Re: Brenda Leyland inquest records suicide

by **Tony Bennett** 21.03.15 10:20

missbeetle wrote:Tony - I don't suppose Brenda could have been the 'Woman from Wigan' - who rang you up one time? Or am I geographically way out?

You have made some very pertinent points in your post. I must say that reading through all the various accounts of the inquest, all sorts of details that you would expect to be covered during an inquest were not. As for the Coroner coming up with: 'We must make helium less available', as her headline conclusion, instead of 'We must stop powerful news media from hounding vulnerable women living on their own to death', then words truly fail me.

I am one of your fans. I think the photos you bring us are informative. Your comments may seem 'lightweight' to some here, but I always read them. And I can tell that you are geniunely interested in all the ramifications of this incredible mystery - and are here for genuine reasons.

To answer your question, no, Brenda Leyland wasn't the 'woman from Wigan', otherwise known here as 'The Riddler' (the one who posted her comments on Cristobell's blog). Wigan is some 100 miles (160 km if you do those in NZ) north-west from Burton Oevry in Leicestershire (Brenda's home). The woman's 'phone number was from Wigan, and she spoke about places in the Wigan area in her riddles. Amd spo0ke with a northern accent I think she was another plausible time-waster - a bit like 'universe' - who hooks some of us on a superficially attractive theory, but always wants us to look at that and not at the real issues in the case. "Look here, not there".

Besides that, there was no connection at all between any of the contents of 'The Riddler' and any of Brenda's tweets

by whatsupdoc 21.03.15 10:42

Twitter is acting up a bit this morning but I have been able to tweet Sonia and get a reply.

She says NO evidence was presented in Court such as cans, photos etc.

by Lance De Boils 21.03.15 10:57

whatsupdoc wrote:Twitter is acting up a bit this morning but I have been able to tweet Sonia and get a reply.

She says NO evidence was presented in Court such as cans, photos etc.

Are Coroner's Inquests always so vague?
I realise that they're not the same as criminal trials, but nonetheless, is it usual for them to be so blase about evidence?

There must be other routes by which the actual facts of the case and the evidence can be examined / made public, surely? Otherwise, how can the public be confident of the verdict?

I don't understand.

by aiyoyo 21.03.15 12:16

aquila wrote:Sky News are off the hook.

Martin Brunt is being consoled and portrayed as some sort of victim.

He may want to be seen as a victim but he's seen through for what he truly is.
A despicable man, too full of himself and his power to build his career at the expense of someone's life.

I find the coroner's statement " I am satisfied that no one could have known what she was going to do and how she was going to do it" seriously lacking a full understanding of crux of the matter on hand. Her statement is appalling - in bad judgement, inappropriate and insensitive.

For one thing, Brunt knew, he knew what she went through in her mind, she told him that herself. That's direct evidence of direct knowledge, what more does the coroner need?
Had that been professed to a counsellor that is red flag straight away. Given the impending situation Brunt was going to subject her to, that should have been red flag moment to anyone with common sense.

For another thing, the "....and how she was going to do it" statement is shockingly inappropriate. Surely the "how" is not relevant ! Why would the "method" be of any relevance? In what sense should it be relevance? What is the coroner implying otherwise?
An outside factor third party provocation causing death is a still an unjustified and untimely death, irrespective of the method used.
Is she suggesting had a different method been used, it would necessitate her looking at the evidence differently? But because it is helium it is not a suspicious death. She did not for one moment given considerations to the circumstances and factors contributing to her decision to take her life. In a sense the coroner was failing her fiduciary duty when she failed to take into consideration the exceptional circumstances of this case. She was simply going through the motion of an inquest as if a routine case.

In other words, was the coroner deliberating the case on the basis of suicide vs murder? And because of the "method" used and victim history of depression, she's satisfied that it was a suicide. Therefore the fact that Brunt was a catalyst, a provocateur that pushed someone in her anxiety condition to the edge did not matter to the coroner. It would appear the contributing factors that led to her death were never concerning issues to the coroner, nor issues she took into consideration when she came up with the suicide verdict . In a nutshell, she is satisfied BL was not done in (as in David Kelly).

If I were her family, I would complain about the coroner mishandling of the inquest or I would take the issue up with a lawyer on how, on the basis of Brunt depositions can he be taken to court, for a variety or reasons namely unfairly targeting her, neglecting her call for help, blatant disregard for her safety and life, intrusion of her privacy and invasion of her human right, for pushing her to the edge etc.

by lj 21.03.15 14:09

aiyoyo wrote:
PeterMac wrote:Last sentence
http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com.es/

Brunt killed Brenda Leyland.

I agree.

He missed the pivotal point that showing her face is tantamount to harming her.
And, harming her deliberately and knowingly given the phone conversation revelation.
He ambushed and cornered her, leaving her no choice, but to act out her thought out of extreme fear for her future quality of life.

That's the very thing (exposing her face) that worried her and feared most.
She lived her last moments in dreadful fear at the prospect of being judged by people whom she cared about. Must be extremely distressing and bloody awful for her when she made the call and plucked up the courage to tell him of her suicidal thoughts, only to hear no words of sympathy / dissuasion, and no offer of withdrawal from him. His offer of false security - of not naming her or listing her address is just bullshit - luring her into false sense of security when showing image of her is the antithesis to that.

It's basis common sense that every person lives in fear of being judged by family, friends and people that mattered to them, and not strangers they don't know hence leaving her name and address out is self-defeating and missing the whole point. MB telling her they will show her face but that was corporation's decision, not down to him hence not his decision to withdraw, is just total bullock. He was playing a game with her, using tactics, playing good man with one hand but bearing bad intention with the other hand.

He was playing red riding hood with her, believing he'd the coup on the hottest topic of the moment, at the same time pandering to the Mcs/source- killing two birds with one stone so to speak -
was a brilliant career building move.

He cares not one jot that she was a vulnerable woman living on her own and shows no concern for her well being whatsoever even after she'd braved herself to tell him about the drink and ending it all.

He KILLED her.
The circumstances building up and leading to her suicide should have been given serious considerations by the coroner Mrs Mason - that Sky vis-a-vis MB is the catalyst of her fate. It's not justifiable to say they were practising within guidelines of the law, not when the circumstances of this case is exception to the rules.

I agree too. Showing her face every 15 min is what killed her. In SKY's statement after the farce it says SKY considered it in the interest of the public, or words like that. WTF is the public's interest in having a woman haunted to death?

by aiyoyo 21.03.15 14:32

lj wrote:

I agree too. Showing her face every 15 min is what killed her. In SKY's statement after the farce it says SKY considered it in the interest of the public, or words like that. WTF is the public's interest in having a woman haunted to death?

Since it is now on official public record that the Police said she has not done anything criminal, her family has a strong case if they take Brunt to Court for harassing and hounding her to her death.

What he did - labeling her a "troll" was criminal and without justification at all, as we now know. Also he should be charged for interfering with "witness" in the Police investigation on the dossier. Why would it be up to Brunt to deem what was in the public interest to know, when the police investigation on the dossier wasn't even concluded, even now at this point of writing the investigation of others on the dossier is still ongoing.

by MRNOODLES 21.03.15 14:47

aiyoyo wrote:
lj wrote:

I agree too. Showing her face every 15 min is what killed her. In SKY's statement after the farce it says SKY considered it in the interest of the public, or words like that. WTF is the public's interest in having a woman haunted to death?

Since it is now on official public record that the Police said she has not done anything criminal, her family has a strong case if they take Brunt to Court for harassing and hounding her to her death.

What he did - labeling her a "troll" was criminal and without justification at all, as we now know. Also he should be charged for interfering with "witness" in the Police investigation on the dossier. Why would it be up to Brunt to deem what was in the public interest to know, when the police investigation on the dossier wasn't even concluded, even now at this point of writing the investigation of others on the dossier is still ongoing.

But what it also does is, give 'governments' the ammunition to make a case to make 'trolling' an offence.
MSM have basically left out the police report that Brenda did nothing illegal, however MSM still want to make out Brenda was guilty of something and Runty & Co were the innocents just doing their jobs in an impeccable manner.

Upshot imo, 'trolling' will be back on the agenda very soon. Especially with the election coming up, and the nasty people using Twitter 'dissing' our friendly neighbourhood honest upright MPs. :puke:

by aiyoyo 21.03.15 15:04

If twitting one's opinions is considered "trolling" then many public figures are trolls, including "honest upright" MPs, Jim Gamble, Katie Hopkins etc.

by plebgate 21.03.15 15:47

It wasn't any old reporter from Sky who doorstepped Brenda, it was their senior Crime reporter to boot and usually referred to as that in any piece he does for Sky.

I think most people would be very worried/frightened if a well known senior Crime reporter from such a company as Sky turned up and doorstepped them. Then for him to say along the lines of the police are involved, well I don't know what to say really.

What the heck was going on? - whatever it was I really think Brenda's family need, if possible, to seek advice about it all.

by XTC 21.03.15 23:00

aiyoyo wrote:If twitting one's opinions is considered "trolling" then many public figures are trolls, including "honest upright" MPs, Jim Gamble, Katie Hopkins etc.

Ah... now we are in the realms of what is " in the Public interest."

This is a phrase often used by media people from the editor of the Sun to Nick Ferrari and his ilk and maybe Uncle Jim and other fellow travellers.

There is a song by the Jam in which (to quote ) " The Public wants - what the Public gets " inferring that the media deliver what they want the Public to get.

The Jam's song has been inversed. The media now cry that the Public are a demanding a lot and they are now demanding that said media types supply them with rightfully due fill of information.

There was a trial this week where a woman ( who was jailed for pasing info for cash ) was paid by some ' journalists ' for information.

The learned Judge said that the same journalists were alright because they were acting in " The Public interest" despite being party to the
crime she committed. It's a strange world indeed. Lord Levenson has been looking into the same. As usual nothing has come of it.

i think we now live in an Americanised land where morality has replaced politics and being as hypocrisy is the lubricant of society then the whole engine is running very rough because it's overfilled.

The old name for Fleet Street as was ( it no longer exists ) was ' The Street of Shame.' An apt title - not necessarily aimed at the poor sods who appeared in the articles but the place from whence the articles and stories came.

It has not improved and the same moralising and self promotion of the clowns who used to write the trash have now evolved and appear on our televisions and left Grub Street behind. For one the pay is betetr and exposure of one's ' talents? ' is broadcast to a much wider audience and bless 'em they can now put a face to a name.

In the midst of all this shameless self promotion the story and information doesn't matter. The likes of Brunty or any other schmuck who sits on a morning or afternoon sofa will very rapidly go from - Nuclear War imminent - to " and now the weather " with a vague smile as if they didn't listen to a word that they actually said themselves seconds ago.

Brunty is the fall guy in this instance I'm afraid - he's just another ( one of thousands ) of self promoters passing himself off as a journalist when in actuality he is nothing more than a presenter. He and many others don't find stories these days - they are handed stories from the Government of the day or Press association and Reuters. They are stringers. Just stringers. they pass on ( string ) other peoples' tales. Like gossip from behind the bike sheds at school.

They are not alone as Governments do the same . Cameron is presenter as is Milliband and Clegg. They are all players in the same game.
They don't put forward policies ( as in argue and fight for them) they present policies first to the media and the media pass them on to the now demanding ( not my words - the journalists words ) public so that they can gauge opinion. Like the media people they have no overt opinions of their own despite the moralistic tones of the script.

I'm afraid the learned Judge has a lot to learn. Levenson the same.

As far as Brenda Leylands' unfortunate death is concerned a few things have struck me.

Martin Brunt was handed the " Dossier " from his source - which he refused to reveal.

He said that it had been handed over to the Police and she may be paid a visit by said police.

The Police ( which police? ) have now said that Brenda Leyland had committed no crimes.

Apparently he had tried to approach a few other alleged " trolls " prior to doorstepping Brenda.

Why did he decide to confront Brenda and not the others?

How did he pick his victim and why?

The claim is that he didn't know that Brenda Leyland suffered from Psychiatric probelms past and present.

OK. But did the compilers of the " Dossier " know something about Brenda's state of mind?

This is why the source might be important.

Big question for me is: Why Brenda and no other alleged troll?

There were at least hundreds if not thousands to choose from.

Perhaps Brunty will let us know in time?

Opinion only of course.

by **PeterMac** 22.03.15 9:53

Whoever could have been at that crime scene - Martin Brunt was there. He did it.
Whoever else might have wanted to hurt Brenda Leyland – Martin Brunt did it
Whoever else is reckless of who gets hurt or damaged in the campaign against McCann critics – Brunt was that day.
Whoever may have produced a dossier about Brenda Leyland and other McCann critics - Brunt used it against her as a weapon.
Whoever else may have wanted to terrify Brenda Leyland with lies about police and CPS – Brunt did it
Whoever might have asked his bosses to kill the non-existent story – Brunt didn’t do it but pursued her without mercy
Martin Brunt killed Brenda Leyland. He drove her to her death.

by Joss 22.03.15 11:34

I would call for a boycott of Sky News for what MB did to Brenda Leyland. And i hope her family take legal action against them too for their responsibility in Brenda's death. Words fail me right now.

by Lance De Boils 22.03.15 11:51

If you think of it in terms of the "but for" test, it's quite simple.

Would Brenda still be alive but for Brunt?

My answer: Very probably, yes.

Nothing showed up in her PM (afaik) to indicate that she had an imminently life-threatening physical condition.

Looking at it this way, if Brunt hadn't acted as he did, Brenda would still be alive. And that is the way I'm seeing it. Others may well disagree.

by Joss 22.03.15 11:59

Lance De Boils wrote:If you think of it in terms of the "but for" test, it's quite simple.

Would Brenda still be alive but for Brunt?

My answer: Very probably, yes.

Nothing showed up in her PM (afaik) to indicate that she had an imminently life-threatening physical condition.

Looking at it this way, if Brunt hadn't acted as he did, Brenda would still be alive. And that is the way I'm seeing it. Others may well disagree.

LDB, I totally agree with that. I think that whoever is responsible for what was orchestrated by Sky news in this case that they are all morally bankrupt. Especially also if MB was informed by Brenda that she was thinking of taking her own life, but she had a drink and told him its all good. Who's word do we have for that? Only Brunt's i imagine, and he would of been in CYA mode as soon as he heard of Brenda's death a couple of days after the slimebags doorstepped her.

by Joss 22.03.15 12:14

Wasn't it also a Sky news reporter caught sifting through a dead person's luggage after the plane crashed in the Ukraine?

by Liz Eagles 22.03.15 13:19

Lance De Boils wrote:If you think of it in terms of the "but for" test, it's quite simple.

Would Brenda still be alive but for Brunt?

My answer: Very probably, yes.

Nothing showed up in her PM (afaik) to indicate that she had an imminently life-threatening physical condition.

Looking at it this way, if Brunt hadn't acted as he did, Brenda would still be alive. And that is the way I'm seeing it. Others may well disagree.

I agree wholeheartedly.

As for Brenda's family wishing to take on Sky News what do you think the personal ramifications of that would be for them against something so clearly and abusively powerful as to wreck the lives at will of anything that will sell an often corrupt view on things.

I make no bones about stating my view that the Sky News broadcast was corrupt. It was morally corrupt. I don't expect others to agree with my view.

Do you think the Murdoch press would leave any minute aspect of their lives unpicked, unravelled, exposed?

Do you think the Leyland family would be in a good place to have Brenda on the front pages of every newspaper as 'McCann Troll'?

Do you think the Leyland family would be in a good place to become notorious in the UK gutter media for questioning what tipped their loved one over the edge?

Do you think the Leyland family would ever like to see 'Son/Daughter/Niece/Friend of Brenda Leyland, McCann Troll who committed suicide' as headlines, with accompanying photographs of said family/friends?

Do you think the Leyland family want to become embroiled in something their loved one said on Twitter and have their lives destroyed by the UK media?

Or do you think the Leyland family would rather remember their loved one and get on with their lives?

I'm afraid Brunt went too far. Sky News went too far but consider it collateral damage. What's a woman who tweeted crappy stuff who killed herself to Sky News? I'll tell you what it is, it's bring in the lawyers, bring in the spin, exonerate themselves and let the shark-fest subside....onwards and upwards for Sky and Brunt.

As for Jim Gamble. I despair.

None of this was fair reporting. None of it was in the public interest imo.

I also think Brenda Leyland was hand-picked.

by Joss 22.03.15 15:01

aquila wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:If you think of it in terms of the "but for" test, it's quite simple.

Would Brenda still be alive but for Brunt?

My answer: Very probably, yes.

Nothing showed up in her PM (afaik) to indicate that she had an imminently life-threatening physical condition.

Looking at it this way, if Brunt hadn't acted as he did, Brenda would still be alive. And that is the way I'm seeing it. Others may well disagree.
I agree wholeheartedly.

As for Brenda's family wishing to take on Sky News what do you think the personal ramifications of that would be for them against something so clearly and abusively powerful as to wreck the lives at will of anything that will sell an often corrupt view on things.

I make no bones about stating my view that the Sky News broadcast was corrupt. It was morally corrupt. I don't expect others to agree with my view.

Do you think the Murdoch press would leave any minute aspect of their lives unpicked, unravelled, exposed?

Do you think the Leyland family would be in a good place to have Brenda on the front pages of every newspaper as 'McCann Troll'?

Do you think the Leyland family would be in a good place to become notorious in the UK gutter media for questioning what tipped their loved one over the edge?

Do you think the Leyland family would ever like to see 'Son/Daughter/Niece/Friend of Brenda Leyland, McCann Troll who committed suicide' as headlines, with accompanying photographs of said family/friends?

Do you think the Leyland family want to become embroiled in something their loved one said on Twitter and have their lives destroyed by the UK media?

Or do you think the Leyland family would rather remember their loved one and get on with their lives?

I'm afraid Brunt went too far. Sky News went too far but consider it collateral damage. What's a woman who tweeted crappy stuff who killed herself to Sky News? I'll tell you what it is, it's bring in the lawyers, bring in the spin, exonerate themselves and let the shark-fest subside....onwards and upwards for Sky and Brunt.

As for Jim Gamble. I despair.

None of this was fair reporting. None of it was in the public interest imo.

I also think Brenda Leyland was hand-picked.

So taking all of what you say about Brenda's family into consideration as far as pursuing Sky news culpability into the death of Brenda, what happens if by chance the police find a case for prosecution against the person that tweeted death threats to Brenda? And if there is a criminal case to be answered it will surely implicate MB and his cohorts i would imagine if it goes to Trial into what ultimately caused a death of a woman that committed no crime? So maybe Brenda's family won't even be the ones that pursue it further, but the police could if there is a case to be answered, which IMO there is.

Facebook bully jailed: Death threat girl, 18, is first person put behind bars for vicious internet campaign

People have previously been jailed for harassment and stalking on social networking sites but she is thought to be the first to be jailed for bullying via the internet.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208147/First-cyberbully-jailed-Facebook-death-threats.html

by Liz Eagles 22.03.15 15:28

Joss wrote:
aquila wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:If you think of it in terms of the "but for" test, it's quite simple.

Would Brenda still be alive but for Brunt?

My answer: Very probably, yes.

Nothing showed up in her PM (afaik) to indicate that she had an imminently life-threatening physical condition.

Looking at it this way, if Brunt hadn't acted as he did, Brenda would still be alive. And that is the way I'm seeing it. Others may well disagree.
I agree wholeheartedly.

As for Brenda's family wishing to take on Sky News what do you think the personal ramifications of that would be for them against something so clearly and abusively powerful as to wreck the lives at will of anything that will sell an often corrupt view on things.

I make no bones about stating my view that the Sky News broadcast was corrupt. It was morally corrupt. I don't expect others to agree with my view.

Do you think the Murdoch press would leave any minute aspect of their lives unpicked, unravelled, exposed?

Do you think the Leyland family would be in a good place to have Brenda on the front pages of every newspaper as 'McCann Troll'?

Do you think the Leyland family would be in a good place to become notorious in the UK gutter media for questioning what tipped their loved one over the edge?

Do you think the Leyland family would ever like to see 'Son/Daughter/Niece/Friend of Brenda Leyland, McCann Troll who committed suicide' as headlines, with accompanying photographs of said family/friends?

Do you think the Leyland family want to become embroiled in something their loved one said on Twitter and have their lives destroyed by the UK media?

Or do you think the Leyland family would rather remember their loved one and get on with their lives?

I'm afraid Brunt went too far. Sky News went too far but consider it collateral damage. What's a woman who tweeted crappy stuff who killed herself to Sky News? I'll tell you what it is, it's bring in the lawyers, bring in the spin, exonerate themselves and let the shark-fest subside....onwards and upwards for Sky and Brunt.

As for Jim Gamble. I despair.

None of this was fair reporting. None of it was in the public interest imo.

I also think Brenda Leyland was hand-picked.
So taking all of what you say about Brenda's family into consideration as far as pursuing Sky news culpability into the death of Brenda, what happens if by chance the police find a case for prosecution against the person that tweeted death threats to Brenda? And if there is a criminal case to be answered it will surely implicate MB and his cohorts i would imagine if it goes to Trial into what ultimately caused a death of a woman that committed no crime? So maybe Brenda's family won't even be the ones that pursue it further, but the police could if there is a case to be answered, which IMO there is.

Facebook bully jailed: Death threat girl, 18, is first person put behind bars for vicious internet campaign

People have previously been jailed for harassment and stalking on social networking sites but she is thought to be the first to be jailed for bullying via the internet.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208147/First-cyberbully-jailed-Facebook-death-threats.html

Joss, you and I both know that it's never going to happen.

by Joss 22.03.15 15:39

aquila wrote:
Joss wrote:
aquila wrote:
Lance De Boils wrote:If you think of it in terms of the "but for" test, it's quite simple.

Would Brenda still be alive but for Brunt?

My answer: Very probably, yes.

Nothing showed up in her PM (afaik) to indicate that she had an imminently life-threatening physical condition.

Looking at it this way, if Brunt hadn't acted as he did, Brenda would still be alive. And that is the way I'm seeing it. Others may well disagree.
I agree wholeheartedly.

As for Brenda's family wishing to take on Sky News what do you think the personal ramifications of that would be for them against something so clearly and abusively powerful as to wreck the lives at will of anything that will sell an often corrupt view on things.

I make no bones about stating my view that the Sky News broadcast was corrupt. It was morally corrupt. I don't expect others to agree with my view.

Do you think the Murdoch press would leave any minute aspect of their lives unpicked, unravelled, exposed?

Do you think the Leyland family would be in a good place to have Brenda on the front pages of every newspaper as 'McCann Troll'?

Do you think the Leyland family would be in a good place to become notorious in the UK gutter media for questioning what tipped their loved one over the edge?

Do you think the Leyland family would ever like to see 'Son/Daughter/Niece/Friend of Brenda Leyland, McCann Troll who committed suicide' as headlines, with accompanying photographs of said family/friends?

Do you think the Leyland family want to become embroiled in something their loved one said on Twitter and have their lives destroyed by the UK media?

Or do you think the Leyland family would rather remember their loved one and get on with their lives?

I'm afraid Brunt went too far. Sky News went too far but consider it collateral damage. What's a woman who tweeted crappy stuff who killed herself to Sky News? I'll tell you what it is, it's bring in the lawyers, bring in the spin, exonerate themselves and let the shark-fest subside....onwards and upwards for Sky and Brunt.

As for Jim Gamble. I despair.

None of this was fair reporting. None of it was in the public interest imo.

I also think Brenda Leyland was hand-picked.
So taking all of what you say about Brenda's family into consideration as far as pursuing Sky news culpability into the death of Brenda, what happens if by chance the police find a case for prosecution against the person that tweeted death threats to Brenda? And if there is a criminal case to be answered it will surely implicate MB and his cohorts i would imagine if it goes to Trial into what ultimately caused a death of a woman that committed no crime? So maybe Brenda's family won't even be the ones that pursue it further, but the police could if there is a case to be answered, which IMO there is.

Facebook bully jailed: Death threat girl, 18, is first person put behind bars for vicious internet campaign

People have previously been jailed for harassment and stalking on social networking sites but she is thought to be the first to be jailed for bullying via the internet.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208147/First-cyberbully-jailed-Facebook-death-threats.html
Joss, you and I both know that it's never going to happen.

Aquila, Probably not, but until it's a done deal i guess one can have a little bit of hope for some kind of Justice in this travesty. Wonder if the police investigation will be finalized anytime soon?
Seems as if neither Madeleine or Brenda are going to see any kind of justice in this world, but it's what all the people that care should be fighting for, their rights IMO, and especially the rights of the victims that no longer have a voice to hold those that should be held accountable to account. If nobody cares about that we might as well just give up.

by Joss 22.03.15 16:00

[size=16][size=26]Sky - Firmly in The Public Interest?

Sky Statement:

"The team at Sky News followed its editorial guidelines and pursued a story in a responsible manner that we believed was firmly in the public interest"
[/size]

Hell where do you start with that shed load of shit?

Let's take a look at what Sky did without any justification whatsoever for doing so, how in their wisdom, they thought it was FIRMLY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO:[/size]

Collude with Jim Gamble an ex cop/dodgy character. Vile vigilantes - the absolute scum of the McCann supporters, to put together a story about a lady who discussed on Twitter the case of missing Madeleine McCann and accuse her of crimes she did not commit. All of which I have no doubt, with the McCanns and Clarence Mitchell's knowledge and blessing.

To obtain a list of names which the vile vigilantes had put together (I suspect with help from a McCann family member, the one who claimed to trawl the internet searching for targets) which they like to refer to as a dossier (god help us all, such dumb asses on this earth) to make it sound more official and exciting, a copy of which the McCanns had in their possession also, and which Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe stated was given to the Met by the McCann family.

It was also reported by the Met that the vigilantes as I like to refer to this band of thugs on Twitter, handed them a copy.

Who gave the McCanns their copy, and who gave Brunt his copy?

Whoever they colluded with of course!

For sure McCanns cannot claim not to have known what was going down with Brunt, Sky and Gamble, and the fat legged lady, the vile vigilante. All had their copies of this list of names. And the Met confirmed they sent acknowledgement of receipt of same to those who had put it together! And the real dopes among the McCann support, it seems had been sending twit messages beforehand alluding to what was in store for this lady.

Lay in wait outside the home of an innocent woman, camera crew at the ready.
http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/Sky_-_In_Public_Interest.html

by **PeterMac** 22.03.15 16:14

aquila wrote:
I also think Brenda Leyland was hand-picked.

But by whom ?
Clearly the Mccanns were complicit in the creation of the "Dossier of death".\
BHH said on the record that the McCanns had handed it in.
So who created it, and who was on the Sky programme.

Step forward the obvious one.
The TV confrontation between Sky News reporter and the deceased Mrs Leyland may be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkAzz8Pwdvc
where it is headed Police Investigate Madeleine McCann Family Online Abuse

Gerry McCann stated on BBC Radio 4 that they had no presence on social media.

Jim Gamble, recently sacked head of CEOPS, stated that the family did not hand in dossier, neither did they have anything to do with it.

Sky News and Martin Brunt said the dossier was handed in by 'anonymous web users.'

However Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, said the McCanns handed the dossier in.

In the first part of the video, from 4:00 to 4:54 there is footage of the person who allegedly created the dossier which Martin Brunt was to refer to.

Brenda Leyland inquest records suicide - Page 3 <a href=

Brenda Leyland inquest records suicide - Page 3 Pond_p11

" />

This location is in fact Craiglockart Pond, in Edinburgh
Brenda Leyland inquest records suicide - Page 3 <a href=

Brenda Leyland inquest records suicide - Page 3 Pond_j11

" />

The possible identity of the person involved in preparing the dossier is less easy to determine, but the following may assist.

The person in the video uses the expressions

“WE are talking about material which are libellous, completely untrue.
WE were getting nowhere by reporting it to the sites
WE were finding people going on line . . .”

This is highly suggestive of a family member

What follow are comparison screen shots from the Sky video, and photos and screen shots from other sources. All are in the public domain.

Calves
Brenda Leyland inquest records suicide - Page 3 <a href=

Brenda Leyland inquest records suicide - Page 3 Legs_j11

" />

Brenda Leyland inquest records suicide - Page 3 Legs1_11

" />

Brenda Leyland inquest records suicide - Page 3 V<a href=

Hair

" />

Brenda Leyland inquest records suicide - Page 3 Phil_h10

" />

Bangle
Brenda Leyland inquest records suicide - Page 3 <a href=

Brenda Leyland inquest records suicide - Page 3 Bangle10

" />

Brenda Leyland inquest records suicide - Page 3 Bangle11

" />

Favourite Colour ?
Brenda Leyland inquest records suicide - Page 3 <a href=

Brenda Leyland inquest records suicide - Page 3 Pond_p12

" />

Brenda Leyland inquest records suicide - Page 3 Phil_t10

" />

Although not conclusive evidence, it is surely compelling.
The addition of the fact that the voice had to be dubbed - one assumes to conceal the distinctive accent - lends further weight to this.

And IF this is correct, then we may also assume that she did not act alone, and on her own account.
She will have been directed by TM

They have blood on their hands

by Joss 22.03.15 16:51

PeterMac, I agree, & yes they can all own their responsibility in driving Brenda to her death.

by Lance De Boils 22.03.15 19:32

Aquila: re your longish post.

I understand what you are saying. I certainly would not want to try taking on Sky News as an individual. We all know that certain organisations are untouchable, and I would not want their grubby mitts anywhere near my family. They play dirty.

It's immensely frustrating. In theory, there should be other bodies who could/should make it their job to investigate the full circumstances of Brenda's hounding by Brunt & Sky, the death threats and abuse she was subjected to and her subsequent (arguably consequent) death.

However, nobody seems to want to involve themselves in exposing the full details - the whole truth.

It all stinks and I don't know how the perpetrators will ever be held to account unless people in authority grow a few pairs between them.

And what are the chances of that?