tell you.
-
well it appears I do.
-
I will find out for you Sandra or you could message NGB
Thank you - I've asked questions elsewhere. so all good!
-
What research did you undertake with regards psychopathy and personality disorders, if any, before you put your book No Smoke together?
Simon Hall's pre trial assessment concluded if he were to be found guilty of the crime of murder, it's likely he had an Anti Social Personality Disorder (ASPD).
What significance, if any, did you give these findings? The same applies to all other cases highlighted. Were you aware of psychopathy and personality disorders?
You keep bringing up mental health and appear to avoid the above. Why? Are you aware of the differences between mental health and personality disorders/psychopathy?
-
assements like that are confidential the only people who are allowed to see them are powers of attorney that was you I belive.
so if people dident know this and were missled whos fault was that.
-
assements like that are confidential the only people who are allowed to see them are powers of attorney that was you I belive.
so if people dident know this and were missled whos fault was that.
You talk utter rubbish, though I suspect you know that and it's your intention.
Simon Hall's pre trial assessment report was released to his defence team at time of trial. The pre trial report made up his case files. Therefore all those people who read his case files had assess to his pre trial assessments.
During the Rough Justice documentary in 2007, students were seen discussing the findings of the report. They referred to previous drug taking.
-
so you were fully aware of it and chose not to tell anybody
-
you dont have any choice in that the inqust will allways be done on the prusumption is guilty for the simple fact that his a prisoner.
You talk out of your backside!
If I had believed Simon Hall to be innocent I would have put this in my witness statement to HMC and insisted my legal team address the Inquest accordingly.
I would have also mentioned this when I gave live evidence. I didn't because he was guilty!
-
You talk out of your backside!
If I had believed Simon Hall to be innocent I would have put this in my witness statement to HMC and insisted my legal team address the Inquest accordingly.
the inqusetb arnt intrested in guilt or innocence just the cause of death.
-
the inqusetb arnt intrested in guilt or innocence just the cause of death.
An Inquest establishes where, when, how and why a person died. IF he had been innocent or still maintaining innocence this would have formed part of the evidence heard during the inquest. It didn't because he was guilty and was planning a move to HMP Grendon.
His brother was an Interested Party, representing the Hall family. If they (Simon's parents and brother) had any concerns regarding the validity of his confession they had the opportunity to bring this to the attention of HMC and make representations. They chose to not make representations because they knew he was guilty!
Simon's parents and brother chose to not attend the Inquest. There actions or in-actions were duly noted by all who attended the Inquest.
-
a corner is not going to prusme to overturn a jurys verdict.
-
a corner is not going to prusme to overturn a jurys verdict.
Why should they when there is no need!
-
What research did you undertake with regards psychopathy and personality disorders, if any, before you put your book No Smoke together?
Simon Hall's pre trial assessment concluded if he were to be found guilty of the crime of murder, it's likely he had an Anti Social Personality Disorder (ASPD).
What significance, if any, did you give these findings? The same applies to all other cases highlighted. Were you aware of psychopathy and personality disorders?
You keep bringing up mental health and appear to avoid the above. Why? Are you aware of the differences between mental health and personality disorders/psychopathy?
I'm still awaiting an answer Sandra, unless you are using nugnug as your mouth piece once again?
You see my questions are also relevant in terms of your thesis and in turn your doctorate. I have many questions with regards both and will be taking them up further.
-
What research did you undertake with regards psychopathy and personality disorders, if any, before you put your book No Smoke together?
Simon Hall's pre trial assessment concluded if he were to be found guilty of the crime of murder, it's likely he had an Anti Social Personality Disorder (ASPD).
What significance, if any, did you give these findings? The same applies to all other cases highlighted. Were you aware of psychopathy and personality disorders?
You keep bringing up mental health and appear to avoid the above. Why? Are you aware of the differences between mental health and personality disorders/psychopathy?
I wrote a book about wrongful convictions, and the things that make them possible. If you'd like me to write a book about psychopathy and personality disorders, then I can do that. But let's not conflate the two.
-
I wrote a book about wrongful convictions, and the things that make them possible.
Your book should be re-vised, withdrawn or it's category changed to fiction.
-
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.
No Smoke - Chapter 2, page 26
Sandra Lean states:
"Derek Christian was a man of previously good character, with no psychological conditions or previous convictions"
But what Sandra fails to mention in her book is that Derek Christian had earned himself two spells in military detention following a series of unpleasant assaults against women.
Psychologists concluded that Derek Christian showed no signs of mental illness.
-
Gordon Park http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,7892.msg374321.html#msg374321
"Vanessa Park (Now Fisher) has had to endure what must be the unique agony of having two mothers murdered by two fathers.
In 1969, when she was just a year old, her natural mother Christine Price, Carol Parks sister - was strangled in 1969 by her father John Rapson. She was swiftly adopted by Carol and Gordon but when she was eight her new mother disappeared. As we know now, she had been battered to death by her husband.
What cut deepest during the trial were submissions from Gordon Park's defence suggesting Rapson could have been the man who murdered Carol Park. http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/cumbria/567113.Lady_in_the_Lake___Tragedy_for_children/
-
"Park was convicted in 2005, the jury having accepted the prosecution case that he had killed her with an ice-axe before disposing of her body.
It was portrayed as an almost perfect murder.
Yet Park, found hanged in his prison cell in 2010, always continued to protest his innocence, supported by some of his family, including his third wife Jenny and his children Jeremy and Rachel.
Their cause was boosted by the publication last year of a book by Dr Sandra Lean called “No Smoke.”
She argued that Park was wrongly convicted. But Mr Binstead said the book left him so exasperated that he felt compelled to write his own account of the tragedy.
Described as full and frank”, Mr Binstead's book – A Very Cumbrian Murder – provides an exhaustive review of the evidence that convicted Park, pointing out that he was paid £50,000 by a national newspaper for an interview about the case.
Explaining his motivation, Mr Binstead said: “I had contemplated writing the book for some years because I had always been fascinated by the mysterious and unique case of Gordon Park.
“What finally provoked me into actually putting pen to paper was a 2015 book 'No Smoke!
The Shocking Truth About British Justice,' which singles out case in question and seeks to depict it as an example of flawed police investigation, a totally misconceived decision to prosecute it, and finally a wrongful decision by the jury to convict the accused.
“As I had been involved in the case as a prosecutor and was very familiar with the evidence on which the case was based, I strongly felt that I should redress the balance.”
Mr Binstead's book is fiercely critical of Dr Lean's book.
He states: “Whatever merits Sandra Lean's book and her appraisal of the evidence in the Park case may have, they are, to my mind, completely eclipsed by her entrenched and overwhelming antagonism towards and her disdain for the way that the organs of the criminal justice system operate and conduct their affairs.”
He concludes that the conviction remains “unshaken”, adding: “Carol's brother, her only surviving sibling at the time of her death, has also gone but at least he went to this grave with the satisfaction, if that is the right word, of knowing his sister's killer had been brought to justice.” The book is published by FastPrint Publishing. http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/Former-prosecutor-publishes-book-backing-Lady-in-the-Lake-murder-conviction-5999268a-951e-413c-9ed6-9562fdc5819f-ds
-
I'm still awaiting an answer Sandra, unless you are using nugnug as your mouth piece once again?
You see my questions are also relevant in terms of your thesis and in turn your doctorate. I have many questions with regards both and will be taking them up further.
im still waiting for answer for you a very simple qustion.
-
how come your demanding answers of others but never answer qustions on the case yourself.
Stop projecting!
-
why has buddy got to answer qustions about his posts exactly what gives you the right cross examine other posters about everything the say and i might a qustion about why your changing the subject on a thread you started in the first place.
Why do you behave as though you are superior to others and why do you appear to have double standards when you post here.
-
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.
https://uk.linkedin.com/in/dr-sandra-lean-4b499a43
I came to learn there are many wolves hiding in sheep's clothing and more often than not they are hidden in plain view.
This article is worth reading in terms of killers like bamber attempting to get away with the perfect murder?
http://www.cumberlandnews.co.uk/features-7d512e48-01f8-4bba-9e6e-7ec3cbd85f19-ds
-
i asked a simple question steph I'm not sure why so unwilling to answer capable of giving an answer and surely the answer makes no difference to you you can shut with 1 answer.
-
Where did the discussion about benefit and benefit fraud go?
Am looking forward to seeing your synopsis on Gordon Park also.
-
Stop projecting!
ive got no qustions to answer about this you have you were in chardge of the capaghn
my and budy are just posters in a forum.
-
I came to learn there are many wolves hiding in sheep's clothing and more often than not they are hidden in plain view.
This article is worth reading in terms of killers like bamber attempting to get away with the perfect murder?
http://www.cumberlandnews.co.uk/features-7d512e48-01f8-4bba-9e6e-7ec3cbd85f19-ds
Dick Binsteads book is even better!
-
ive got no qustions to answer about this you have you were in chardge of the capaghn
my and budy are just posters in a forum.
In fairness Buddy said he was not getting involved
-
Shock, horror! A prosecutor doesn't like a book that criticises the justice system. You don't say!
-
Shock, horror! A prosecutor doesn't like a book that criticises the justice system. You don't say!
why would he not like a book that critises the cps i cant fathem it.
-
why would not like a book that critises the cps i cant fathem it.
Maybe you should read his book as it seems you don't understand it's content
And what do you have to be angry about with the CPS? What did they do to you?
-
Of the prosecutor who didn't like my book, Stephanie said:
No Sandra his criticisms are of you!
And? He's perfectly within his rights to say or think what he pleases, as long as it isn't defamatory. He is quoted as saying:
“Whatever merits Sandra Lean's book and her appraisal of the evidence in the Park case may have, they are, to my mind, completely eclipsed by her entrenched and overwhelming antagonism towards and her disdain for the way that the organs of the criminal justice system operate and conduct their affairs.”
I've never made any secret of my antagonism towards and disdain for the way some of the organs of the CJS abuse their powers, so nothing defamatory there. He's entitled to his opinion - I don't have to agree with him, or even care what his opinion is.
Just for completion, the book was not, as reported a "2015" book, it was a 2007/2008 book
-
I'm many things, but a psychic isn't one of them - how could I have known in August 2012 that Simon Hall would confess in what some considered questionable circumstances 12 months later?
It's been claimed repeatedly that no apology was ever made to Kate's family - that clearly was not true.
-
And? He's perfectly within his rights to say or think what he pleases, as long as it isn't defamatory.
Just for completion, the book was not, as reported a "2015" book, it was a 2007/2008 book
George Skelly's Murderers and Martyrs was published before Simon Hall confessed
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CgW1Lx468ZMC&pg=PA462&lpg=PA462&dq=sandra+lean+miscarriages+of+justice+no+smoke&source=bl&ots=PHf7KLKMWm&sig=OJN8826e-FQbk2Lk4knPC3EfGQk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVyMvv4snRAhVBLMAKHcNCBs04ChDoAQgoMAM#v=onepage&q=sandra%20lean%20miscarriages%20of%20justice%20no%20smoke&f=false
However, maybe you should speak to Mr Skelly of Simon Hall's confession, he seems like a man of reason.
As he points out in the following article, referring to Devlin and Burns:
“They suggested the men’s lawyers could have been in possession of the suppressed evidence I presented – if they had they would have been acquitted!
“This is nonsense. Why would they have fought so hard to save their clients and not used this information if they had had it.” http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/liverpool-murders-investigated-author-george-3323765
Why would I have fought so hard and suddenly have stopped if Simon's confession were false.
I too would have fought like Mr Skelly (and the others referred to in this article) if I had any doubts. I didn't and I don't!
Why aren't Simon's previous legal teams speaking up; Campbell Malone, Michael Mansfield? Why aren't his family? What about his representative at the time of his confession, Dr Michael Naughton?
What did they know that you didn't?
-
Sometimes, defence teams have information, or at least, technical access to information, but they don't know or understand the significance of it. Sometimes, like a very well known Scottish QC, they fully expect that the system will "play by the rules" and disclose significant evidence, rather than labelling it ambiguously in the express intent that the defence team does not realise its significance.
Sometimes, like the defence team in the Mark Carver case, they run the case on the technical rule that it is for the prosecution to prove guilt and not the other way around.
Why would I have fought so hard and suddenly have stopped if Simon's confession were false.
The correct question, I would suggest, is why would you have fought so hard and suddenly stopped if you believed Simon's confession was false. If that was your belief, then, of course, no one would have expected you to carry on fighting*. But, as I have stated previously, just because you believed it to be false doesn't necessarily mean others will adopt the same belief, for whatever reasons.
There is very little factual information in the public domain on which others can found such a belief. If Simon's confession was influenced, for example, by Spice, the side effects of which are harrowing, and can include intense hallucinations, extreme paranoia, etc, then the confession would have to be examined in that light, especially given Simon's comments to a mental health nurse that he thought he was "going crazy" and wanted to "scream all the time" some three to four months before the confession.
Please understand, I am not stating any belief one way or the other about Simon's confession, nor have I done so. I am seeking to understand whether there could be any other factors which caused a man who had maintained innocence for so long to suddenly confess, so close to freedom, other than your personal assertion that he was "clearly a disturbed individual." The effects of Spice, for example, could make someone "clearly a disturbed individual" without necessarily making them a murderer.
Why aren't Simon's previous legal teams speaking up; Campbell Malone, Michael Mansfield? Why aren't his family? What about his representative at the time of his confession, Dr Michael Naughton?
What did they know that you didn't
I have absolutely no idea. I have no contact with any of them. My questions are my own, asked in order to try to resolve some of what I see as questionable circumstances surrounding the confession and the subsequent death of Simon.
If, as is your right, you choose not to answer those questions, then I am left to ponder what might be the answers - what other possibilities could be taken into account.
*Of course, sometimes people who have fought hard and long stop fighting, as I did, for reasons completely unrelated to confessions, true or false. Sometimes, there are other factors which make it too difficult to carry on fighting at such a high level, none of them related to the perceived guilt or innocence of the person being fought for.
-
The correct question, I would suggest,
The correct question I should have asked you was, with hindsight, do you regret not having had access to a full set of Simon Hall's case files before you published your book?
-
No, I don't.
If it takes five, or ten, or twenty years to have access to a full set of anyone's case files, then something is terribly wrong with our justice system - those case files should be freely available from day one.
-
No, I don't.
If it takes five, or ten, or twenty years to have access to a full set of anyone's case files, then something is terribly wrong with our justice system - those case files should be freely available from day one.
I rest my case Sandra.
This is how people like you knowingly put misinformation into the public domain, regardless of the consequences.
My question was straight forward. It was you who chose to answer it in a disingenuous way.
However for clarity, you were not given access to a full set of case files in the SH case .
Therefore you took a gamble when you published your book with a chapter dedicated to the Simon Hall case. Your gamble came back to bite you in 2013 but rather than own up to your mistakes you have chosen to attempt to blur the facts with your alleged confusion regarding the confusion.
"Have at it as you say. However, it's not me who is in denial.
-
Stephanie said
The correct question I should have asked you was, with hindsight, do you regret not having had access to a full set of Simon Hall's case files before you published your book?
I replied No, I don't.
What is disingenuous about that?
Are people to sit back and do nothing when the authorities hide information, mislead the public about "facts," etc, or do we do what we can, with what we have, and leave it to people to make up their own minds what they think of the information presented? Do we allow sloppy investigations, illogical CPS decisions, tainted evidence and police pressure on witnesses to masquerade as a robust CJS for 5, 10 or 20 years before any semblance of the truth is uncovered? Ask the Hillsborough campaigners what they think of that.
Let me turn this around. I wrote a book about the cases of seven people. Stephanie chose to marry a man eight years into a sentence for murder in the belief he was innocent. Did Stephanie wait until she had full set of case papers before deciding to marry him, and spending hundreds of hours proclaiming his innocence?
Simon's confession did not "come back to bite me" in 2013 - just like the questions raised by the official line of his case, his confession raised new questions which have never been answered.
And, I re-iterate, in a justice system with nothing to hide, why are case papers so difficult to access? In the US, all of the information is freely available to the public - people like me (or you) can sift through it and say, hey, wait a minute, that's not what was said in court/what the prosecution claimed/what the police statements say. Here in Scotland, we are committing a crime even sharing what information we do get a hold of with others. It's not quite so restricted in England and Wales.
If I took a gamble, it was the risk of getting arrested for putting certain information about the Luke Mitchell case in the public domain. I thought it was worth the risk!
-
If, as is your right, you choose not to answer those questions, then I am left to ponder what might be the answers - what other possibilities could be taken into account.
Where will the Zenith burglary omission factor into your synopsis, you appear to have ignored this fact?
The transcript of SH's interview with the CCRC in April 2013 can be found here; scroll down to 4th April 2013
https://therealmrshspoofblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/27/the-burglary-omission-smear-campaign-hindsight/
Simon Hall had already publicly blogged how I found out about the burglary omission, yet chose to tell the CCRC something else entirely.
He also blogged:
"So here’s a good idea, tell them you did a burglary at around 5am that night because that will help your alibi for a murder that they say happened at 6am.
anyway, your mate will confirm your story…….
What’s that? His account is different to yours? He says you didn’t leave the Old Rep until 5am. Perhaps somebody is covering their own ar*e here? It makes you think about that article he did in the Evening Star newspaper, where he says ‘They’ve got the wrong man.’
Is that so hard to believe? Why didn’t I tell my legal team? Well I told some of my family about the burglary on a visit only a day or two after I came back from court. On that visit we mutually decided that it wouldn’t help my case because it only served to prove motive. The police were looking for a motive, initially implying that I saw Mrs Albert as a pain to my mother. Mum was always round there helping her because her own family never really bothered with her. But police gave up on that and went for the burglary motive.
You might think; ‘why this why that?’ It’s easy for people to think that if it was them they’d have done this or they’d have done that. That may be so, but it wasn’t them was it? It was me and I certainly wasn’t thinking straight. It was all so surreal but so frightening. I was crushed by the severe pressure I was under. This was like a tidal wave and I was just swept along with it. I couldn’t concentrate, I wasn’t sleeping. I wasn’t eating, I just wanted to hide away. I wanted to die!
I tried, in October 2003, after my first appeal was refused, rushed to hospital with severe blood loss. I’d lost all hope. That was the only thing I could think of. I wasn’t using my brain. https://therealmrshspoofblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/simon-halls-blogs/
I wonder what Simon Hall's mental health was like in October 2003? Maybe you should speak to those people who were campaigning for him back then Sandra.
"It was around that time that I got into heroin. I’d never smoked it before and I’ve never dreamt of smoking it before but I needed something as an escape to rely on, to get my mind out of prison, through the bars.
I was always off my face, I was always trying to forget where I was.
I was on heroin for about 4 years, my health had suffered. I’d lost so much weight, my mind was scrambled, I was so ill, I was in a bad way. I was even on the gear when the BBC came to HMP Dovegate to film the Rough Justice documentary.
Relationships were strained. I was a mess. I didn’t know if I was coming or going. I didn’t know who or what to trust.
Even though my parents knew about the burglary, they never brought it up again. They didn’t tell my legal team and neither did I because I genuinely believed it wouldn’t help the situation. I didn’t even tell my own wife! Not because I wanted to keep secrets from her, but because it seemed so irrelevant to the situation at the time and I didn’t want anyone to know I’d done burglary.
How did Simon Hall's mental health appear to you during the 2007 Rough Justice documentary Sandra?
-
it's not me who is in denial.
Why are people so often in denial?
In the psychological sense, denial is a defense mechanism in which a person, faced with a painful fact, rejects the reality of that fact. They will insist that the fact is not true despite what may be overwhelming and irrefutable evidence.
There are three forms of denial. Simple denial is when the painful fact is denied altogether. Minimisational denial is when the painful fact is admitted but its seriousness is downplayed. Transference denial is when the painful fact is admitted, the seriousness also admitted, but one's moral responsibility in the situation involving the painful fact is downplayed.
When a person is in denial, they engage in distractive or escapist strategies to reduce stress and help them cope. The effect upon psychological well-being in doing this is unclear. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/29/the_odd_body_denial/
-
Simon Hall wrote:
Excerpts from letter 2014
“Its’s going to take a long time to get to where I want to be but I’m determined to get there and I know that I will. I am researching and thinking about my past and I’ve got an understanding psychology book and a book called “they f**k you up” – How to survive family life by Oliver James. I’m reading them both at the same time and cross referencing different bits. It’s slow going and there’s a lot to take in but I’m understanding things a bit clearer.
“I panic because of shame and because the truth is destroying me. Living in denial gave me no reason to panic and if you remember, I only started to panic like that when I was being found out lying. I panic through fear of judgement and rejection.
“Am I like my biological father? He put himself before the children that he had.
“I am worried about genetics. All of the W****n kids are damaged. I believe that both nature and nurture f**ked me up, I do hate L***e I do hate S***n, but I hate myself more. If they were in this cell, I’d punch their lights out. That’s true, but I’d want to hurt myself too.
I don’t think it’s genetics. I remember my conscience as a kid, before ****n got hold of me. I think nurture is so important from both to adulthood. If I’d been in loving households, I’d be different. https://therealmrshspoofblog.wordpress.com/
"With disordered characters, what we commonly perceive as unconscious defenses (e.g., denial) are more often deliberate tactics of impression-management, manipulation, and responsibility-avoidance. http://counsellingresource.com/features/2008/10/08/denial-as-defense-mechanism/
-
How did Simon Hall's mental health appear to you during the 2007 Rough Justice documentary Sandra?
More to the point, how did it seem to you? Wasn't that the year you "got in touch" again, or were "more in touch" before marrying him in December 2008?
-
More to the point, how did it seem to you? Wasn't that the year you "got in touch" again, or were "more in touch" before marrying him in December 2008?
I did not profess to have the same CV as you at that time Sandra, nor did I have a fascination with the workings of the "criminal mind."
"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
Unfortunately I came to learn about the workings of the criminal mind following my involvement with Simon Hall.
-
I've posted about Matthew Hamlen on another thread http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8126.msg384310.html#msg384310 but thought it relevant to post here also.
Even though Hamlen was sentenced to 30 years following his conviction under the double jeopardy law, in May 2016 he applied for leave to appeal. ::)
"Matthew Hamlen is a 37 year old electrician, and a married man with a son who is currently in the custody of HMPS in the UK having been sentenced to 30 years imprisonment in February 2016 for of the 2008 murder of Mrs Georgina Edmonds. He has strenuously and consistently denied any involvement both before and during his original trial in 2011/2012 , at which he was unanimously acquitted by the jury, and his later ‘double jeopardy’ trial in January and Feb 2016.
Asked at his second trial to explain how a sample of DNA was ‘found’ at the crime scene, a sample which the police and their forensic department had somehow ‘missed’ for the first trial and for over six years after the murder, Matthew explained to the court:
“I know I didn’t do this, I could not do something like this. As far as the DNA goes, I’m not an expert. All I can tell you is, it didn’t get there at the time, if it is mine.”
https://matthewhamlenisinnocent.wordpress.com/about/
-
On the basis of the number of cases Stephanie has quoted on this forum, I'd like to ask Stephanie a direct question:
Because of Simon's confession, and your belief that it was true, do you now believe that everyone maintaining innocence is lying?
-
I've posted about Matthew Hamlen on another thread http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,8126.msg384310.html#msg384310 but thought it relevant to post here also.
Even though Hamlen was sentenced to 30 years following his conviction under the double jeopardy law, in May 2016 he applied for leave to appeal. ::)
"Matthew Hamlen is a 37 year old electrician, and a married man with a son who is currently in the custody of HMPS in the UK having been sentenced to 30 years imprisonment in February 2016 for of the 2008 murder of Mrs Georgina Edmonds. He has strenuously and consistently denied any involvement both before and during his original trial in 2011/2012 , at which he was unanimously acquitted by the jury, and his later ‘double jeopardy’ trial in January and Feb 2016.
Asked at his second trial to explain how a sample of DNA was ‘found’ at the crime scene, a sample which the police and their forensic department had somehow ‘missed’ for the first trial and for over six years after the murder, Matthew explained to the court:
“I know I didn’t do this, I could not do something like this. As far as the DNA goes, I’m not an expert. All I can tell you is, it didn’t get there at the time, if it is mine.”
https://matthewhamlenisinnocent.wordpress.com/about/
And so it goes on http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/14694322.display/
-
Interesting case, with a number of apparent anomalies (I know nothing about this case - this is the first time I've heard anything about it.
How, though, can the prosecution claim he attempted to withdraw £200 - the pin number was wrong, so he wouldn't have even got to the point of entering an amount.
-
Interesting case, with a number of apparent anomalies (I know nothing about this case - this is the first time I've heard anything about it.
How, though, can the prosecution claim he attempted to withdraw £200 - the pin number was wrong, so he wouldn't have even got to the point of entering an amount.
It's called a hyposthesis.
So DNA not good enough for you then? ::)
-
In relation to the Matthew Hamlen case, where prosecutors included, as part of their case, that "ATM man tried to withdraw £200 from the victim's account," and I pointed out that they could not possibly have claimed that because the PIN number used did not give access to the account, Stephanie responded:
It's called a hyposthesis.
No, it was the prosecution claim which, in law, the prosecution is required to prove. How could they possibly have done that, when the pin number didn't provide access to the account?
With reference to the same case, Stephanie asked
So DNA not good enough for you then? ::)
Of the 349 exonerations in the US (latest figures) on the basis of DNA evidence "?46%: Involved misapplication of forensic science" http://www.innocenceproject.org/dna-exonerations-in-the-united-states/
So not good enough for the scientists either! The dangers of misinterpretation of DNA evidence are enormous - bad science is every bit as bad as bad policing.
The claimed DNA match which secured the eventual conviction in the Matthew Hamlen case, following an exoneration and a retrial, DNA which had previously returned firstly a "no match" and then a dubious "partial match," miraculously turns up a couple of years later as a full match?
As I've said before, I know very little about this case, but alarm bells start ringing when the magic bullet of a claimed "full DNA match" turns up in such questionable circumstances.
-
so if people dident know this and were missled whos fault was that.
I forgot to mention to you Nugnug that following Simon Hall's confession, I spoke to someone in the village of Capel St Mary. Her name was Karen.
Then what do you know, Billy Middleton allegedly also spoke to someone from the village of Capel St Mary, who he publicly described as sounding much like Karen's partner. He (The partner) ended up in prison sometime after that but Billy forgot to tell his readers this fact. ::)
Anyway, it's been my opinion for a long time now that Billy Middleton was the person responsible for contacting various agencies at that time and attempted to mix things up a bit and mislead people regarding the validity of the confession.
Won't it be interesting when the truth eventually comes out into the public domain regarding this. I wonder how the MOJ community will react.
-
are well im sure everything will like the qustion about seaman that you keep avioding.
but its not going to go away.
at the end your the one in the postion of the facts like the details of the confession.
and weather seaman was found at the crime scene and if it was when you became aware of it.
-
http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/re-simon-hall-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/
»ADMINISTRATORS NOTE (The Administrator is Billy Middleton) : I HAVE BEEN SENT THE FOLLOWING BY SANDRA AT 20:59 = That's Dr Sandra Lean to you and me
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.
Just 2 sentences and so begins the emotional manipulation ::) "One of the easiest ways to spot an emotional manipulator is that they often attempt to establish intimacy through the early sharing of deeply personal information that is generally of the "hook-you-in-and-make-you-sorry-for-me" variety. Initially you may perceive this type of person as very sensitive, emotionally open and maybe a little vulnerable. Believe me when I say that an emotional manipulator is about as vulnerable as a rabid pit bull, and there will always be a problem or a crisis to overcome.
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:
“In the interests of justice and pending Mr Hall’s forthcoming appeal, this website is temporarily closed. Simon would like to thank everyone for their support and their continued interest in his case.”
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.
We were faced with a dilemma – Simon’s letter does not talk about taking everything down, or making his case unable to be found in a search – indeed, he is quite clear that he wants a message displayed on his site, and has included the word “temporarily,” which did not feature before. He asks that everything be “stopped.” The caseblog had been closed since early October, and the forum was locked on November 21st, so Simon’s requests had already been dealt with.
Stephanie’s requests, on the other hand, had changed, and continued to change, from closing the site, to taking everything down completely, to ensuring nothing could be found in a web search (something, incidentally, we could not guarantee, even if we took the entire site down.) Even her last email is unclear – how could a message from Simon be posted in “a thread” if the forum had also been removed?
Stephanie simply feared any association with Billy Middleton would tarnish her reputation, that of her husbands and subsequently have a negative impact on his case/appeal.
The disingenuous portrayal of delay, posted publicly within 72 hours, was deeply concerning, as there had been previous instances of such behaviour.
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!
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.
http://www.friedgreentomatoes.org/articles/emotional_manipulation.php
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,664.msg18035.html
-
so was seaman found at the crime scene than steph.
-
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.
I'm not inclined to take Stephanie's word at face value because, amongst other things, as she openly admits, she took a post from my facebook wall, altered it, then posted it elsewhere to make it look as if I was guilty of wrongdoing when she knew perfectly well I was not.
I'm not inclined to take Stephanie's word at face value because her support for dozens of her contentions consists of links to pop-psychology websites with no credibility whatsoever and newspaper articles in publications which have already been shown to be dishonest.
I asked some questions earlier;
given the number of other MoJ cases Stephanie has attacked - on the basis of Simon's confession does she now think all of those claiming wrongful conviction are lying?
Was Simon under the influence of Spice when he confessed?
What was the state of his mental and emotional well-being in the run up to, and at the time of, the confession?
What was the detail of the confession, and what were the circumstances in which it was made?
These questions are not "attacks," they are valid questions which have never been answered. I noticed there were some claims posted earlier in this thread that Simon's confession was "forced" - does Stephanie have any comment on those claims?
-
Stephanie claims she wants me to revise my book, and has spent 16 pages of posts refusing to give me the accurate information with which I could do so!
-
I'm not inclined to take Stephanie's word at face value because, amongst other things, as she openly admits, she took a post from my facebook wall, altered it, then posted it elsewhere to make it look as if I was guilty of wrongdoing when she knew perfectly well I was not.
You are projecting Sandra!
Sandra Lean wrote:
"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.http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/re-simon-hall-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/
Sandra Lean said:
""The public opinion was so much against Luke Mitchell and the Mitchell family that to start speaking in support and start questioning things has been risky," admits Sandra.
I was in a shop recently, talking to someone I know when another woman came in. The person I was speaking to mentioned that I'd been looking at the Luke Mitchell case, and this other woman - you know the kind, knuckles scrapping on the floor - turned and growled something like: 'Well, you'd just better watch yourself'."
There have been other, even more worrying incidents which Sandra prefers not to discuss publicly. Yet she is so driven to lift the lid on what she sees as fundamental flaws in the justice system which have sent Mitchell to jail for 20 years, that she's prepared to take the flak: "I'll just not shop in that shop for a while," she shrugs.
http://truthinjustice.org/no-smoke.htm
I'm not inclined to take Stephanie's word at face value because her support for dozens of her contentions consists of links to pop-psychology websites with no credibility whatsoever and newspaper articles in publications which have already been shown to be dishonest.
Once again you are projecting!
-
given the number of other MoJ cases Stephanie has attacked - on the basis of Simon's confession does she now think all of those claiming wrongful conviction are lying?
Billy Middleton is not a victim of a miscarriage of justice nor was he wrongly accused. Middleton showed his true colours to me and many others back in 2010 (Or before) including yourself. But rather than admit to his wrong doings and indeed your own, you both attempted damage limitations, which ultimately back fired.
For clarity; I do indeed think Billy Middleton is a liar and I have never wavered from this for many years.
-
Stephanie claims she wants me to revise my book, and has spent 16 pages of posts refusing to give me the accurate information with which I could do so!
I'm not inclined to take Stephanie's word at face value
::)
Yet you'll take the word of a convicted murderer like Luke Mitchell, for example ::) even when it's blatantly obvious he's guilty.
-
so was seaman found at the crime scene than steph.
bump
-
Stephanie claims she wants me to revise my book, and has spent 16 pages of posts refusing to give me the accurate information with which I could do so!
The accurate information regarding the Zenith burglary is already in the public domain Sandra; this came before the confession, though it seems you have forgotten to include this in your proposed synopsis
If it helps, I can give a synopsis of what the revision to the Simon Hall chapter in No Smoke would have comprised, and why:
“In August 2013, it was reported that Simon Hall had confessed to the murder, in what many considered questionable circumstances, after ten years of maintaining his innocence. Some observers (including Simon's family) expressed concerns about Simon's mental health immediately prior to, and at the time of, the confession (a suicide attempt in the months before, for example.)
The confession and the circumstances in which it was made, have never been made public. There were other suicide attempts, the last being in February 2014, when he was found dead in his cell. The confession, whether reliable or not, does not alter the fact that the case on which the conviction was founded was extremely weak, and fell far below the standards most of us would expect when a life sentence is the potential outcome of proceedings.
There can be no doubt that the confession shocked those fighting claimed cases of Miscarriage of Justice, and raised serious questions about whether those fights should continue. However, where the fight is based on the evidence of the case as used at trial and in subsequent appeal proceedings, and that evidence is not robust enough to justify the convictions obtained, then the fight must continue, in the name of true justice.
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.”
In response to being asked by the CCRC about the Zenith burglary:
Taken from official CCRC documents
Q - Have you told anyone?
SH - The only people I told was when I was on a visit with Mum Dad and Phoebe - and it might have been Shaun. I can't remember what I said but I told them we went into Zenith and took a few things. Mum was upset. We all agreed it wouldn't help to tell anyone. I thought anything that happened before 5.30 wouldn't help or influence things.
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6640.msg313302.html#msg313302
The transcript of SH's interview with the CCRC in April 2013 can be found here; scroll down to 4th April 2013
https://therealmrshspoofblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/27/the-burglary-omission-smear-campaign-hindsight/
Simon Hall had already publicly blogged how I found out about the burglary omission, yet chose to tell the CCRC something else entirely.
He also blogged:
"So here’s a good idea, tell them you did a burglary at around 5am that night because that will help your alibi for a murder that they say happened at 6am.
anyway, your mate will confirm your story…….
What’s that? His account is different to yours? He says you didn’t leave the Old Rep until 5am. Perhaps somebody is covering their own ar*e here? It makes you think about that article he did in the Evening Star newspaper, where he says ‘They’ve got the wrong man.’
Is that so hard to believe? Why didn’t I tell my legal team? Well I told some of my family about the burglary on a visit only a day or two after I came back from court. On that visit we mutually decided that it wouldn’t help my case because it only served to prove motive. The police were looking for a motive, initially implying that I saw Mrs Albert as a pain to my mother. Mum was always round there helping her because her own family never really bothered with her. But police gave up on that and went for the burglary motive.
You might think; ‘why this why that?’ It’s easy for people to think that if it was them they’d have done this or they’d have done that. That may be so, but it wasn’t them was it? It was me and I certainly wasn’t thinking straight. It was all so surreal but so frightening. I was crushed by the severe pressure I was under. This was like a tidal wave and I was just swept along with it. I couldn’t concentrate, I wasn’t sleeping. I wasn’t eating, I just wanted to hide away. I wanted to die!
I tried, in October 2003, after my first appeal was refused, rushed to hospital with severe blood loss. I’d lost all hope. That was the only thing I could think of. I wasn’t using my brain. https://therealmrshspoofblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/28/simon-halls-blogs/
"It was around that time that I got into heroin. I’d never smoked it before and I’ve never dreamt of smoking it before but I needed something as an escape to rely on, to get my mind out of prison, through the bars.
I was always off my face, I was always trying to forget where I was.
I was on heroin for about 4 years, my health had suffered. I’d lost so much weight, my mind was scrambled, I was so ill, I was in a bad way. I was even on the gear when the BBC came to HMP Dovegate to film the Rough Justice documentary.
Relationships were strained. I was a mess. I didn’t know if I was coming or going. I didn’t know who or what to trust.
Even though my parents knew about the burglary, they never brought it up again. They didn’t tell my legal team and neither did I because I genuinely believed it wouldn’t help the situation. I didn’t even tell my own wife! Not because I wanted to keep secrets from her, but because it seemed so irrelevant to the situation at the time and I didn’t want anyone to know I’d done burglary.
-
The accurate information regarding the Zenith burglary is already in the public domain Sandra; this came before the confession, though it seems you have forgotten to include this in your proposed synopsis
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6640.msg313302.html#msg313302
that the burlery you lied about for years is it.
-
I noticed there were some claims posted earlier in this thread that Simon's confession was "forced" - does Stephanie have any comment on those claims?
Who is making these claims Sandra? It often helps if you get to the source of the claims made and look at their possible motives for doing so.
Why would someone claim Simon's confession was "forced?" Does the person making these claims like to cause controversy, for example? Are they a reliable source? Do they have a history of making inflammatory claims? Do they have evidence to back up their claims? What are their motivations and so on and so forth..
-
that the burlery you lied about for years is it.
I was unaware of the Zenith burglary until 5th November 2012, I think you are referring to Stephanie Bon.
-
you perfectly aware of it and choose to lie about as jackie can confirm.
-
you perfectly aware of it and choose to lie about as jackie can confirm.
Simon Hall and those people he told about the Zenith burglary were the ones who chose to lie about this omission, not me.
-
sorry but theres proof to the contrary.
-
sorry but theres proof to the contrary.
nugnug
Joined: 15 Feb 2010
Posts: 1341
PostPosted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 10:59 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
im still in denial about this case i cant believe it. ::)
nugnug
Joined: 15 Feb 2010
Posts: 1341
PostPosted: Sat Aug 10, 2013 11:45 am Post subject: Reply with quote
i wonder was his mental health was assessed before he made a formall confession in the case of someone who hadent been convicted it would of been but with a convicted man it might not of been
Karen
Joined: 21 Apr 2010
Posts: 1211
PostPosted: Sat Aug 10, 2013 11:20 am Post subject: Reply with quote
I believe Simon had been in an open prison for some time Mo jo
You are correct nugnug he did seem to be having some sort of breakdown which appeared to get worse over this past year
As for his confession, I too am very shocked as are Simon's friends and family.
I would like to see this confession for myself. It will probably end up in the newspapers ..MODERATED OUT.
Karen
Joined: 21 Apr 2010
Posts: 1211
PostPosted: Sat Aug 10, 2013 12:12 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't know the answer to that question nugnug. As you will be aware, Simon was totally alienated from his family and friends ...MODERATED OUT ....
MODERATED OUT
I also know that the police took a statement from Simon also. Simon Hall gave a statement to the police in relation to alleged historical childhood abuse, nothing to do with his confession. Why would the police do this when they already believed he was guilty anyway? http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,6640.msg313343.html#msg313343
http://shirleymckie.myfastforum.org/ftopic1528-0-asc-0.php
-
sorry but theres proof to the contrary.
What there is proof of is that you have attacked, harassed and stalked me via the internet for years now.
-
I'm afraid there is Jackie has already suplyed it.
-
At 7.46 this morning, I posted
I'm not inclined to take Stephanie's word at face value because, amongst other things, as she openly admits, she took a post from my facebook wall, altered it, then posted it elsewhere to make it look as if I was guilty of wrongdoing when she knew perfectly well I was not.
Stephanie responded at 9.54am You are projecting Sandra
But wait! At 2.20am, Stephanie posted a long post, which she has now posted several times, which included the following excerpt from me
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
.
So, there you have it folks. The poster on here happily accusing all and sundry of dishonesty not only admits to dishonestly painting others as dishonest, but, when called out on it, attempts to use further dishonesty (you're projecting) to make it seem like her target is the one being dishonest.
Not particularly intelligent, utterly transparent, and, if I were so inclined, I'd even say, a little sad.
My advice, which will, of course, go completely unheeded, would be, Put the shovel down.
-
At 7.46 this morning, I posted
Stephanie responded at 9.54am
But wait! At 2.20am, Stephanie posted a long post, which she has now posted several times, which included the following excerpt from me.
So, there you have it folks. The poster on here happily accusing all and sundry of dishonesty not only admits to dishonestly painting others as dishonest, but, when called out on it, attempts to use further dishonesty (you're projecting) to make it seem like her target is the one being dishonest.
Not particularly intelligent, utterly transparent, and, if I were so inclined, I'd even say, a little sad.
My advice, which will, of course, go completely unheeded, would be, Put the shovel down.
Well said Sandra. I applaud you.
-
I agree :)
-
Bingo
-
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.
There are 2 sides to every story Sandra and I have yet to tell mine regarding the time period to which you refer but for balance (and transparency), you stated in November 2010:
"My motivation has been called into question, my honesty and integrity trashed, all because I chose to devote seven years of my life trying to help people. Yes, I know you were at the centre of a hate campaign, but that wasn't my doing and I played no part in it whatsoever - nobody could ever have used a single word I had said about you, because there was nothing to use. http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/re-simon-hall-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/
" 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.
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.
There was absolutely no intention to 'scapegoat' you for anything
My post was an attempt to take the wind out of his sails by saying, Yes, Stephanie did talk to John, but not in the sinister/negative way he is trying to portray it. What John has done is take an innocent mistake by Stephanie and turn it into a weapon for him to use against others
http://www.friedgreentomatoes.org/articles/emotional_manipulation.php
I'm not inclined to take Stephanie's word at face value because, amongst other things, as she openly admits, she took a post from my facebook wall, altered it, then posted it elsewhere to make it look as if I was guilty of wrongdoing when she knew perfectly well I was not.
The way you chose to word the above does indeed portray me in a sinister/negative way but that was your intent, though as I've stated, the other side to story has yet to be told.
However, it wasn't John who decided to take an innocent mistake made by me and choose to turn it into a weapon to use against others, it was you!
So, there you have it folks. The poster on here happily accusing all and sundry of dishonesty not only admits to dishonestly painting others as dishonest, but, when called out on it, attempts to use further dishonesty (you're projecting) to make it seem like her target is the one being dishonest.
Not particularly intelligent, utterly transparent, and, if I were so inclined, I'd even say, a little sad.
My advice, which will, of course, go completely unheeded, would be, Put the shovel down.
Maybe the intention of your above post was to knock the wind out of my sails but it merely solidifies to me what I learned about you long ago.
I recognise I cannot save all other victims from men like Simon Hall but I am appealing to your better nature to consider the impact your book could have on others. Whilst I fully understand you probably want to put it all behind you, there will be a point in the future imo where these matters will need addressing. Why wait when you can do something about it now?
-
Are people to sit back and do nothing when the authorities hide information, mislead the public about "facts," etc, or do we do what we can, with what we have, and leave it to people to make up their own minds what they think of the information presented?
Yet you sat back and did nothing when Simon Hall's guilt was being exposed back in early 2013? You sat back and did nothing when it became apparent Simon Hall had hidden information from the authorities (re the Zenith burglary) and indeed most of us and had misled the public about "facts," etc..
I don't understand your logic Sandra?
At that time, I asked you to help and come out and publicly support Simon's innocence but you refused and stated on the 3rd February 2013:
"I refer to your recent communications with me, your posts on the Bamber forum, and our previous exchanges.
While I appreciate that fighting a MOJ is an uphill struggle, and a steep learning curve, there are some "mistakes" which cannot be explained as ignorance, enthusiastic but misguided belief, or any of the other well trodden routes most people take on their journey towards justice.
I personally believe that your recent online behaviour, the way you handled Simon's confession to the other burglary, and the consequent attacks of Shaun and Stephanie Bon have all been detrimental to public support for Simon. The letter, supposedly from Simon, was a disgraceful slap in the face to many, many people who have tried to help Simon over the years.
I was a victim Sandra, a victim of a man who was both highly disturbed and indeed dangerous. I couldn't see the wood through the trees. My enthusiastic belief was indeed misguided and I was indeed ignorant to psychopathy and varying personality disorders.
-
At 7.46 this morning, I posted
Stephanie responded at 9.54am
But wait! At 2.20am, Stephanie posted a long post, which she has now posted several times, which included the following excerpt from me.
So, there you have it folks. The poster on here happily accusing all and sundry of dishonesty not only admits to dishonestly painting others as dishonest, but, when called out on it, attempts to use further dishonesty (you're projecting) to make it seem like her target is the one being dishonest.
Not particularly intelligent, utterly transparent, and, if I were so inclined, I'd even say, a little sad.
My advice, which will, of course, go completely unheeded, would be, Put the shovel down.
What a sad state of affairs Sandra considering you have only ever been kind to the person who is constantly attacking you
What dignified responses to these personal attacks
-
Yet you sat back and did nothing when Simon Hall's guilt was being exposed back in early 2013? You sat back and did nothing when it became apparent Simon Hall had hidden information from the authorities (re the Zenith burglary) and indeed most of us and had misled the public about "facts," etc..
I don't understand your logic Sandra?
At that time, I asked you to help and come out and publicly support Simon's innocence but you refused and stated on the 3rd February 2013:
"I refer to your recent communications with me, your posts on the Bamber forum, and our previous exchanges.
While I appreciate that fighting a MOJ is an uphill struggle, and a steep learning curve, there are some "mistakes" which cannot be explained as ignorance, enthusiastic but misguided belief, or any of the other well trodden routes most people take on their journey towards justice.
I personally believe that your recent online behaviour, the way you handled Simon's confession to the other burglary, and the consequent attacks of Shaun and Stephanie Bon have all been detrimental to public support for Simon. The letter, supposedly from Simon, was a disgraceful slap in the face to many, many people who have tried to help Simon over the years.
I was a victim Sandra, a victim of a man who was both highly disturbed and indeed dangerous. I couldn't see the wood through the trees. My enthusiastic belief was indeed misguided and I was indeed ignorant to psychopathy and varying personality disorders.
you were fully aware of the zenth bugerly a long time before anyone else was as i am sure will confirm
jackie was the first to mention it not you.
-
What a sad state of affairs Sandra considering you have only ever been kind to the person who is constantly attacking you
What dignified responses to these personal attacks
well said jackie, I am not an expert on any of the cases Sandra has supported but can see she responds eloquently and sticks to the facts which I applaud her for.
anyone who fights so hard for someone else without any gain deserves a medal and all of those she has previously supported should be eternally grateful.
-
The following was written by Dr Sandra Lean and published by Billy Middleton (November 23, 2010, 10:12:25 pm)http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/re-simon-hall-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/
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
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.
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[/b]
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[/b].
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.
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 people who are in vulnerable situations.
At 7.46 this morning, I posted
Stephanie responded at 9.54am
But wait! At 2.20am, Stephanie posted a long post, which she has now posted several times, which included the following excerpt from me.
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
So, there you have it folks. The poster on here happily accusing all and sundry of dishonesty not only admits to dishonestly painting others as dishonest, but, when called out on it, attempts to use further dishonesty (you're projecting) to make it seem like her target is the one being dishonest.
Not particularly intelligent, utterly transparent, and, if I were so inclined, I'd even say, a little sad.
My advice, which will, of course, go completely unheeded, would be, Put the shovel down.
-
As usual Sandra you are quick to criticise others and dish out meaningless advice.
However, this is both intellectually lazy and suggests a poor lack of insight on your part.
I am more than happy to disclose the actual, factual details regarding the events of October 2010 onwards and am more than happy to show how and why I have reached the conclusions I have.
Well said Sandra. I applaud you.
I agree :)
Bingo
What a sad state of affairs Sandra considering you have only ever been kind to the person who is constantly attacking you
What dignified responses to these personal attacks
well said jackie, I am not an expert on any of the cases Sandra has supported but can see she responds eloquently and sticks to the facts which I applaud her for.
anyone who fights so hard for someone else without any gain deserves a medal and all of those she has previously supported should be eternally grateful.
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.
It may interest you all to know that in Sandra's "other life," she suggests she specialises in helping people with issues of low self esteem, confidence, and the effects of bullying
-
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.
Following on from Simon Hall's confession on the 18th August 2013 I suggested, you and Billy Middleton appeared more concerned about your egos and personal agendas.
You stated:
"There is no ego in this for me, and certainly no personal agenda, other than being able to help if and where I can.
You went on to state;
"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 best interests to simply withdraw the book from circulation altogether.
Around the same time you appeared to accept the confession was genuine and had been made voluntarily and went on to state:
"Simon had a huge amount of support from a very large number of people. Perhaps you would consider that those people, at the very least, deserve an explanation.
Did you bother writing to Simon to ask for his explanation?
You also stated:
"You were not adverse to accepting the many, many hours of advice, assistance and support you had from me, personally, for a very long time. I sincerely hope you do not begrudge others the same - it is not the case that,because Simon has confessed, the others must, as a result, be guilty.
Firstly, I thought you did what you did voluntarily?
Secondly, why would you suggest something like this, when you did, knowing I had only just learned Simon Hall was guilty?
What happened to your offer of help at this time? How were you helping? Who were you trying to help?
You stated to me:
"I thought you were my friend.
Why the mixed messages?
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.
This suggests you wouldn't have taken Simon Hall's word for it either.
You are indeed entitled to your opinion Sandra and you are perfectly entitled to hold whatever opinion you had or have, but from my point of view the facts suggest this is indeed about your ego and personal agenda and has nothing whatsoever about truth and justice.
In 2010 Dr Sandra Lean publicly stated:
"Whether people accept it or not, posts on internet sites have real life consequences.
http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/re-simon-hall-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/
-
On the 8th August 2013 Dr Sandra Lean stated:
"I heard, at around 2pm this afternoon, the news that Simon had confessed
"I am thinking of you both this evening, and everything I have said in the past regarding Simon's case still stands.
How could everything you have said in the past regarding Simon's case still stand?
You never had full access to his case papers for starters.
You weren't privy to all the disclosures he made regarding the confession about the night/morning in question and how these may have linked in with all the material disclosed by the CPS - which you never had access to.
The chapter in your book was manufactured to suit the agenda of Simon Hall at that time.
Here is a list of some of those people who had seen all the paperwork
* The convicted
* The convicted parents
* According to the adopted mother of the convicted person, she invited all her friends to her house to go through the paperwork with a fine tooth comb following the guilty verdict
* Stephanie Bon
* Sandra Lean - though I have since learned much of what she wrote in her book 'No Smoke' relied on the hearsay of Miss Bon, the convicted person and his adoptive parents
* Bristol Innocence Project
* the BBC - prior to the Rough Justice documentary
* numerous solicitors and barristers - including Campbell Malone, Michael Mansfield, Danielle Cooper
* a family in the village of Capel
-
I received a PM on this forum from Miss xxx dated 2nd Feb 2013 - she said several things in her PM and I don't think it's right to post the entire contents up but the following concerned me.....
Quote:
"you stupid cow, are you going to announce another f**k up of his publicly?
unlike you it's not Simon I want to damage, it's you!"
The above comment was made to me from a previous campaigner of Simon Hall.
I've often wondered Sandra if your intentions, and indeed the intentions of Billy Middleton, weren't/aren't dissimilar to hers?
-
you were fully aware of the zenth bugerly a long time before anyone else was as i am sure will confirm
jackie was the first to mention it not you.
In relation to the Zenith burglary, on 12th April 2013, Simon Hall's brother stated:
"Here we go again!
Stephanie, please do everyone a favour and stop blaming everyone else for things that Simon is responsible for.
First, Simon had every chance to confess to his actions on the night of Joan's death, however he decided to keep this quiet. Saying that anyone else should go to the police is ridiculous as they wouldn't want Simon to get in to further trouble.
I don't condone him keeping this information back at all and I truly believe the only reason Simon and you decided to run with this is that it got out into the wild.
If you honestly believe that people conspired against Simon then that's just stupid and you should talk seriously with Simon.
He has a history that he shouldn't be proud of and to be honest, stolen goods from 11 years ago are the least of his worries if its true as you say he is suffering at the moment.
Hopefully he will be honest with you for a change, sadly this is something Simon finds hard to do most of the time.
Secondly, you keep bringing up Stephanie Bon as if you have any idea about the hard work she did and you have the right to judge an make ill informed comments.
Please do not get me wrong with anything I have written. This isn't an attack on you in any way, I don't want to get into a post war with you, just please stop mentioning people when you have no reason to.
I know you lack the ability to see reason sometimes as you have demonstrated on many occasions, possibly because of how involved you are with Simon..
-
He went on and stated:
"I don't condone Simon not telling the police and I will always believe that, no matter what Simon or you say and as for anyone else, I cannot comment why they didn't speak up. I myself only found out a few weeks before you did. I am allowed my own opinion and as for criticising Simon, I can, I am his brother and I have that right. He has done many wrong things in his life, most he will never admit too.
"I am Simon's brother, I know a lot of things that Simon has done and I know when he is backed into a corner, he lies. It's his nature! Always has been.
I can say things like this because I know him. He may have changed since being in prison, but I seriously doubt it!
"Although it was nice to see the quote from Simon's public outburst about his family again, You still didn't answer my question, why do you think Simon didn't tell you about the night in question and what happened? Surely you had a conversation about it?
Does any part of you think that Simon doesn't trust you?
Simon only ever sees himself and will NEVER take any responsibility for his own actions.
We could have avoided this slanging match you begin and fail to stop even though I asked you nicely. Shows your true intent and exactly what a c**t you truly are.
-
you were fully aware of the zenth bugerly a long time before anyone else was as i am sure will confirm
jackie was the first to mention it not you.
Jackie was indeed the first to post publicly on an internet forum about the Zenith burglary but she wasn't the first to know about it nor was she the first to speak publicly about it.
I learned about the Zenith burglary on the 5th November 2012.
How long and how often do you think the burglary omission had been publicly discussed prior to this? How many people knew about it before the omission finally got around to me almost 11 years later?
Simon Hall confirmed in April 2013 to the Criminal Cases Review Commission he had told others following his arrest, having already confirmed this publicly during one of his blogs a few months earlier.
Therefore this fact had been in the public domain since the murder in 2001.
In November 2012, Simon Hall's mother confirmed to the Bristol Innocence project she had been aware of the Zenith burglary ever since Simon told her about it.
It's a shame it took the rumour mill so many years to finally catch up with itself but that's exactly what happened.
The truth always outs in the end, however hard some people may attempt to hide the truth or distort it in some way.
-
So, there you have it folks. The poster on here happily accusing all and sundry of dishonesty not only admits to dishonestly painting others as dishonest, but, when called out on it, attempts to use further dishonesty (you're projecting) to make it seem like her target is the one being dishonest.
Not particularly intelligent, utterly transparent, and, if I were so inclined, I'd even say, a little sad.
My advice, which will, of course, go completely unheeded, would be, Put the shovel down.
You have manipulated the facts, used your ability to mislead and attempted to project your character flaws on to me.
Extremely devious Sandra!
Not particularly intelligent, utterly transparent, and, if I were so inclined, I'd even say, a little say! ::)
-
Stephanie said
Around the same time you appeared to accept the confession was genuine and had been made voluntarily and went on to state:
"Simon had a huge amount of support from a very large number of people. Perhaps you would consider that those people, at the very least, deserve an explanation
Context, of course, is everything! Since various parts of my email have been quoted in various contexts, here, for the avoidance of doubt, is the quoted email in its entirety - posters can make up their own minds what I "appeared to accept":
18th August 2013
Dear Stephanie,
I did not email you on behalf of anyone but myself. I did so to let you and Simon know that many people did not believe the "confession" as reported was genuine, or had been truly voluntarily made. There is no ego in this for me, and certainly no personal agenda, other than being able to help if and where I can.
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.
If, as you appear to be implying, Simon's confession is both genuine and voluntary, then I thank you for the clarification. You appear to have forgotten that I was highlighting Simon's case, along with many others for several years before WAP came into existence.
You were not averse to accepting the many, many hours of advice, assistance and support you had from me, personally, for a very long time. I sincerely hope you do not begrudge others the same - it is not the case that, because Simon has confessed, the others must, as a result, be guilty.
Simon had a huge amount of support from a very large number of people. Perhaps you would consider that those people, at the very least, deserve an explanation?
Sandra
The reason I mentioned Stephanie apparently "implying" that Simon was, in fact, guilty, is that she did not say so in her return email preferring, instead, to assert her beliefs about the guilt of others - that is the "standpoint" to which I refer in the email.
As I said, others on this forum are free to make of this whatever they choose.
-
I'm responding to specific points separately, to keep the thread as coherent as possible. Stephanie said
Firstly, I thought you did what you did voluntarily?
What, in anything I said in that email, suggests otherwise?
Secondly, why would you suggest something like this, when you did, knowing I had only just learned Simon Hall was guilty?
Something like what? Pointing out that just because Stephanie believed Simon was guilty did not mean others were also guilty? Suggesting that, since Stephanie believed Simon to be guilty, then perhaps those who had supported him so unwaveringly for so long deserved an explanation?
For clarity, Stephanie, by 18th August, had not "only just learned Simon Hall was guilty" - she had known for almost a month - according to reporting on the inquest (which may not be accurate, I accept that) Simon told her on the telephone on July 23rd.
-
Jackie was indeed the first to post publicly on an internet forum about the Zenith burglary but she wasn't the first to know about it nor was she the first to speak publicly about it.
I learned about the Zenith burglary on the 5th November 2012.
How long and how often do you think the burglary omission had been publicly discussed prior to this? How many people knew about it before the omission finally got around to me almost 11 years later?
Simon Hall confirmed in April 2013 to the Criminal Cases Review Commission he had told others following his arrest, having already confirmed this publicly during one of his blogs a few months earlier.
Therefore this fact had been in the public domain since the murder in 2001.
In November 2012, Simon Hall's mother confirmed to the Bristol Innocence project she had been aware of the Zenith burglary ever since Simon told her about it.
It's a shame it took the rumour mill so many years to finally catch up with itself but that's exactly what happened.
The truth always outs in the end, however hard some people may attempt to hide the truth or distort it in some way.
yes and jackie knew becouse you mentioned it to her thinking she wouldent tell anybody so you were less than honest yourself aboutt it.
-
Quoting from June 28th 2015, Stephanie posted
I received a PM on this forum from Miss xxx dated 2nd Feb 2013 - she said several things in her PM and I don't think it's right to post the entire contents up but the following concerned me.....
"you stupid cow, are you going to announce another f**k up of his publicly?
unlike you it's not Simon I want to damage, it's you!"
The above comment was made to me from a previous campaigner of Simon Hall.
I've often wondered Sandra if your intentions, and indeed the intentions of Billy Middleton, weren't/aren't dissimilar to hers?
I have no idea who Miss xxx is, and would not associate myself with her comments. There is nothing, anywhere, and there never has been, to suggest I have or have had any intention to damage Stephanie Hall, or, indeed, anyone.
-
Quoting from my post
So, there you have it folks. The poster on here happily accusing all and sundry of dishonesty not only admits to dishonestly painting others as dishonest, but, when called out on it, attempts to use further dishonesty (you're projecting) to make it seem like her target is the one being dishonest.
Not particularly intelligent, utterly transparent, and, if I were so inclined, I'd even say, a little sad.
My advice, which will, of course, go completely unheeded, would be, Put the shovel down.
Stephanie's response is
You have manipulated the facts, used your ability to mislead and attempted to project your character flaws on to me.
Extremely devious Sandra!
Not particularly intelligent, utterly transparent, and, if I were so inclined, I'd even say, a little say!
As I said, the posters/readers on this forum are entitled to think and believe whatever they choose. Please see post #246, although I suspect, like me, by now many readers/posters would prefer to pull out their own fingernails than endure any more of this nonsense.
-
Context, of course, is everything! Since various parts of my email have been quoted in various contexts, here, for the avoidance of doubt, is the quoted email in its entirety - posters can make up their own minds what I "appeared to accept":
18th August 2013
Dear Stephanie,
I did not email you on behalf of anyone but myself. I did so to let you and Simon know that many people did not believe the "confession" as reported was genuine, or had been truly voluntarily made. There is no ego in this for me, and certainly no personal agenda, other than being able to help if and where I can.
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.
If, as you appear to be implying, Simon's confession is both genuine and voluntary, then I thank you for the clarification. You appear to have forgotten that I was highlighting Simon's case, along with many others for several years before WAP came into existence.
You were not averse to accepting the many, many hours of advice, assistance and support you had from me, personally, for a very long time. I sincerely hope you do not begrudge others the same - it is not the case that, because Simon has confessed, the others must, as a result, be guilty.
Simon had a huge amount of support from a very large number of people. Perhaps you would consider that those people, at the very least, deserve an explanation?
Sandra
The reason I mentioned Stephanie apparently "implying" that Simon was, in fact, guilty, is that she did not say so in her return email preferring, instead, to assert her beliefs about the guilt of others - that is the "standpoint" to which I refer in the email.
As I said, others on this forum are free to make of this whatever they choose.
You emailed on 8th & 18th August 2013
On the 8th August 2013 Dr Sandra Lean stated:
"I heard, at around 2pm this afternoon, the news that Simon had confessed
"I am thinking of you both this evening, and everything I have said in the past regarding Simon's case still stands.
How could everything you have said in the past regarding Simon's case still stand?
You never had full access to his case papers for starters.
You weren't privy to all the disclosures he made regarding the confession about the night/morning in question and how these may have linked in with all the material disclosed by the CPS - which you never had access to.
The chapter in your book was manufactured to suit the agenda of Simon Hall at that time.
I replied to your email dated the 8th on the 18th Aug, and I referred to Billy Middleton (Having recently been informed of his malicious and spiteful blog regarding the confession http://www.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/2013/08/mojs-simon-halls-confession/ ), to which you replied with the above dated the 18th.
As I said, the posters/readers on this forum are entitled to think and believe whatever they choose. Please see post #246
Please see posts #250, 255 & 256
-
I have no idea who Miss xxx is, and would not associate myself with her comments. There is nothing, anywhere, and there never has been, to suggest I have or have had any intention to damage Stephanie Hall, or, indeed, anyone.
Miss Bon
http://forum.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/series-on-cases-from-sandra-leans-book-no-smoke/re-simon-hall-wrongly-convicted-of-murder/
Yet you sat back and did nothing when Simon Hall's guilt was being exposed back in early 2013? You sat back and did nothing when it became apparent Simon Hall had hidden information from the authorities (re the Zenith burglary) and indeed most of us and had misled the public about "facts," etc..
I don't understand your logic Sandra?
At that time, I asked you to help and come out and publicly support Simon's innocence but you refused and stated on the 3rd February 2013:
"I refer to your recent communications with me, your posts on the Bamber forum, and our previous exchanges.
While I appreciate that fighting a MOJ is an uphill struggle, and a steep learning curve, there are some "mistakes" which cannot be explained as ignorance, enthusiastic but misguided belief, or any of the other well trodden routes most people take on their journey towards justice.
I personally believe that your recent online behaviour, the way you handled Simon's confession to the other burglary, and the consequent attacks of Shaun and Stephanie Bon have all been detrimental to public support for Simon. The letter, supposedly from Simon, was a disgraceful slap in the face to many, many people who have tried to help Simon over the years.
I was a victim Sandra, a victim of a man who was both highly disturbed and indeed dangerous. I couldn't see the wood through the trees. My enthusiastic belief was indeed misguided and I was indeed ignorant to psychopathy and varying personality disorders.
-
You have manipulated the facts, used your ability to mislead and attempted to project your character flaws on to me.
Extremely devious Sandra!
Not particularly intelligent, utterly transparent, and, if I were so inclined, I'd even say, a little say! ::)
Disgraceful personal attack on Sanda
-
Manipulating the facts?
Stephanie posted On the 8th August 2013 Dr Sandra Lean stated:
"I heard, at around 2pm this afternoon, the news that Simon had confessed
"I am thinking of you both this evening, and everything I have said in the past regarding Simon's case still stands
What the email actually said was:
I heard, at around 2pm this afternoon, the news that Simon had "confessed his guilt."
(note the inverted commas)
I don't want to say too much by email, but I wanted you to know that I am thinking of you both this evening, and everything I have said in the past regarding Simon's case still stands. Many of the others I have spoken with today feel the same way.
Clearly, from the moment I heard about the confession, and from my first contact with Stephanie regarding it, I was questioning its validity (which I made even clearer in my next communication.) I also made it clear in both communications that I was not the only one with such questions.
However, this thread has demonstrated quite clearly that Stephanie is more than willing to cherry pick parts of communications, or to alter them, or both, to make it look as if they support her claims, just as she did all those years ago with the facebook post. Remember, Stephanie openly admitted to taking one of my posts, altering its content, then posting it (in its altered form) elsewhere as if it was the original post. She did so to make it look like I was one of a number of people she perceived to be "attacking" her "behind the scenes" knowing I was not.
Stephanie's "quotes" cannot be trusted - I believe that has been proven to be the case. However, it will become extremely tedious if I'm to respond to every quote attributed to me with the actual original wording, so I'm not going to do so any more.
As for the title of this thread, and my book, I have given my answers, and, again, we'd just be re-hashing old ground in order to indulge Stephanie's opinion (to which, of course, she is absolutely entitled).
-
She did so to make it look like I was one of a number of people she perceived to be "attacking" her "behind the scenes" knowing I was not.
To make it clear Sandra, and with hindsight, that is exactly what you were doing. It's what people like you do - exploit, mistreat and abuse/attack people who are in vulnerable situations.
It's evidenced in both yours and Billy Middleton's 2010 & 2013 publications on the Wronglyaccusedperson website and indeed other communications.
"Psychological manipulation can be defined as the exercise of undue influence through mental distortion and emotional exploitation, with the intention to seize power, control, benefits and/or privileges at the victim’s expense.
It is important to distinguish healthy social influence from psychological manipulation. Healthy social influence occurs between most people, and is part of the give and take of constructive relationships. In psychological manipulation, one person is used for the benefit of another. The manipulator deliberately creates an imbalance of power, and exploits the victim to serve his or her agenda.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/communication-success/201510/14-signs-psychological-and-emotional-manipulation
-
To make it clear Sandra, and with hindsight, that is exactly what you were doing. It's what people like you do - exploit, mistreat and abuse/attack people who are in vulnerable situations.
It's evidenced in both yours and Billy Middleton's 2010 & 2013 publications on the Wronglyaccusedperson website and indeed other communications.
"Psychological manipulation can be defined as the exercise of undue influence through mental distortion and emotional exploitation, with the intention to seize power, control, benefits and/or privileges at the victim’s expense.
It is important to distinguish healthy social influence from psychological manipulation. Healthy social influence occurs between most people, and is part of the give and take of constructive relationships. In psychological manipulation, one person is used for the benefit of another. The manipulator deliberately creates an imbalance of power, and exploits the victim to serve his or her agenda.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/communication-success/201510/14-signs-psychological-and-emotional-manipulation
I have reported this personal attack to the moderators
This is against forum rule
You should be banned immediately
You are a disgrace
-
As usual Sandra you are quick to criticise others and dish out meaningless advice.
However, this is both intellectually lazy and suggests a poor lack of insight on your part.
I am more than happy to disclose the actual, factual details regarding the events of October 2010 onwards and am more than happy to show how and why I have reached the conclusions I have.
It may interest you all to know that in Sandra's "other life," she suggests she specialises in helping people with issues of low self esteem, confidence, and the effects of bullying
Further Sandra, I have concluded the verbal communications between us following both Simon Hall's confession and indeed death were nothing more than fishing expeditions. Your posts here since then confirm this.
-
Further Sandra, I have concluded the verbal communications between us following both Simon Hall's confession and indeed death were nothing more than fishing expeditions. Your posts here since then confirm this.
Instead of throwing abuse at Sandra and Nugnug I suggest you go out and get a job like everyone else then we can all get on and discuss the Jeremy Bamber case
-
stephny was seaman found at the crime scene in the simon hall case yes or no.
-
Further Sandra, I have concluded the verbal communications between us following both Simon Hall's confession and indeed death were nothing more than fishing expeditions. Your posts here since then confirm this.
Hi Steph, it must have been really hard dealing with Simon's death and his confession, you have my deepest sympathy and it's a credit how you have come through all this. Have you ever thought of writing a book yourself or approaching tv how you had to deal with all this trauma and internet and family abuse? I for one have found your story fascinating, there is a Bamber topic for any one not wishing to read or debate with you.
-
was seaman found scene steph please confirm or refute this.
-
was seaman found scene steph please confirm or refute this.
There were defo no sailors found at the scene so I suspect you mean semen? However, I don't think Steph has ever indicated that the victim was raped and simply because there was no semen, doesn't mean the crime wasn't sexually motivated.
-
stephny was seaman found at the crime scene in the simon hall case yes or no.
was seaman found scene steph please confirm or refute this.
When Billy Middleton moved in with Sandra Lean in November 2010, why did he leave his cigarette's burning in the ashtrays and show no care or concern of the possible consequences of his actions?
-
There were defo no sailors found at the scene so I suspect you mean semen? However, I don't think Steph has ever indicated that the victim was raped and simply because there was no semen, doesn't mean the crime wasn't sexually motivated.
i dident ask weather the crime was sexauly motivated i asked weather sperm was found and its a very easy qustion to answer.
-
When Billy Middleton moved in with Sandra Lean in November 2010, why did he leave his cigarette's burning in the ashtrays and show no care or concern of the possible consequences of his actions?
Seems strange that two separate fires started Steph, surely that cannot be coincidence? Didn't know that Billy moved in with Sandra, was he supplying drinks to underage girls as well? What's that about a sexual charge? Something not right here.
-
i dident ask weather the crime was sexauly motivated i asked weather sperm was found and its a very easy qustion to answer.
On the last night of his whirlwind romance with Sandra Lean (end of 2010), why was Billy Middleton allegedly found covered in blood - somewhere in Edinburgh- after an argument with Sandra? What were his injuries and how were they caused? Apparently he went home with facial cuts/bruising? Surely someone else noticed them?
-
Hi Steph, it must have been really hard dealing with Simon's death and his confession, you have my deepest sympathy and it's a credit how you have come through all this. Have you ever thought of writing a book yourself or approaching tv how you had to deal with all this trauma and internet and family abuse? I for one have found your story fascinating, there is a Bamber topic for any one not wishing to read or debate with you.
Hi Justice, appreciate your sentiments. Will come back to this.
-
My niece (2) was staying over that night with two friends. They asked if I could get them some drink. I was not keen on the idea, but I agreed to get them two small bottles of WKD to share. Everybody was having a good time, just group of girls having girly chats. One of them said that she did not think that boys found her attractive so we all kept reassuring her and I made a silly comment that 'I would be'. I just meant to give her some confidence
-
Hi Justice, appreciate your sentiments. Will come back to this.
Thanks Steph, I will be gone a while just off to empty the river Trent with Caroline.
-
Hi Justice, appreciate your sentiments. Will come back to this.
so was sperm found at the crime scene could you confirm or refute this.
-
so wassperm found at the crime scene could you confirm or refute this.
God we're going some now, I know DNA has advanced but wasp sperm?
-
all this fuss becouse i asked a simple qustion that can be very easly answered.
-
all this fuss becouse i asked a simple qustion that can be very easly answered.
Sorry Nugnug just trying to add humour, sometimes it takes the sting out of things.
-
Seems strange that two separate fires started Steph, surely that cannot be coincidence? Didn't know that Billy moved in with Sandra, was he supplying drinks to underage girls as well? What's that about a sexual charge? Something not right here.
What also seems strange Justice is that Sandra Lean supported Billy Middleton's claims that he had been wrongly accused even after he had revealed another side to his personality.
It was AFTER these events that Sandra published her malicious blog, aimed at tarnishing my name and alluding to me being responsible for her having been accosted in her local shop. How do any of us know this happened? We only have Sandra's word for it. And as I have showed previously on this thread - there appears to be a pattern of her being accosted in shops?
-
Hi Steph, it must have been really hard dealing with Simon's death and his confession, you have my deepest sympathy and it's a credit how you have come through all this. Have you ever thought of writing a book yourself or approaching tv how you had to deal with all this trauma and internet and family abuse? I for one have found your story fascinating, there is a Bamber topic for any one not wishing to read or debate with you.
Why don't you ask Stephanie how often she ever visited her gorgus hubby in prison when she assumed he was innocent
Many months apart
As for personal abuse she throws on a daily basis are you really saying she is handling things well
Has she ever apologised to the innocent people she openly accused of the murder
-
What also seems strange Justice is that Sandra Lean supported Billy Middleton's claims that he had been wrongly accused even after he had revealed another side to his personality.
It was AFTER these events that Sandra published her malicious blog, aimed at tarnishing my name and alluding to me being responsible for her having been accosted in her local shop. How do any of us know this happened? We only have Sandra's word for it. And as I have showed previously on this thread - there appears to be a pattern of her being accosted in shops?
you seem to have avioded my qustion agian was sperm found at the crime scene.
-
Thanks Steph, I will be gone a while just off to empty the river Trent with Caroline.
Don't forget the bread to feed the trolls ducks.
Interestingly Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton didn't turn up for the 3 day appeal hearing in December 2010. According to Sandra, she told me she had her 'spies?' Peter Hill was there instead. Again according to Sandra he would be taking notes for her?
-
Why don't you ask Stephanie how often she ever visited her gorgus hubby in prison when she assumed he was innocent
Many months apart
As for personal abuse she throws on a daily basis are you really saying she is handling things well
Has she ever apologised to the innocent people she openly accused of the murder
Hi Jackie, I think Steph has been through enough and whatever Steph wants to tell me she can, what she chooses not to is up to her. We are all human and there is not a person living who doesn't make mistakes, the police told my daughter she would have been the last to know in her case and they can understand why she backed him up. Friends or true friends or anyone who has been involved with Steph shouldn't need apologies, inside Steph is still grieving and hurt and I cannot but help and feel sadness for her, it's my nature, that's why it might be a good idea to write a book or do a tv programme, she could vent her anger and speak up for women like her.
-
My niece (2) was staying over that night with two friends. They asked if I could get them some drink. I was not keen on the idea, but I agreed to get them two small bottles of WKD to share. Everybody was having a good time, just group of girls having girly chats. One of them said that she did not think that boys found her attractive so we all kept reassuring her and I made a silly comment that 'I would be'. I just meant to give her some confidence
I missed this. Yes isn't this Billy Middletons speech, or is this taken from his website? There are several versions aren't there?
What about the murdered rabbits? Cruelty to animals.. Hmm
-
I missed this. Yes isn't this Billy Middletons speech, or is this taken from his website? There are several versions aren't there?
What about the murdered rabbits? Cruelty to animals.. Hmm
Hang on Steph, just pulling the wet suit on, took Jackie and Lookouts advice.
-
Hang on Steph, just pulling the wet suit on, took Jackie and Lookouts advice.
If you are travelling by bike I'd take the scenic route like bamber did. Might draw attention to yourself otherwise.
-
Hi Jackie, I think Steph has been through enough and whatever Steph wants to tell me she can, what she chooses not to is up to her. We are all human and there is not a person living who doesn't make mistakes, the police told my daughter she would have been the last to know in her case and they can understand why she backed him up. Friends or true friends or anyone who has been involved with Steph shouldn't need apologies, inside Steph is still grieving and hurt and I cannot but help and feel sadness for her, it's my nature, that's why it might be a good idea to write a book or do a tv programme, she could vent her anger and speak up for women like her.
Maybe you should speak to Sandra I have always found her very kind and sensible as I have with nug nug
I don't know why Stephanie didn't visit Simon much, it appears she seems more interested in spending time on the forums
If I had a husband in prison who I believed was innocent I would never miss a single visit
-
Don't forget the bread to feed the trolls ducks.
Interestingly Sandra Lean and Billy Middleton didn't turn up for the 3 day appeal hearing in December 2010. According to Sandra, she told me she had her 'spies?' Peter Hill was there instead. Again according to Sandra he would be taking notes for her?
why do you keep avoiding my question.
-
What also seems strange Justice is that Sandra Lean supported Billy Middleton's claims that he had been wrongly accused even after he had revealed another side to his personality.
It was AFTER these events that Sandra published her malicious blog, aimed at tarnishing my name and alluding to me being responsible for her having been accosted in her local shop. How do any of us know this happened? We only have Sandra's word for it. And as I have showed previously on this thread - there appears to be a pattern of her being accosted in shops?
Refer to post #120 and #121
-
God we're going some now, I know DNA has advanced but wasp sperm?
???
-
Nugnug straight forward question and easy to answer and we all know no sailors at the scene easy to make a spelling error we all do it well most of us.
Hi Susie it was intended as a joke and nugnug has been apologised to, I tried to bring humour to a delicate situation, nugnug has asked the same question loads and loads of times, Steph must find it hard to answer this question about Sperm, why the need to keep goading and attacking her like this, her husband confessed to the crime and then committed suicide hasn't she been through enough? Steph like Mike who has had his problems vent their anger, both spend time on forums doing this yet no one criticises Mike? Imagine the person you loved and believed is not that person. Must be horrible what both Steph and Mike have been through.
-
yes ive asked the same qustion over and over agian and its noticable that it hasnt been anwesered when it easly could be.
-
See what I mean Susie, not very nice being hounded and trolled x
-
See what I mean Susie, not very nice being hounded and trolled x
heck am I being hounded and trolled think I will go back to being just a spectator it is safer X
-
Hi Susie it was intended as a joke and nugnug has been apologised to, I tried to bring humour to a delicate situation, nugnug has asked the same question loads and loads of times, Steph must find it hard to answer this question about Sperm, why the need to keep goading and attacking her like this, her husband confessed to the crime and then committed suicide hasn't she been through enough? Steph like Mike who has had his problems vent their anger, both spend time on forums doing this yet no one criticises Mike? Imagine the person you loved and believed is not that person. Must be horrible what both Steph and Mike have been through.
Sorry I was not aware nugnug was goading Steph and I thought it was the Billy Middleton case they were discussing. Sorry my mistake X
-
Sorry I was not aware nugnug was goading Steph and I thought it was the Billy Middleton case they were discussing. Sorry my mistake X
Susie you don't have to say sorry you have been through enough lately, sorry you got caught in this, I picture Steph same as my daughter who was duped, that's all xx
-
Susie you don't have to say sorry you have been through enough lately, sorry you got caught in this, I picture Steph same as my daughter who was duped, that's all xx
Justice
thanks for being so understanding you are such a nice caring man Xxx
-
Nug nug I think you are flogging a dead horse regarding this question and if I were you I would let it rest. Stephanie clearly doesn't want to answer.
Regarding SH posting the living arrangements of SL I personally think that is a step too far to put that on a public forum. It shouldn't be allowed and the mods need to put a stop to that. I didn't think we were allowed to post personal comments so if any of the mods are reading this, these posts should imo be removed.
-
Sorry I was not aware nugnug was goading Steph and I thought it was the Billy Middleton case they were discussing. Sorry my mistake X
asking a qustion about a murder case is goading now is it.
-
asking a qustion about a murder case is goading now is it.
nugnug I have never ever considered you to be a person who does or would goad anyone. Over the years on here I have at times seen posters be very unkind to you and I cannot tolerate that kind of behaviour. My post to Justice was more or less saying I did not have a clue what case you and Steph were talking about and still don't but I could not see any harm in the question you asked her. I was offering an apology if my posts had offended anyone as that was not my intention and I was as I thought closing the subject down :)
-
oh im sorry susan i replied to the wrong post i meant to reply to justice.
-
oh im sorry susan i replied to the wrong post i meant to reply to justice.
thanks for that my friend X
-
Hi Susie it was intended as a joke and nugnug has been apologised to, I tried to bring humour to a delicate situation, nugnug has asked the same question loads and loads of times, Steph must find it hard to answer this question about Sperm, why the need to keep goading and attacking her like this, her husband confessed to the crime and then committed suicide hasn't she been through enough? Steph like Mike who has had his problems vent their anger, both spend time on forums doing this yet no one criticises Mike? Imagine the person you loved and believed is not that person. Must be horrible what both Steph and Mike have been through.
Well said Justice!
-
Nug nug I think you are flogging a dead horse regarding this question and if I were you I would let it rest. Stephanie clearly doesn't want to answer.
Regarding SH posting the living arrangements of SL I personally think that is a step too far to put that on a public forum. It shouldn't be allowed and the mods need to put a stop to that. I didn't think we were allowed to post personal comments so if any of the mods are reading this, these posts should imo be removed.
i know im floging a dead horse theres a reason im doing it though.
-
Well said Justice!
Thanks Caroline, i am defending what Steph has been through and I realise that Steph might not be everybody's cup of tea, but as a parent it's heart breaking to see your daughter go through something similar as what Steph has gone through.
-
Thanks Caroline, i am defending what Steph has been through and I realise that Steph might not be everybody's cup of tea, but as a parent it's heart breaking to see your daughter go through something similar as what Steph has gone through.
I agree, not many people have come close to walking in her shoes, this is just entertainment for most people on here but it was Steph's life. Easy to forget people are living with the consequences of the stuff we debate.
-
i know im floging a dead horse theres a reason im doing it though.
I know Nugnug keep going
Don't take any notice of the ridiculous idea that you ever stalked anyone
-
i know im floging a dead horse theres a reason im doing it though.
So it is pre planned and on purpose then? As I said you are trolling her then
-
I agree, not many people have come close to walking in her shoes, this is just entertainment for most people on here but it was Steph's life. Easy to forget people are living with the consequences of the stuff we debate.
Maybe you would like to give an opinion on why Steph could not be bothered to visit her husband on a regular basis
What do you think he was going through?
-
i know im floging a dead horse theres a reason im doing it though.
Maybe if you explained the reason?
-
I know Nugnug keep going
Don't take any notice of the ridiculous idea that you ever stalked anyone
well as the thread was created purely for the purpose of stalking somone i find it a tiny bit ironic.
-
Maybe you would like to give an opinion on why Steph could not be bothered to visit her husband on a regular basis
What do you think he was going through?
Sometimes Jackie men don't like their wife's visiting them in prison, I know I wouldn't want my wife too.
-
Maybe you would like to give an opinion on why Steph could not be bothered to visit her husband on a regular basis
What do you think he was going through?
Why would I want to give an opinion on your opinion of why Steph wasn't banging on the prison gates everyday. It's you who is saying she 'couldn't be bothered'. What she did or didn't do, isn't really your concern unless she 'chooses' to comment.
-
Sometimes Jackie men don't like their wife's visiting them in prison, I know I wouldn't want my wife too.
hav you been in prison then justice.
-
well as the thread was created purely for the purpose of stalking somone i find it a tiny bit ironic.
Define YOUR definition of stalking nugnug.
If you read the first post on this thread it may deter you from making false allegations, though unlikely.
-
I agree, not many people have come close to walking in her shoes, this is just entertainment for most people on here but it was Steph's life. Easy to forget people are living with the consequences of the stuff we debate.
Malice is often why some people thrive on the perceived misery of others. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-the-name-love/200901/why-are-we-pleased-others-misfortune
Generally regarded as "morally evil" and said to be the worst trait in human nature closely related to cruelty.
-
Malice is often why some people thrive on the perceived misery of others. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-the-name-love/200901/why-are-we-pleased-others-misfortune
Also defined as "morally evil" and said to be the worst trait in human nature.
Do you think that is why people use the word Karma, they want revenge?
-
Do you think that is why people use the word Karma, they want revenge?
Who knows Justice, could also be indifference.
Karma (Sanskrit: IPA: [?k?rm?] ( listen); Pali: kamma) means action, work or deed; it also refers to the spiritual principle of cause and effect where intent and actions of an individual (cause) influence the future of that individual (effect).
-
Sorry I was not aware nugnug was goading Steph and I thought it was the Billy Middleton case they were discussing. Sorry my mistake X
Which tells us a lot about your insight ::) or lack of
-
nugnug I have never ever considered you to be a person who does or would goad anyone. Over the years on here I have at times seen posters be very unkind to you and I cannot tolerate that kind of behaviour. My post to Justice was more or less saying I did not have a clue what case you and Steph were talking about and still don't but I could not see any harm in the question you asked her. I was offering an apology if my posts had offended anyone as that was not my intention and I was as I thought closing the subject down :)
Sounds like you are holding grudges there Susan.
-
Sounds like you are holding grudges there Susan.
So Susan's on your hit list now for just giving an opinion
-
Sometimes Jackie men don't like their wife's visiting them in prison, I know I wouldn't want my wife too.
That is/was not the case at all and that came straight from Stephanie herself
Maybe you could ask her but she doesn't seem to want to answer direct to her at the moment
She seems to spend her days cut and pasting stuff from the Internet and posting it here
-
simon was allready imprison before the marriedge so i hardly think what justice is saying would apply to him.
-
That is/was not the case at all and that came straight from Stephanie herself
Maybe you could ask her but she doesn't seem to want to answer direct to her at the moment
She seems to spend her days cut and pasting stuff from the Internet and posting it here
Hi Jackie, I am not saying it was the case, I merely pointed out that sometimes men don't want their wife's to visit. I don't want to ask Steph such a personal question and it doesn't bother me one bit, Steph has a right to answer a question or not, I suggest you and Nugnug respect that right and between us all let's do the grown up thing and try and help Steph move on in her life.
-
It depends on whether that person wants to " move on ",justice. :-\
-
Hi Jackie, I am not saying it was the case, I merely pointed out that sometimes men don't want their wife's to visit. I don't want to ask Steph such a personal question and it doesn't bother me one bit, Steph has a right to answer a question or not, I suggest you and Nugnug respect that right and between us all let's do the grown up thing and try and help Steph move on in her life.
I haven't asked any question have I ?????
-
I haven't asked any question have I ?????
I give up.
-
Nug nug I think you are flogging a dead horse regarding this question and if I were you I would let it rest. Stephanie clearly doesn't want to answer.
Regarding SH posting the living arrangements of SL I personally think that is a step too far to put that on a public forum. It shouldn't be allowed and the mods need to put a stop to that. I didn't think we were allowed to post personal comments so if any of the mods are reading this, these posts should imo be removed.
Maybe this time you will stay true to your word and put me on ignore. Then there will be no reason for me to pull you up when your true intentions come to the fore.
-
I give up.
Perfect does that mean you are leaving the forum ???
Welcome Samson :)
-
Perfect does that mean you are leaving the forum ???
Welcome Samson :)
No what it means Jackie, I forgot that it is your own choice of how you want to spend the rest of your life. I wouldn't want what happened to Steph to happen to anyone, your different. I will always defend what happened to Steph or any women.
-
No what it means Jackie, I forgot that it is your own choice of how you want to spend the rest of your sad life. I wouldn't want what happened to Steph to happen to anyone, your different. I will always defend what happened to Steph or any women.
Hi justice
sorry I cannot understand your post do you think Jackie has a sad life? or have I read it wrong ???
-
Hi justice
sorry I cannot understand your post do you think Jackie has a sad life? or have I read it wrong ???
My post is to Jackie and shouldn't concern you.
-
My post is to Jackie and shouldn't concern you.
Justice I thought you have said that forums are for debating I asked a question as I did not understand your post. Your attitude is appalling and my question does not warrant this kind of a response and I am shocked to say the least.
-
Justice I thought you have said that forums are for debating I asked a question as I did not understand your post. Your attitude is appalling and my question does not warrant this kind of a response and I am shocked to say the least.
I honestly couldn't say it different Susan, the post wasn't intended for you, what do you want me to debate, it was probably a harsh thing to say but surely you have seen a lot worse on here Susan?
HERO TO ZERO IN A DAY
, Quote from: justice on January 27, 2017, 05:51:PM
Susie you don't have to say sorry you have been through enough lately, sorry you got caught in this, I picture Steph same as my daughter who was duped, that's all xx
Justice
From Susan
thanks for being so understanding you are such a nice caring man Xxx
I tried to be a peace maker, it hasn't worked, as of late I have been through enough I hate to see squabbling, I see people hounded and I am not saying Steph is innocent, I repeat I will defend Steph on what she has been through, not who she is and I would do the same for you.
-
Why would I want to give an opinion on your opinion of why Steph wasn't banging on the prison gates everyday. It's you who is saying she 'couldn't be bothered'. What she did or didn't do, isn't really your concern unless she 'chooses' to comment.
She did tell me
She chose to tell me
-
Malice is often why some people thrive on the perceived misery of others. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/in-the-name-love/200901/why-are-we-pleased-others-misfortune
Generally regarded as "morally evil" and said to be the worst trait in human nature closely related to cruelty.
You should be ashamed of yourself
If your not attacking Lookout or Nugs or Sandra
It's revolting to watch
Have you apologised in person the people you wrongly accused of the Ipswich murders
I hope you have apologised and publicly
-
Justice I thought you have said that forums are for debating I asked a question as I did not understand your post. Your attitude is appalling and my question does not warrant this kind of a response and I am shocked to say the least.
Thank Susan
-
I honestly couldn't say it different Susan, the post wasn't intended for you, what do you want me to debate, it was probably a harsh thing to say but surely you have seen a lot worse on here Susan?
HERO TO ZERO IN A DAY
, Quote from: justice on January 27, 2017, 05:51:PM
Susie you don't have to say sorry you have been through enough lately, sorry you got caught in this, I picture Steph same as my daughter who was duped, that's all xx
Justice
thanks for being so understanding you are such a nice caring man Xxx
I tried to be a peace maker, it hasn't worked, as of late I have been through enough I hate to see squabbling, I see people hounded and I am not saying Steph is innocent, I repeat I will defend Steph on what she has been through, not who she is and I would do the same for you.
Your posts about me are disgraceful
how dare you!!! my life is pretty near perfect
You continue to make stuff up every time you are on the forum and just to add I have never been on Benefits for years when I have nothing wrong it's distasteful
-
Jackie
It would seem that Justice is not the nice kind caring man I thought he was he seems to want to target you everytime you are on the forum and it is grossly unfair. I for one have never asked him to stop defending Steph and neither have you so what is his problem? I am so sorry that the forum has come down to this and I apologise to other posters if I have caused them to feel uncomfortable but this all started because I responded to one of your posts to him with the grins/laughs thought your post was funny and still do ;D
-
Jackie
It would seem that Justice is not the nice kind caring man I thought he was he seems to want to target you everytime you are on the forum and it is grossly unfair. I for one have never asked him to stop defending Steph and neither have you so what is his problem? I am so sorry that the forum has come down to this and I apologise to other posters if I have caused them to feel uncomfortable but this all started because I responded to one of your posts to him with the grins/laughs thought your post was funny and still do ;D
Thank you for your support x
-
To make it clear Sandra, and with hindsight, that is exactly what you were doing. It's what people like you do - exploit, mistreat and abuse/attack people who are in vulnerable situations.
It's evidenced in both yours and Billy Middleton's 2010 & 2013 publications on the Wronglyaccusedperson website and indeed other communications.
"Psychological manipulation can be defined as the exercise of undue influence through mental distortion and emotional exploitation, with the intention to seize power, control, benefits and/or privileges at the victim’s expense.
It is important to distinguish healthy social influence from psychological manipulation. Healthy social influence occurs between most people, and is part of the give and take of constructive relationships. In psychological manipulation, one person is used for the benefit of another. The manipulator deliberately creates an imbalance of power, and exploits the victim to serve his or her agenda.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/communication-success/201510/14-signs-psychological-and-emotional-manipulation
Here are public statements made by Billy Middleton's old boss in 2011.
http://simplybillymiddleton.myfreeforum.org/ftopic9-0.php
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:38 am
"I do feel incredibly angry that Billy Middleton feels that he has the right to publish on the internet whatever he wants without fear of retribution.
Reading his MOJ2010 speech just puts my blood pressure right up because there is hardly one single paragraph that contains the whole truth. Unfortunately there is very little that I can state as "fact" as at it would mean exposing people and information that at the moment has to remain confidential. I am, however, now in a position to comment on the following subject things that I was told as Billy took it upon himself to expose his ex-wife as the person to whom the sexual assault charges concerned.
He himself describes the charge as "sexual abuse". I'm unclear why. As far as I know the charges were of sexual assault. To my mind sexual abuse indicates a more long term situation. A freudian slip, perhaps?. Maybe this was closer to the truth of what was happening in Billy and Kareen's relationship.
However Billy Middleton states: "They then threw in a charge of sexual abuse against my wife instead but both she and her uncle proved in court it was not physically possible because we were about 60 miles apart at the time and the doctor who examined her testified that there was no physical evidence to support it.
Billy put forward a special plea of 'consent' to the sexual assault charges yet in the statement above he is implying that it never happened and that this was "proved in court". He can't have it both ways - either his ex-wife consented or else it didn't happen, not both.
The only 'incident' of sexual assault Kareen discussed with me in any detail was the time that caused her to leave Billy in April/May 2007. Remember, this was about 2 years before the trial and 18 months before the fire. It was the first time I visited her at her aunt and uncle's house in Brae after she left Cullivoe with the kids. She told me what Billy had done to her. Needless to say, I was appalled. She was upset and confused and asked my advice on what to do. She spoke about going back to him as she was afraid if she left him for good what he would do. Billy was constantly texting her and using the children as a weapon against her, saying things like did she really want the kids to come from a broken home and she was to think about the effect all this was having on them. Things like that. I advised her not to go back to him. She was 3 months pregnant with Annalise at the time.
Kareen had not been happy for a long time. Billy spent much of his home time on the computer. Kareen was sure he was in contact with other women. She looked up the history on their computer one day Billy was at work and found that he had googled "rape", "torture" and "p***y fisting". Billy had been visiting hardcore BDSM sites and Kareen was scared - is this what he had in mind for her? She told me things had been escalating against her will in the bedroom. She did not tell me the exact date of when the assault had taken place but I did get the impression that she had waited a few days before leaving him and moving to Brae. She only went to see the GP the day after she moved to Brae on her aunt and uncle's insistance. From my understanding of what Kareen has told me because she had waited a number of days and because she had given birth to 2 children naturally the GP was non-committal about any signs of an assault having taken place.
When Kareen took Billy back most of her family and friends distanced themselves from her including me. I felt embarrassed because I had tried to advise her not to take him back but she had and it felt very awkward. I know her family felt the same way. We have spoke since about the reasons why she took him back and I can absolutely see why she did - she was a typical abused wife caught in a cycle of abuse. She told me that one of the conditions she took him back on was if he saw a counsellor. He showed her a letter with an appointment but does not know if he ever attended. All she knows is that the abuse only ever got worse and because she no longer felt she could turn to her friends and family she was completely isolated.
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 10:11 am http://simplybillymiddleton.myfreeforum.org/ftopic9-0.php
"For reasons only known to themselves the police never interviewed either myself or Kareen's counsellor whom she was seeing regarding unresolved issues from her childhood and also the difficulties she was experiencing within her own relationship with Billy. She told her counsellor everything.
However, following the trial Kareen's solicitor did take a statement from her counsellor. That is why Billy never fought to see the kids. His lies would be exposed before his family and he couldn't let that happen.
-
She then goes on to state:
Posted: Wed Sep 14, 2011 4:01 pm http://simplybillymiddleton.myfreeforum.org/ftopic9-0.php
"After Billy was arrested I sent this email to his parents. I also sent a copy to Sandra Lean, to try and confirm that I was telling the truth.
Flag this message
Re: Please note amended address
Tuesday, 11 November, 2008 9:48
From:
"MARINA THOMASON"
Add sender to Contacts
To:
"Harriets Mail"
Dear Harriet and Jim,
We've got your e-mail and we will pin the address up in the canteen at work. I'm sure one or two of the workers will want to write to Billy. This is a very difficult letter for me to write to you and I've struggled with my conscious whether I should or not.
During the time of Billy and Kareens wedding you were very good to us and you made me feel very welcome in your home, I felt you Harriet and me especially, clicked. You are a nice family. But the truth of the matter is we advised Billy and Kareen to pospone their wedding. I took Kareen aside and Christopher took Billy and advised them to put the wedding off. We did this because we knew the extent of the problems they had in their relationship and feared it would end in disaster. We hoped if they delayed it their relationship would come to its own natural conclusion. We always thought someone would get hurt although we could never forsee this happening.
I don't know to what extent you know of what went on here in Cullivoe. The police were involved on two occasions that we know of. There were numerous other occasions that were kept quiet by the Williamsons here in Yell. Billy and Kareens next door neighbour was very upset by what was happening. She was Christina's chaperone to nursery in the taxi. She said every Friday night was the same, they would be woken up in the middle of the night with Kareen screaming and sometimes she would hear Christina crying. She wanted to report Billy and Kareen to social services but luckily for them she spoke to her sister first about it who lives here in Cullivoe. She suggested speaking to Jean Saunders which she did. Jean said that if anything happened which she was worried about the neighbour was to phone her first. As a consequence Jean and John were in the square on more than one occasion. Kareen and the bairns came here to stay the night one of the times. It was very upsetting for me as my mam had just died suddenly 2 weeks before and I was 6 months pregnant for Amanda. When I answered the phone in the middle of the night to hear Kareen screaming I thought she was being murdered.
We never could figure out what was going on but when Kareen left Billy and went to Brae she told me a few things and it all fitted together like a jig-saw puzzle. I know that she went on to tell her uncle Andy and Gilda even more so don't be too harsh on them because you have to understand that Kareen very much made Billy out to be the bad guy. I don't know the truth of the matter because Kareen told one story and Billy told the opposite.
I don't know where this idea that the Williamsons never visited Kareen here in Cullivoe came from because to my mind it is simply not true. Susan was there at least twice a week, Christina and Lana were best friends. Although Carol doesn't drive she came at least once a week before or after choir practice and if she was working at the school she was there more often. All the family turned up for any birthday parties or occasions.
I know you are living a nightmare at the moment and of course you want to believe Billy, he is your son. We will all have to await what evidence comes out at the trial. I hope you are not to upset by this email that is not my intention at all. No-matter what the truth is of what happened that awful night the letter we wrote from C & A still holds true and I used to call Billy Christophers' right hand. He is a terrible miss at work.
This is a hard thing for everyone involved to come to terms with and our deepest sympathy is with you,
Marina.
-
Maybe you should speak to Sandra I have always found her very kind and sensible as I have with nug nug
I don't know why Stephanie didn't visit Simon much, it appears she seems more interested in spending time on the forums
If I had a husband in prison who I believed was innocent I would never miss a single visit
There is nothing kind or sensible in Sandra Leans stance displayed here regarding Simon Hall's confession/guilt.
"Narcissist are very good at twisting the truth, exaggerating the facts, and creating drama for their own personal gains. Often times narcissist will surround themselves with enablers, harem, or loyal followers who often don't wish to admit they too are victims or may think they are supporting a fake persona who is ultimately the narcissist...
By his own admission Simon Hall was narcisstic. The very fact that he maintained his innocence following his arrest supports this fact as do all of his actions from that point on.
Simon Halls abuse of me started the day I met him.
I've no idea why you feel compelled to question when I did or didn't visit nor what business it was/is of yours. But for the record; Simon Hall's psychological abuse of me had become public knowledge by the end of 2012. Many people, including yourself, joined in with the abuse. Maybe you would explain why you chose to behave this way?
"The entire persona of a narcissist is a façade meant to benefit the ONE ?= The Narcissist! Narcissist feel as though they are above the law, above others, and that the world is out to get them and therefore they go out of their way to showcase and spotlight themselves by selling themselves with their illustrious careers, expensive materialistic possessions, wealth. Abuse is with the objective to maintain power and control while isolating their victims to become dependent upon them.
Narcissists have a plan from the very beginning of the honeymoon stage, to the love bombing ( use of flattery, declarations of love and romantic encounters to attract victims), to the denial, and ultimately the devalue and discard and that's simply to take away and destroy the victim in anyway possible. They are not limited to keeping their victims walking on eggshells and will resort to abuse of all forms to accomplish this task. They have no remorse or empathy for those that are left behind. Victims will never get the apology that they deserve.
Jeremy Bamber is no different!
-
There is nothing kind or sensible in Sandra Leans stance displayed here regarding Simon Hall's confession/guilt.
Not from your perspective, no.
I consider it pretty sensible to ask questions when things don't add up properly. I'm sure lots of people perceive truth-seeking as "unkind," but that's the nature of the society we've become - we'd rather shoot the messenger than hear the message.
Just because you don't like the questions I ask, that doesn't make me unkind for asking them. Makes me sensible!