Re: Martin Brunt Confronts Twitter "Troll"

by Guest Mon 6 Oct - 23:21

sallypelt wrote:
MrsC wrote:
inspirespirit wrote:Is this a sweepyface post? A premonition.

I've been wondering if Brenda Leyland commited suicide in much the same way that Dr David Kelly did?

Yes, it is Sweepyface's tweet:

Mon Nov 11 16:14:24 +0000 2013|#McCann I would also hope that were I to die in odd circumstances people WOULD Q and not just accept the first version

Maybe someone needs to point this out to the coroner at the inquest.

by j.rob Mon 6 Oct - 23:21

Gonçalo Amaral: “This litigation will carry a heavy price – but I have faith that the mystery will be resolved. Even if I “disappear” in the process - as Kate McCann has written that she wishes I would in her book - I have a daughter and lots of friends who will make sure justice is done”

Oh dear - rather like Detective Amaral's quote. How much more is going to be 'whooshed' before this terrible case is dragged to a bitter end?

by Bishop Brennan Mon 6 Oct - 23:21

Gerry has surfaced to give his opinion on the death of Brenda :

Mr McCann told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that, while he had not seen the @sweepyface tweets, online abuse had caused his family “severe distress”.

“I think we probably need more people to be charged,” he said.

It's hard to imagine how he could sink any lower.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11143446/Madeleine-McCann-Twitter-troll-death-Calls-for-public-inquiry-after-body-is-found.html

by sallypelt Mon 6 Oct - 23:21

BlueBag wrote:
thetruthbeknown wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
thetruthbeknown wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
BlueBag wrote:Can someone please help find out the timing of the Sky broadcast and the Daily Mail article naming Brenda Leyland and naming her village.

Daily Mail:
By STEPHEN WRIGHT FOR THE DAILY MAIL and HARRIET ARKELL FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: 00:06, 2 October 2014

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2777145/Police-probe-trolls-sending-hate-messages-McCanns-Detectives-investigate-given-dossier-catalogues-remarks-including-death-threats.html

So when exactly was the Sky Broadcast?
The SKY broadcast - link here - https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/video/sky-news-speaks-mccann-39-234003214.html
was Thurdsay lunctime (2nd October) I think
It must have been lunchtime on 1st October, video was circulating by 7.15am on 2nd.
I'd like to be sure.
This was circulating from sky news: time stamp 7.15am on the 2nd https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/517558345738493953

Indeed.

So someone need to look at the Daily Mail who named her at midnight on 1st/2nd October.

Also seems Sky broadcast the video knowing Brenda's name was already out there. Which makes their excuse about not naming here... PATHETIC.

In September 2014 Brenda Leyland tweeted that she would be in NY "next week", so it wouldn't have been difficult to "follow" her.

by haroldd2 Mon 6 Oct - 23:24

sallypelt wrote:
haroldd2 wrote:
sallypelt wrote:

That tweet is taken from the list of tweets, made by BL
Source?

Sweepyface's tweets

Yes but what is the source for her tweets? They are not at twitter.com now.

Edit: I have now found this list of tweets. It includes both the tweets mentioned. As I understand it, it's supposed to be a comprehensive list of tweets sent by sweepyface between 21:06:58 21 Dec 2010 and 21:30:04 29 Sep 2014. The references in the left column must be checkable. Oh dear. Sky and Britgov are not going to like this one bit. I wouldn't be surprised if the Marriott group don't like it much either.

by tegan1973 Mon 6 Oct - 23:25

MrsC wrote:
inspirespirit wrote:Is this a sweepyface post? A premonition.

I've been wondering if Brenda Leyland commited suicide in much the same way that Dr David Kelly did?

The same thought ran through my mind

by Joss Mon 6 Oct - 23:25

If Brenda "Fled" her home to go to a hotel, i wonder what spooked her into doing that? She hadn't been found guilty of any crime. Was she in fear of her life, and if so Why? Were people threatening her life?

by j.rob Mon 6 Oct - 23:26

Bishop Brennan wrote:Gerry has surfaced to give his opinion on the death of Brenda :

Mr McCann told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that, while he had not seen the @sweepyface tweets, online abuse had caused his family “severe distress”.

“I think we probably need more people to be charged,” he said.

It's hard to imagine how he could sink any lower.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11143446/Madeleine-McCann-Twitter-troll-death-Calls-for-public-inquiry-after-body-is-found.html

Why are they giving the McCanns any air time at all? What about the 'severe distress' that TM have caused people who have tried to find out what happened to his daughter?

Why should GM be any kind of 'spokesperson' for anything at all?

by inspirespirit Mon 6 Oct - 23:26

I got that off twitter. I'm not sure if we are allowed to post names so can't tell you who has tweeted it.

by DonNewbery Mon 6 Oct - 23:28

jeanmonroe wrote:
DonNewbery wrote:

What on earth makes you think that such a statement/letter will necessarily survive (and reappear at the inquest), given the basic details we have been told about the sequence of events after her body was discovered?

"details we have been TOLD...."
----------------------------------------

YEP! Right up there alongside the 'details' we were TOLD that Madeleine McCann WAS 'abducted'!

Now WHO 'told' us THAT?

Oh yeah, i remember now, ONLY, i repeat, ONLY, the two parents of the 'missing' child!

One, of which, WAS the LAST, very LAST, 'person' to have 'seen' her 'alive' in her bed.

istbc, obviously, i might well be totally wrong about 'the details i've been TOLD' about a 3 years old child's 'abduction' by the child's own parents.

You have missed my point (probably my fault for expressing it in deliberately 'abstract' terms). What I was referring to was simply what has been reported on the news, namely:

'A spokesman for Leicestershire Police said: "Police were called at 13:42 on Saturday 4 October to reports of a body of a woman in a hotel room in Smith Way, Grove Park [in Leicester].
"Officers have attended the scene and a file is being prepared for the coroner. The death is not being treated as suspicious."'

My point was that, the above being the case, IF there was any kind of suicide/note or letter, would it necessarily survive/ be kept as evidence for the inquest? I suppose you could accuse me of having a paranoid or distrustful nature :) ...

by Joss Mon 6 Oct - 23:29

j.rob wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote:Gerry has surfaced to give his opinion on the death of Brenda :

Mr McCann told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that, while he had not seen the @sweepyface tweets, online abuse had caused his family “severe distress”.

“I think we probably need more people to be charged,” he said.

It's hard to imagine how he could sink any lower.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11143446/Madeleine-McCann-Twitter-troll-death-Calls-for-public-inquiry-after-body-is-found.html

Why are they giving the McCanns any air time at all? What about the 'severe distress' that TM have caused people who have tried to find out what happened to his daughter?

Why should GM be any kind of 'spokesperson' for anything at all?

Think they just love some "face time".

by j.rob Mon 6 Oct - 23:31

Joss wrote:If Brenda "Fled" her home to go to a hotel, i wonder what spooked her into doing that? She hadn't been found guilty of any crime. Was she in fear of her life, and if so Why? Were people threatening her life?

This seems likely. Who was threatening her and why?

In terms of threats of police action, we know for a fact that Martin Brunt from Sky used threatening language towards her in the street. There was no attempt to conceal her identity. Nor would he agree to speak to her privately.

So, as far as I am concerned, that means she was being verbally threatened by Sky.

It's on public record.

by lufc50337 Mon 6 Oct - 23:32

tiny wrote:@Sally66,if brunt is a nice man then why did he do this to Brenda.sorry but brunt must face the conciquence of his disgusting action.

That's what I was saying Tiny

It is Spudgun (whom I have a lot of respect for) who says MB is a nice man but on this point I disagree with him

Somewhere in this case MB has sold out

by Joss Mon 6 Oct - 23:33

j.rob wrote:
Joss wrote:If Brenda "Fled" her home to go to a hotel, i wonder what spooked her into doing that? She hadn't been found guilty of any crime. Was she in fear of her life, and if so Why? Were people threatening her life?

This seems likely. Who was threatening her and why?

In terms of threats of police action, we know for a fact that Martin Brunt from Sky used threatening language towards her in the street. There was no attempt to conceal her identity. Nor would he agree to speak to her privately.

So, as far as I am concerned, that means she was being verbally threatened by Sky.

It's on public record.

Exactly.

by Guest Mon 6 Oct - 23:33

DonNewbery wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:
DonNewbery wrote:

What on earth makes you think that such a statement/letter will necessarily survive (and reappear at the inquest), given the basic details we have been told about the sequence of events after her body was discovered?

"details we have been TOLD...."
----------------------------------------

YEP! Right up there alongside the 'details' we were TOLD that Madeleine McCann WAS 'abducted'!

Now WHO 'told' us THAT?

Oh yeah, i remember now, ONLY, i repeat, ONLY, the two parents of the 'missing' child!

One, of which, WAS the LAST, very LAST, 'person' to have 'seen' her 'alive' in her bed.

istbc, obviously, i might well be totally wrong about 'the details i've been TOLD' about a 3 years old child's 'abduction' by the child's own parents.

You have missed my point (probably my fault for expressing it in deliberately 'abstract' terms). What I was referring to was simply what has been reported on the news, namely:

'A spokesman for Leicestershire Police said: "Police were called at 13:42 on Saturday 4 October to reports of a body of a woman in a hotel room in Smith Way, Grove Park [in Leicester].
"Officers have attended the scene and a file is being prepared for the coroner. The death is not being treated as suspicious."'

My point was that, the above being the case, IF there was any kind of suicide/note or letter, would it necessarily survive/ be kept as evidence for the inquest? I suppose you could accuse me of having a paranoid or distrustful nature :) ...

Would Brenda's body be examined for signs of poisoning? How thorough are these things?

What is the story of her and the hotel?

by galena Mon 6 Oct - 23:33

j.rob wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote:Gerry has surfaced to give his opinion on the death of Brenda :

Mr McCann told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that, while he had not seen the @sweepyface tweets, online abuse had caused his family “severe distress”.

“I think we probably need more people to be charged,” he said.

It's hard to imagine how he could sink any lower.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11143446/Madeleine-McCann-Twitter-troll-death-Calls-for-public-inquiry-after-body-is-found.html

Why are they giving the McCanns any air time at all? What about the 'severe distress' that TM have caused people who have tried to find out what happened to his daughter?

Why should GM be any kind of 'spokesperson' for anything at all?

Any unsolved case like Madeleine is bound to create a certain amount of discussion online and people coming up with their own theories as to what happened. Go to any forum that deals with real life mysteries and you will find people putting forward their theories about guilt/responsibility many of which involve people who are still alive. Why should the McCanns alone expect to be exempt from this kind of comment?

by Marnelakis Mon 6 Oct - 23:34

j.rob wrote:

Why should GM be any kind of 'spokesperson' for anything at all?

Exactly how I feel - why does he believe he is so important? Like everyone else he's entitled to his own opinion but if he wants to stick his head above the parapet and spout his beliefs on 'responsible parenting', 'cadaver dogs', and press freedom then he has to accept that a percentage of the population will disagree with him and they have a right of redress.

by Joss Mon 6 Oct - 23:36

BlueBag wrote:
DonNewbery wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:
DonNewbery wrote:

What on earth makes you think that such a statement/letter will necessarily survive (and reappear at the inquest), given the basic details we have been told about the sequence of events after her body was discovered?

"details we have been TOLD...."
----------------------------------------

YEP! Right up there alongside the 'details' we were TOLD that Madeleine McCann WAS 'abducted'!

Now WHO 'told' us THAT?

Oh yeah, i remember now, ONLY, i repeat, ONLY, the two parents of the 'missing' child!

One, of which, WAS the LAST, very LAST, 'person' to have 'seen' her 'alive' in her bed.

istbc, obviously, i might well be totally wrong about 'the details i've been TOLD' about a 3 years old child's 'abduction' by the child's own parents.

You have missed my point (probably my fault for expressing it in deliberately 'abstract' terms). What I was referring to was simply what has been reported on the news, namely:

'A spokesman for Leicestershire Police said: "Police were called at 13:42 on Saturday 4 October to reports of a body of a woman in a hotel room in Smith Way, Grove Park [in Leicester].
"Officers have attended the scene and a file is being prepared for the coroner. The death is not being treated as suspicious."'

My point was that, the above being the case, IF there was any kind of suicide/note or letter, would it necessarily survive/ be kept as evidence for the inquest? I suppose you could accuse me of having a paranoid or distrustful nature :) ...

Would Brenda's body be examined for signs of poisoning? How thorough are these things?

What is the story of her and the hotel?

I hope her family can get an independent medical opinion, just sayin.

by Bishop Brennan Mon 6 Oct - 23:36

sally66 wrote:
tiny wrote:@Sally66,if brunt is a nice man then why did he do this to Brenda.sorry but brunt must face the conciquence of his disgusting action.
That's what I was saying Tiny

It is Spudgun (whom I have a lot of respect for) who says MB is a nice man but on this point I disagree with him

Somewhere in this case MB has sold out

If he is a 'nice man' (unlikely from what we have seen), then he is clearly an astonishingly stupid man also. His spectacular lack of judgement has directly led to the tragic death of a woman and mother. If he is "nice" then he will almost certainly resign and will rightly carry the guilt of this death with him for the rest of his life.

by thetruthbeknown Mon 6 Oct - 23:37

Joss wrote:If Brenda "Fled" her home to go to a hotel, i wonder what spooked her into doing that? She hadn't been found guilty of any crime. Was she in fear of her life, and if so Why? Were people threatening her life?

It was said that she fled shortly after being photographed on the Thursday, so obviously was still an interest to the press, probably reporters hanging around. I probably would have done the same thing. Most of us would have no idea how to deal with a press invasion.

by j.rob Mon 6 Oct - 23:37

Mr McCann told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that, while he had not seen the @sweepyface tweets, online abuse had caused his family' “severe distress”.
“I think we probably need more people to be charged,” he said.

Oh the exquisite irony of that quote. If only at least two people could be charged in connection with what happened to Madeleine. If only.
Can we have a list of people who, in the opinion of posters, may have been caused 'severe distress' by TM?

by j.rob Mon 6 Oct - 23:42

'A spokesman for Leicestershire Police said: "Police were called at 13:42 on Saturday 4 October to reports of a body of a woman in a hotel room in Smith Way, Grove Park [in Leicester].
"Officers have attended the scene and a file is being prepared for the coroner. The death is not being treated as suspicious."'

So we are back to Leicestershire police then are we? And a very mysterious ~~disappearance~~ death. And a version of events that is 'not suspicious.'

Hmmm.

by tiny Mon 6 Oct - 23:44

j.rob wrote:'A spokesman for Leicestershire Police said: "Police were called at 13:42 on Saturday 4 October to reports of a body of a woman in a hotel room in Smith Way, Grove Park [in Leicester].
"Officers have attended the scene and a file is being prepared for the coroner. The death is not being treated as suspicious."'

So we are back to Leicestershire police then are we? And a very mysterious ~~disappearance~~ death. And a version of events that is 'not suspicious.'

Hmmm.

this is another reason why the truth must come out

by DonNewbery Mon 6 Oct - 23:45

BlueBag wrote:
DonNewbery wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:
DonNewbery wrote:

What on earth makes you think that such a statement/letter will necessarily survive (and reappear at the inquest), given the basic details we have been told about the sequence of events after her body was discovered?

"details we have been TOLD...."
----------------------------------------

YEP! Right up there alongside the 'details' we were TOLD that Madeleine McCann WAS 'abducted'!

Now WHO 'told' us THAT?

Oh yeah, i remember now, ONLY, i repeat, ONLY, the two parents of the 'missing' child!

One, of which, WAS the LAST, very LAST, 'person' to have 'seen' her 'alive' in her bed.

istbc, obviously, i might well be totally wrong about 'the details i've been TOLD' about a 3 years old child's 'abduction' by the child's own parents.

You have missed my point (probably my fault for expressing it in deliberately 'abstract' terms). What I was referring to was simply what has been reported on the news, namely:

'A spokesman for Leicestershire Police said: "Police were called at 13:42 on Saturday 4 October to reports of a body of a woman in a hotel room in Smith Way, Grove Park [in Leicester].
"Officers have attended the scene and a file is being prepared for the coroner. The death is not being treated as suspicious."'

My point was that, the above being the case, IF there was any kind of suicide/note or letter, would it necessarily survive/ be kept as evidence for the inquest? I suppose you could accuse me of having a paranoid or distrustful nature :) ...

Would Brenda's body be examined for signs of poisoning? How thorough are these things?

What is the story of her and the hotel?

I'm not saying anything as dramatic as that. I'm simply saying - do I really have to spell it out? - that if she wrote any kind of note about the way she may have been harassed by the men in plain clothes, or whatever, or anything at all of that kind, any 'any other kind' (think of initials and a number), it's the kind of disturbing evidence that I would not necessarily expect to be produced at an inquest, because it could, just, conceivably 'disappear' ... couldn't it?

by Joss Mon 6 Oct - 23:45

galena wrote:
j.rob wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote:Gerry has surfaced to give his opinion on the death of Brenda :

Mr McCann told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that, while he had not seen the @sweepyface tweets, online abuse had caused his family “severe distress”.

“I think we probably need more people to be charged,” he said.

It's hard to imagine how he could sink any lower.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11143446/Madeleine-McCann-Twitter-troll-death-Calls-for-public-inquiry-after-body-is-found.html

Why are they giving the McCanns any air time at all? What about the 'severe distress' that TM have caused people who have tried to find out what happened to his daughter?

Why should GM be any kind of 'spokesperson' for anything at all?
Any unsolved case like Madeleine is bound to create a certain amount of discussion online and people coming up with their own theories as to what happened. Go to any forum that deals with real life mysteries and you will find people putting forward their theories about guilt/responsibility many of which involve people who are still alive. Why should the McCanns alone expect to be exempt from this kind of comment?

I agree, there are many online forums to discuss missing, murdered and abused children. I followed the Casey Anthony case for the duration and some others, and if the MC's think they are on the receiving end of vitriol, they are fooling themselves. You should of seen some of the comments in some of these other cases in the States, but no one ever got called out on National TV by the media like Brenda did for being a supposed "troll", and from what i have read about her tweets they are very very tame in comparison to some of the cases i have followed.
Plus people should know in any high profile case that involves a child especially, emotions run very high and sometimes a little out of control. It should be expected under the circumstances, or don't get your mug on the media and let the authorities sort it out.

by Guest Mon 6 Oct - 23:46

Bishop Brennan wrote:Gerry has surfaced to give his opinion on the death of Brenda :

Mr McCann told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that, while he had not seen the @sweepyface tweets, online abuse had caused his family “severe distress”.

“I think we probably need more people to be charged,” he said.

It's hard to imagine how he could sink any lower.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11143446/Madeleine-McCann-Twitter-troll-death-Calls-for-public-inquiry-after-body-is-found.html

Bishop, The Telegraph has compiled this report clumsily. Gerry McCann was speaking on Today on Friday, 3rd October discussing "on-line trolls" the day before BL's death.

For clarity I would like to see the MSM provide a definition what they believe is an internet troll at the beginning of every piece that is published/broadcast. Currently it seems to apply to anyone who dares to write anything that challenges the official story or the saintliness of you-know-who.

by thetruthbeknown Mon 6 Oct - 23:47

I think police are not allowed to put further details, or speculate to be honest. This is their most recent news bulletin:

Woman identified following non-suspicious death in Leicester

Issued on 6/10/14 at 12:55 p.m.
Officers were called at 1.42pm on Saturday October 4 following a report of Brenda Leyland being found deceased at a hotel room in Smith Way, Grove Park.
Ms Leyland’s death is not being treated as suspicious and a file is being prepared for the Coroner. Officers acting on behalf of the Coroner will look into the circumstances surrounding and prior to her unexpected death.

by inspirespirit Mon 6 Oct - 23:50

Who would have discovered her at that time of the morning? You would have thought if she had committed suicide she wouldn't have been found until the next day when, either she hadn't checked out, or they came to do the room.

by Joss Mon 6 Oct - 23:50

thetruthbeknown wrote:
Joss wrote:If Brenda "Fled" her home to go to a hotel, i wonder what spooked her into doing that? She hadn't been found guilty of any crime. Was she in fear of her life, and if so Why? Were people threatening her life?
It was said that she fled shortly after being photographed on the Thursday, so obviously was still an interest to the press, probably reporters hanging around. I probably would have done the same thing. Most of us would have no idea how to deal with a press invasion.

Yes you are probably right. I would tell them to P*ss Off and call the cops that they were harassing and trespassing.

by Rogue-a-Tory Mon 6 Oct - 23:53

thetruthbeknown wrote:Most of us would have no idea how to deal with a press invasion.

I believe the standard response is to ring the Prime Minister who immediately sends out his right-hand communications officer. It's the standard response and an avenue open to all UK citizens. laughat

Woman identified following non-suspicious death in Leicester

Latest topics