Sandra Leans book "No Smoke" should be re-vised or withdrawn

[sandra L]

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.

[Stephanie]

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.

[nugnug]

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.

[Stephanie]

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

[nugnug]

so was seaman found at the crime scene than steph.

[sandra L]

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?

[sandra L]

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!

[Stephanie]

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!

[Stephanie]

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]

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.

[nugnug]

so was seaman found at the crime scene than steph.

bump

[Stephanie]

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.

[nugnug]

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.

[Stephanie]

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..

[Stephanie]

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.