Sandra Leans book "No Smoke" should be re-vised or withdrawn

[Stephanie]

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.

[Stephanie]

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.

[Stephanie]

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!

[Stephanie]

No, I said I was considering withdrawing my book:

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

I then contacted those involved, and, as previously stated, they did not want the book withdrawn.

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.

[sandra L]

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?

[Stephanie]

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.

[Stephanie]

"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/

[Stephanie]

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.

[Stephanie]

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/

[Stephanie]

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

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

Who is "carrying this on?"

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

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

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.

[nugnug]

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.

[nugnug]

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.

[Stephanie]

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.    

[nugnug]

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.

[Stephanie]

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.