Sandra Leans book "No Smoke" should be re-vised or withdrawn

[Stephanie]

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.

[Stephanie]

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

[Stephanie]

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

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/

[Stephanie]

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

[Stephanie]

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?

[Stephanie]

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..

[Stephanie]

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.

[Stephanie]

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.

[Stephanie]

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! 

[sandra L]

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.

[sandra L]

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.

[nugnug]

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.

[sandra L]

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.

[sandra L]

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.

[Stephanie]

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