Finally!! Was Brenda Leyland really a troll?

garfy wrote:It is being reported on BBC that it was the McCanns themselves who handed the dossier to the police. Which again begs the question, how did the media get it ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/p02789bx

Cc: carbon copied?

AndyB wrote:

garfy wrote:It is being reported on BBC that it was the McCanns themselves who handed the dossier to the police. Which again begs the question, how did the media get it ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/p02789bx

There is one very obvious answer to that question and I'm very surprised that his name hasnt been mentioned up until now; Clarence Mitchell

If it was in the police hands,did they give it back to the mccanns when they decided Brenda had nothing to answer for?if so then AndyB you could be right

tiny wrote:

AndyB wrote:

garfy wrote:It is being reported on BBC that it was the McCanns themselves who handed the dossier to the police. Which again begs the question, how did the media get it ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/p02789bx

There is one very obvious answer to that question and I'm very surprised that his name hasnt been mentioned up until now; Clarence Mitchell

If it was in the police hands,did they give it back to the mccanns when they decided Brenda had nothing to answer for?if so then AndyB you could be right

A dossier or document can be sent to many different people or organisations etc, while the original will be kept on the computer (or printed out as a hard copy) by the person or persons who compiled it. So, IMO that dossier would have been sent to more than one organisation.

sallypelt wrote:A dossier or document can be sent to many different people or organisations etc, while the original will be kept on the computer (or printed out as a hard copy)  by the person or persons who compiled it. So, IMO that dossier would have been sent to more than one organisation.

Of course it can. There is no one physical dossier.

A copy of the dossier was only sent to the Police so the media could say the Police were looking at it.

One media person said that the Police were looking at a "Dangerous dossier".

Martin Brunt used it to bully Brenda Leyland.

Whoever sent it to the Police didn't care what they did with it.

It was a media enabler.

Are the mccanns taking  responsibility for the vile tweets by the pro,s or are they  tweeting of their own bat

BlueBag wrote:

sallypelt wrote:A dossier or document can be sent to many different people or organisations etc, while the original will be kept on the computer (or printed out as a hard copy)  by the person or persons who compiled it. So, IMO that dossier would have been sent to more than one organisation.

Of course it can. There is no one physical dossier.

A copy of the dossier was only sent to the Police so the media could say the Police were looking at it.

One media person said that the Police were looking at a "Dangerous dossier".

Martin Brunt used it to bully Brenda Leyland.

Whoever sent it to the Police didn't care what they did with it.

It was a media enabler.

It was a 'dangerous dossier'. Very dangerous indeed to one of the individuals mentioned in it.

Nina wrote:May I ask something really stupid please? I cannot find the answer. How many people were included in this dossier, do we know? And amongst those, why was Brenda Layland singled out? Have any of the others been approached?
Sorry to ask but have had a lot of other things going on at the moment, so keep popping onto the forum but feel somewhere that I have lost a huge chunk of details.
Thank you to anyone who has the patience to answer me.

You aren't asking anything stupid, it is something that needs to be asked IMO. If there are people mentioned in that dossier i think they have every right to know seeing as it concerns them.
I would like to know why Brenda Leyland was singled out too.

I agree. I think everyone mentioned in that 'dossier' should be informed so that they can take measures to enhance their personal security. After all, nobody yet knows exactly how Brenda died.

Lance De Boils wrote:I agree. I think everyone mentioned in that 'dossier' should be informed so that they can take measures to enhance their personal security. After all, nobody yet knows exactly how Brenda died.

totally agree with this.

sallypelt wrote:

tiny wrote:

AndyB wrote:

garfy wrote:It is being reported on BBC that it was the McCanns themselves who handed the dossier to the police. Which again begs the question, how did the media get it ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/p02789bx

There is one very obvious answer to that question and I'm very surprised that his name hasnt been mentioned up until now; Clarence Mitchell

If it was in the police hands,did they give it back to the mccanns when they decided Brenda had nothing to answer for?if so then AndyB you could be right

A dossier or document can be sent to many different people or organisations etc, while the original will be kept on the computer (or printed out as a hard copy)  by the person or persons who compiled it. So, IMO that dossier would have been sent to more than one organisation.

MB was holding a hard copy of the dossier when he sat on a bench outside Brenda`s house. One would assume the police have another copy and it will have been compiled by the individual who was given the honour of remaining anonymous while she sold Brenda down the river.
There are clues in the footage of the bekankled one and someone should be able to find out where it was shot. For example the Queen of the Trollhunters has a liking for Warwick Castle.

tiny wrote:

Lance De Boils wrote:I agree. I think everyone mentioned in that 'dossier' should be informed so that they can take measures to enhance their personal security. After all, nobody yet knows exactly how Brenda died.

totally agree with this.

Everybody in the dossier should be told who their accusers are.

Not forgetting Summers and Swann had a copy too.

Lance De Boils wrote:I agree. I think everyone mentioned in that 'dossier' should be informed so that they can take measures to enhance their personal security. After all, nobody yet knows exactly how Brenda died.

Exactly, and i think anyone that has concerns about it should be able to obtain that info. through FOI laws.  If that is even possible to release that info. i don't really know, but it should be full disclosure IMO.

BlueBag wrote:

tiny wrote:

Lance De Boils wrote:I agree. I think everyone mentioned in that 'dossier' should be informed so that they can take measures to enhance their personal security. After all, nobody yet knows exactly how Brenda died.

totally agree with this.

Everybody in the dossier should be told who their accusers are.

Totally agree. And maybe if the McC's are so concerned about what others think of them, actually get someone that has the authority to pursue Twitterland or FB like their local cop shop, to see who is talking about them and what's been said.

Of course they should be told who their accusers are.  Is it lawful for the police to interview someone and not give the name of the person/s complaining about them?   

Anyone  being interviewed should get a solicitor with them pronto.

BlueBag wrote:

tiny wrote:

Lance De Boils wrote:I agree. I think everyone mentioned in that 'dossier' should be informed so that they can take measures to enhance their personal security. After all, nobody yet knows exactly how Brenda died.

totally agree with this.

Everybody in the dossier should be told who their accusers are.

At times this country is beginning to remind me of unpleasant totaliterian states where people are encouraged to inform on their neighbours and even children on their parents ...

plebgate wrote:Of course they should be told who their accusers are.  Is it lawful for the police to interview someone and not give the name of the person/s complaining about them?

As far as I'm aware it is and if the police have taken no action with the dossier I doubt whether the people named in it have a right to know that they have been accused.

So, Brenda Leyland was outed by TrulyJudy73 way back in March. I can’t copy and paste the tweet, but here is a transcription:
@Sweepyface<<<<<
And a few more:


Forget that @Sweepyface Brenda has closed her fb account this very evening…lol Too late, we have her measure #McCann –Sat Mar 15 21:17:22 +0000 2014-10-10


Is this her because she works at my own NHS Hospital Trust!!! http://uk linkedin.com/pub/dir/Brenda/Leyland # McCann Sat Mar 15:18:42:26 +0000 2014

There are more of TrulyJudy73's tweets on #McCann hashtag

TrulyJudy73=Pamela Gurney=Jenclo_Amoral.

dantezebu wrote:Not forgetting Summers and Swann had a copy too.

Is that true?

lj wrote:

dantezebu wrote:Not forgetting Summers and Swann had a copy too.

Is that true?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKBQft83i9A

From 2.35 on. 
S&S are sat at a bench thumbing through a copy of the "dossier".

The word " trolling " is interesting and reminds me of the Norwegian fairytale : Three Billy Goats Gruff.

The short tale is here in a link: http://www.worldstories.org.uk/stories/story/79-three-billy-goats-gruff

That's all I know about trolls.

David Aaronovich seems to know more and It's rare I agree with him but on this occasion I do.

I don't have a Facebook account nor a Twitter account so these places are a mystery to me
as to etiquette or how the twittering works?

David Cameron does Twitter as do many other ' celebrities ' who it appears gain followers.

I have read tweets and all I see are slanging matches - no discussion just slanging.

For the life of me I can't see how you can have an in depth discussion ( nevermind an argument ) in
less than 140 characters. Forums are much better I think.

Back to David Aaronovich and his views in respect of the above:

The thing is that the slanging and abuse comes not from the device ( Twitter/facebook ) itself  it
arises from what the MSM deem to put out.

I suspect that there are not many forums in history that have ever pre-empted or led a story as such.

Some may have I don't know but people react to events that the MSM put on their screens or in the
press. These then filter through into the various camps. Camp A will make their position known and this
will cause a further reaction so Camp B sets up in opposition.

Aaronovitch and his fellow journalists are responsible for this as it they and the editors ( TV and press )
who decide which stories are in the public interest. Politicians play the game too of course.

Conspiracy theories abound because some members of the public mistrust the people putting the stories out.

Basically they don't trust what Mr Aaronovitch and his fellow media are saying to be true. Not surprisingly
in the UK at least the tales of Stephen Lawrence - The Hillsborough disaster and Jimmy Saville emerging now
makes us wonder where all the journalists were when this was all actually going on? For example if they knew
at the time why didn't they run the stories at the time? Or do they only expose just dead people knowing that
they can't be sued?

These emerging tales were many years ago and it is only now that we are learning about them.


Unfortunately in this sorrowful and now becoming farcical tale of missing Madeleine we have the same MSM
who reported " the facts " from Portugal ( and Brunty was one of them ) as they happened. The ones that the so
called pros and antis still discuss to this day. The MSM are implying now that everything they said was either a lie
or they were mistaken.

In my view the biggest conspiracy theory of this case is the idea by the MSM that after all that reporting early on
from Portugal was that Mr Amaral and his PJ team were ' fitting up ' the McCann couple. They assume this despite
saying when challenged that they have read the AG's Final Summary and the PJ's Final report.

The DVD is there for all the Carole Malone's to read if they wish but they are too busy writing about other things the
public need to know and assume truths from each other.

The trollers in this case and many others aren't the twitterers and facebookers. The MSM are the biggest and grandest
trollers of the lot as it only needs a headline in a paper or a strap line on the news to alert the public to a story and you
don't need to have them read the whole story just the headline to get them to believe something is true.

Or you can even write a book.

There is myth perpetrated by the media that Amaral's book The Truth of the Lie is banned in the UK. It isn't.

Perhaps one of our intrepid journalists would be better spending their time interviewing Mr Amaral instead of
chasing round disbelieving sceptics from the internet. We don't have to believe the MSM's belief that an abduction occurred.

Especially when there is absolutely no evidence of that having happened.

You can't know that unless you have read the files and even then it is my opinion and my opinion is just as valid as Brunty's
Summers and Swann's and many other self appointed ' experts' who have allegedly studied the disappearance of Madeleine.

The only opinion that counts in my view is the person who was around for the first 6 months fo the investigation.

If you can discredit him in the eyes of the public it doesn't matter even  if he is 100% correct. It's the perception that counts not
the facts.




Opinion though as said above.

In my view the biggest conspiracy theory of this case is the idea by the MSM that after all that reporting early on from Portugal was that Mr Amaral and his PJ team were ' fitting up ' the McCann couple.

That's exactly what it was from the start, and it was begun by the McCanns themselves, and then it was encouraged by them, and continued.

And they've used it ever since to reinforce in the public's mind that all of their evasiveness, their refusal to go back for a reconstruction, Kate's refusal to answer the questions... all of this was because they were determined to avoid being "fitted up".

IMO.

dantezebu wrote:

lj wrote:

dantezebu wrote:Not forgetting Summers and Swann had a copy too.

Is that true?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKBQft83i9A

From 2.35 on. 
S&S are sat at a bench thumbing through a copy of the "dossier".

Thanks dantzebu The more I know, the more I hate these pathetic parents. They stop at nothing and will always find other people to do their dirty work.

Well I don't know, it all seems like a rhum business to me.

Why are S&S so involved in this?   They seem to be taking things very personally imo. 

Who gave them the dossier and why - a good question that has been asked many times.   Let's hope that at the end of all/any enquiries we will all know.

Very odd indeed.