Cause of Brenda Leyland's Death Inconclusive

Dont Make Me Laff wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:WHO was the 'photographer' that photographed Brenda 'over her garden fence'?

Who did the photographer 'work for'?

Was the 'photographer 'there' BEFORE or AFTER Sky New's 'doorstepping'?

How did the 'photographer' KNOW where BL lived?

Good points... And how do we know she was photographed? did she tweet it?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/06/outed-madeleine-mccann-troll-kills-herself-but-millions-live-on-online.html#

This is all i've got......................so far!

"On Thursday, Leyland fled her home after a photographer snapped her photo from behind her garden fence."

NOW I'VE 'FOUND' THIS!

Brenda (sweepyface) on FB
kitti on Sun 05 Oct 2014, 4:05 pm

Apparently she had been PESTERED by the Leicester Mercury (newspaper) a few hours ago....they won't leave her alone!

What a beautiful house she has , she can't leave her animals, they love her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Slowy, Slowy, Catchee Monkey.

Leicester Mercury 'involved'?

The SAME Leicester Mercury, that handed over to McCanns PRIVATE Limited Company, aka Madeleine's Fund, a cheque for over £53,000, 'raised' by selling GQWB's! The LM 'people' that did NOT, and HAVE NOT, EVER 'questioned/doubted', like BL DID,  the 'abduction' story, ONLY, TOLD, i repeat ONLY, TOLD, to them BY the McCann couple, themselves!

WHAT WAS THEIR POSSIBLE 'ROLE' IN THE TWO DAYS BEFORE BRENDA'S 'TRADEGY'?

WAS it THEIR 'photographer' pestering Brenda 'over the garden fence'?

Hope he/she isn't feeling to good today!. And i hope they feel like that, for the rest of their miserable lives!

Is 'PESTERING' WORSE THAN 'HARRASSING'?

Just an 'aside'

I've seen BL's FB 'page' and there are copious amounts of pictures of her, and her animal 'pets' on there.

What has happened to her 'pets'

Surely, she, this animal loving lady, would have made arrangements for THEM to have been cared for.

Have her neighbours taken her pets 'in'?

WHO 'looked after' her pets when she 'fled' to the hotel?

jeanmonroe wrote:

Dont Make Me Laff wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:WHO was the 'photographer' that photographed Brenda 'over her garden fence'?

Who did the photographer 'work for'?

Was the 'photographer 'there' BEFORE or AFTER Sky New's 'doorstepping'?

How did the 'photographer' KNOW where BL lived?

Good points... And how do we know she was photographed? did she tweet it?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/06/outed-madeleine-mccann-troll-kills-herself-but-millions-live-on-online.html#

This is all i've got......................so far!

"On Thursday, Leyland fled her home after a photographer snapped her photo from behind her garden fence."

NOW I'VE 'FOUND' THIS!

Brenda (sweepyface) on FB
kitti on Sun 05 Oct 2014, 4:05 pm

Apparently she had been PESTERED by the Leicester Mercury a few hours ago....they won't leave her alone!

What a beautiful house she has , she can't leave her animals, they love her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Slowy, Slowy, Catchee Monkey.

Leicester Mercury 'involved'?

WHAT WAS THEIR POSSIBLE 'ROLE' IN THE TWO DAYS BEFORE BRENDA'S 'TRADEGY'?

Is 'PESTERING' WORSE THAN 'HARRASSING'?

Just an 'aside'

I've seen BL's FB 'page' and there are copious amounts of pictures of her, and her animal 'pets' on there.

What has happened to her 'pets'

Surely, she, this animal loving lady, would have made arrangements for THEM to have been cared for.

Have her neighbours taken her pets 'in'?

WHO 'looked after' her pets when she 'fled' to the hotel?

jean you're asking the questions I had wondered. No one would just go off and leave their pets. Even if they intended to commit suicide they would have ensured that a neighbour was going to take them in.
I have a bad feeling about her 'suicide' and don't have enough faith in the established authorities to necessarily believe that a proper autopsy wil be done, be properly reported, etc.
It is hard to know if anyone 'independent' will have had any view on any of this.

bobbin wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:

Dont Make Me Laff wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:WHO was the 'photographer' that photographed Brenda 'over her garden fence'?

Who did the photographer 'work for'?

Was the 'photographer 'there' BEFORE or AFTER Sky New's 'doorstepping'?

How did the 'photographer' KNOW where BL lived?

Good points... And how do we know she was photographed? did she tweet it?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/06/outed-madeleine-mccann-troll-kills-herself-but-millions-live-on-online.html#

This is all i've got......................so far!

"On Thursday, Leyland fled her home after a photographer snapped her photo from behind her garden fence."

NOW I'VE 'FOUND' THIS!

Brenda (sweepyface) on FB
kitti on Sun 05 Oct 2014, 4:05 pm

Apparently she had been PESTERED by the Leicester Mercury a few hours ago....they won't leave her alone!

What a beautiful house she has , she can't leave her animals, they love her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Slowy, Slowy, Catchee Monkey.

Leicester Mercury 'involved'?

WHAT WAS THEIR POSSIBLE 'ROLE' IN THE TWO DAYS BEFORE BRENDA'S 'TRADEGY'?

Is 'PESTERING' WORSE THAN 'HARRASSING'?

Just an 'aside'

I've seen BL's FB 'page' and there are copious amounts of pictures of her, and her animal 'pets' on there.

What has happened to her 'pets'

Surely, she, this animal loving lady, would have made arrangements for THEM to have been cared for.

Have her neighbours taken her pets 'in'?

WHO 'looked after' her pets when she 'fled' to the hotel?

jean you're asking the questions I had wondered. No one would just go off and leave their pets. Even if they intended to commit suicide they would have ensured that a neighbour was going to take them in.
I have a bad feeling about her 'suicide' and don't have enough faith in the established authorities to necessarily believe that a proper autopsy wil be done, be properly reported, etc.
It is hard to know if anyone 'independent' will have had any view on any of this.

This is all so true. Such good points jeanmonroe.

The press need to STFU ,they ALL know what brunt did was wrong,but stick together like shit on a blanket, BRENDA is the victim here not brunt

Snifferdog wrote:

bobbin wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:

Dont Make Me Laff wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:WHO was the 'photographer' that photographed Brenda 'over her garden fence'?

Who did the photographer 'work for'?

Was the 'photographer 'there' BEFORE or AFTER Sky New's 'doorstepping'?

How did the 'photographer' KNOW where BL lived?

Good points... And how do we know she was photographed? did she tweet it?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/06/outed-madeleine-mccann-troll-kills-herself-but-millions-live-on-online.html#

This is all i've got......................so far!

"On Thursday, Leyland fled her home after a photographer snapped her photo from behind her garden fence."

NOW I'VE 'FOUND' THIS!

Brenda (sweepyface) on FB
kitti on Sun 05 Oct 2014, 4:05 pm

Apparently she had been PESTERED by the Leicester Mercury a few hours ago....they won't leave her alone!

What a beautiful house she has , she can't leave her animals, they love her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Slowy, Slowy, Catchee Monkey.

Leicester Mercury 'involved'?

WHAT WAS THEIR POSSIBLE 'ROLE' IN THE TWO DAYS BEFORE BRENDA'S 'TRADEGY'?

Is 'PESTERING' WORSE THAN 'HARRASSING'?

Just an 'aside'

I've seen BL's FB 'page' and there are copious amounts of pictures of her, and her animal 'pets' on there.

What has happened to her 'pets'

Surely, she, this animal loving lady, would have made arrangements for THEM to have been cared for.

Have her neighbours taken her pets 'in'?

WHO 'looked after' her pets when she 'fled' to the hotel?

jean you're asking the questions I had wondered. No one would just go off and leave their pets. Even if they intended to commit suicide they would have ensured that a neighbour was going to take them in.
I have a bad feeling about her 'suicide' and don't have enough faith in the established authorities to necessarily believe that a proper autopsy wil be done, be properly reported, etc.
It is hard to know if anyone 'independent' will have had any view on any of this.

This is all so true. Such good points jeanmonroe.

Yesterday when I was nosing around I found Pamela Gurney had sent a letter to a newspaper about the lights put up by the council in Stamford Leics. Her FB page mentions virtually the same thing. The newspaper was the Stamford Mercury. Sister paper?

I FEEL compelled to write to you regarding the lights bedecking Stamford’s lovely town centre.
The question is this, why did the council bother at all? A more pathetic attempt at bringing the cheer and spirit of Christmas to a place I have yet to see and I know there are plenty of other people with the same view because I have spoken to them in the town centre.
What classes for a Christmas tree centrepiece is also a disgrace. It is nothing more than a wire cone with a few feeble lights hanging in strands from it, many of which have ceased to function and rubbish gathering inside and around the base. Lovely!
If shoppers are to be encouraged to come and spend here then every effort should be made to attract them.
Stamford lends itself to looking absolutely wonderful with a little thought and effort on the council’s part, so come on whoever plans the festive lights, show some imagination next year for goodness sake.
Pam Gurney




Pamela Gurney Remarkable that Stamford TC has invested in new lights at long last and a real spruce tree in the square after last years abysmal but very expensive wire tree which just collected all of the garbage on the street! Post Office queue was backed up right into Red Lion Square yesterday morning and they were thinking about putting it into a store!!! Mind that wouldn't have worked because the stores keep closing!

A wee search of the Leicester Mercury threw up this

Search Results
Your search for 'pamela gurney' in 'Leicester Mercury' found 1 match
Order by: 

• Most Relevant
  
  
  
  • Latest
    
  • Recently Commented
    
  
  
  

USER PROFILENo_SurprisesJoined on Monday, July 01 20130 followers

Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/search/search.html?searchType=&searchPhrase=pamela+gurney&where=#ixzz3FfH53FPg
Follow us: @Leicester_Merc on Twitter | leicestermercury on Facebook

thetruthbeknown wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:thetruthbeknown wrote:

"Ive put myself in her shoes, and id be horrified at my feelings on this subject being exposed to all and sundry in my community, friends, family."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd love, just LOVE, my 'feelings and views' to be 'exposed/known' not only 'in my community, friends, family' because, unsurprisingly they already KNOW my 'views'

but

I'd like the WHOLE WORLD to 'know' my 'views' on the 'disappearance' of a 3 years old child, diliberately, consciously, left alone with TWO siblings, younger than even her. A TOTALLY unprotected, defenceless, 3 years old child.

I have asked the McCanns to SUE me.

I have asked Sky News to 'interview' me.

I have spoken to OG officers.

Guess what?

Nothing, Zilch, Nada, Zero, 'response'

What does THAT 'tell' ya?

Good for you :) But some are not that confident, plus my children are school age, and they are more important to me than anything, I wont put them through any kind of harrassment etc. As much as I want to see justice for Madeline, and I will follow and take an interest, I wont put myself right out there. Call me a coward if you want :/

I unerstand you, truthbeknown, when my children were much younger we lived in a small community from which we could not easily move. In those years I held back a lot, even if it was just for the sake of the children. They are the vulnerable ones, and some other parents would not hesitate to settle their scores with me, through the children.

We all know what the morale of the McCanns is, and how much they really care for children.

Snifferdog wrote:From Sallypelts post:

Police Sergeant Kevin Taylor told the coroner he was informed that Mrs Leyland was dead after being sent to the Marriott Hotel in Enderby.

##############

Who sent Brenda to the Marriot Hotel?

...and a few why's...

Why has Jacinta Saldahnas inquest not been completed yet?
Why was her family not allowed to see, never mind take possession of her so called suicide note, and were only allowed copies?
Why was the death of a teenaged girl, whose body was found in the grounds of Balmoral castle, not being properly investigated?

I was reminded of the Jacinta Saldahna case when I first heard the sad news of Brenda's death.
(Jacinta Saldahna was of course the nurse who was said to have committed suicide after she took a prank phone call from Australian radio DJs posing as members of the British Royal Family and was duped into giving out personal information.)
Jacinta's death - whatever the cause - placed a massive red flag around the whole area of "messing with the Royal Family" in the minds of the world's media. It will help the British establishment considerably in this regard.

Brenda's death will perhaps place a similar red flag around the idea of criticising the McCanns in the minds of internet users. Although the initial reaction has been one of outrage and defiance, once the news sinks in, it might reduce some people's willingness to speak out against them openly and publically. After all, nobody wants to be stigmatised to the point of death.

As far as I know, both Brenda and Jacinta were women living alone, with no family present to bear witness to their state of mind, nor to the behaviour of anyone who may have approached or deceived them, in the time leading up to their deaths. A verdict of suicide is, therefore, harder to disprove.

The above is my opinion only.

aiyoyo wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

juliet wrote:If you google reports of Peaches' sad death they all say police found no evidence of drugs or drugs paraphernalia. Much much later they admitted to all the stuff they found. Perhaps they wanted to protect Bob Geldof but they deliberately misled the press.

Sorry, but you have seriously misunderstood the situation.

They have to mislead the Press.
The press are NOT Coroner, nor Judge, nor jury.
And the modern Press have no morals, and almost none can be trusted.
Which leaves the police in an impossible situation.
At that moment their duty is to Her Majesty's Coroner, and to no one else.
They cease to be Police Officers under the control of the Chief Constable, and become Coroner's officers, under the direct control - if s/he wishes - of HM Coroner.
The Office of Coroner dates from the 11th century.
Police date from 1834

The press have no part in any of this,
So they did not "admit" to the stuff they had found, they gave evidence under oath in a Court of law, to the person legally and constitutionally entitled to receive that evidence.

Very rightly so.  
The Press and Police have different roles and different objectives.
The former's objective is to make profit, while the latter has a duty to the victim and Her Majesty's Coroner.  The latter's role isn't to satisfy or co-operate with the press.

Hence, the statement "The McCanns and Hol. friends are not persons of interest" might just be to mislead the press, to throw them off track, so that they don't interfere with Police's work.

The Police never let on, they don't have a duty to the press or to the public, in due time maybe, but not otherwise.

This, in my opinion, is 'quote-of-the-year' on this forum.

Right at the start of the OG review of the case, when I heard Andy say the McCanns and friends were not persons of interest, I, like many others, felt annoyed, angry, upset, etc etc.

I wrongly believed that justice would not be done in this case if they believed the McCann version of events.

Then a mate of mine calmly explained to me that the police HAD to say that, otherwise the press and media would virtually take over the investigation and wreck any chance of a fair trial in the future.

It gives Andy and his pizza gobblers hard-working team the chance to investigate without intrusion, and hopefully eliminate all other possibilities ... leaving the way clear to fully investigate the Tapas 9.

A big thanks to aiyoyo for reminding us of this fact.

I am still waiting for my visit from brunty/the local plod/ anyone else.

On my blog i had one mccann supporter who remained anonymous, telling me to take down my posts as they were defamatory, libellous etc and the police would be informed.

I think they were a bit put out when i replied with a yaaaaaaaaaaaay my first threat of legal action bring it on or words to that effect.

They don't seem to get it that when they make threats to haul our asses into court, that that is exactly what we want.

They don't understand that we can then get all the diecrepancies out in the open and in the public eye, that i and many others really want the mccanns to sue us so we can get their asses in court and then ask all the questions they have refused to answer, ask why they refused to cooperate and all the all inteesting and incriminating stuff they don't want out in the open, out in the open, and all under oath.

The mccanns are desperate not to appear in court and will rather settle out of court than be forced to testify under oath.

Regarding the trial in Portugal against Dt Amaral, they avoided the stand like the plague until they were forced to do something since their own witnesses were doing more to support Dr. Amaral than helping the mccanns.

Kate went so fasr as to said she wanted a written statement thus avoiding the chance of cross examination and gerry decided he knew better and did his spiel before launching into the dogs and promptly being sgut down by the judge ( those dogs are your worse nightmare aren't they gerry and you simply must ridicule and demean and defame them in order to render their evidence useless, except we all now the dogs told the truth and you are royally screwed, I bet you didn't think they would bring in cadaver dogs did you)

Everyone knows my views on the case, i will discuss it with anyone and everyone and give them a crash course is statement analysis 101 so they can see the truth for themselves.

kate and gerry have told the world the truth, they have told us Maddie is long dead and even how ( they don't want a murder in Portugal - kate mccann)

I say bring it on.

I don't know how much mileage is in this, but this is what someone has tweeted on Twitter:

Gael @GaeMar01
.@Channel4news @BBCnews @ITVnews request live broadcast #BrendaLeyland


Case No: 2686/14
Hearing Date: 18/12/2014
0900 Leicester #McCann

OMG, was she murdered then?

Hanging?  Not conclusive !

Maybe it's the UK press being not accuracy then about the method of suicide.

aiyoyo wrote:OMG, was she murdered then?

Hanging?  Not conclusive !

Maybe it's the UK press being not accuracy then about the method of suicide.

This isn't a new thread. I brought it up so I could post the information, that's been posted on Twitter about the inquest, here.

Don't know where the first part of this post disappeared to, but here it is again:
Current Inquests
.  
Case No:
2686/14
Name of Deceased:
LEYLAND, Brenda Kathryn Gabrielle
Gender
Female
Date of Birth:09/06/1951
Age:
63yrs
Town
Burton Overy, Leicestershire
Medical Cause of Death
To be ascertained
Circumstances
Found deceased in a hotel
Inquest Status
Open and adjourned
Date Inquest Open08/10/2014
Hearing Date18/12/2014
Hearing Time
9am
Type of Hearing
Pre Inquest Review ( HMC Mrs C.E.Mason ).


So, there's to be a "Pre Inquest Review"

This is what I've found about a pre inquest review:







Current Inquests
Before the inquest
Section 4.1: Before the inquest




Who decides who will give evidence?
 
It is up to the coroner to decide who will give evidence. You can suggest witnesses who may be helpful and important to the coroner yourself or through your solicitor. If you have a solicitor, it is important he or she lets the coroner know as soon as possible that they are instructed by you to prepare for the inquest, and that they keep in regular contact with the coroner. Some coroners are more open to suggestions on which witnesses to call than others. In the end it is the coroner who makes the decision, although it may be possible to challenge the coroner through other legal processes if the decision is unreasonable.
Many coroners will release a witness list of who they propose to call to give evidence in advance of the inquest. A coroner will either call a witness to give evidence at the hearing or will arrange for their statement to be read at the inquest without the need for them to attend (rule 37 of the Coroners Rules 1984). If you object to a statement being read then it should not be and the witness should be called to appear at the inquest in person.
What is a pre-inquest hearing or review?
If the case is complicated, for example when there are lots of witnesses and other interested persons, there may be one or more pre-inquest hearings or reviews. These are hearings with the coroner and all the interested persons where plans are made for the practical arrangements, such as agreeing a date, deciding on which witnesses will be needed and how long the inquest is going to take. There are often legal arguments in these hearings, for example about how much information the inquest will consider and how wide the investigation will be – often called the scope of the inquest.
You can go along to these hearings, you may want your solicitor to deal with them for you, or you can decide not to go at all. Some (but not all) coroners will make sure that families are shown around the court facilities and given the information they need about the practical arrangements when they attend one of these hearings.
When will I be told the date of the inquest?
You should be informed of the date of the inquest as soon as it is set. If there are any pre-inquest hearings the date should be agreed then. You will be able to tell your solicitor if there are any dates that would be difficult for you to attend and they can ask the coroner to take this into account. If a barrister is representing you then your solicitor should ask the coroner to ensure that enough notice is given and also ensure that your barrister is available. Although this is good practice not all coroners take this approach.
If the death raises complicated issues and involves investigations by other organisations, you may need to be prepared to wait many months, or in some circumstances years, before the inquest takes place. In some complex cases this can be as long as four or five years after the death.
Can I speak to the coroner?
It is more common that you will speak to the coroner’s officerThe person who works for the coroner and is responsible for making arrangements for the inquest., although some coroners will speak directly to bereaved people or their solicitors.
What are the legal rules about what can be said in public before an inquest?
There is no strict rule forbidding you to speak in public about the inquest before it happens – in legal jargon it is not subjudiceA legal term (Latin for "under judgment") which means that a case is currently at trial or being considered by a judge or court, and so cannot be discussed in public. – so simply reporting the matter is not contempt of court, neither is talking about the deceased’s life before they died. However, you need to be very careful and seek advice from your solicitor or one of the organisations listed in this guide about what is sensible to say in public before the inquest as it could have a negative impact. For example, if there is the possibility of someone being charged with a criminal offence, it is not usually a good idea to speak publicly about the facts or events involved in the death. If there is a prosecution, it might be argued that it was impossible to have a fair trial because of the publicity. If someone has been arrested and charged then it will become subjudiceA legal term (Latin for "under judgment") which means that a case is currently at trial or being considered by a judge or court, and so cannot be discussed in public.. If there are civil proceedingsLegal cases which are not criminal trials, sometimes involving a claim for damages/compensation.Legal cases which are not criminal trials, sometimes involving a claim for damages/compensation. taking place, you also need to have good advice about what you can say and when you can say it.

http://www.inquest.org.uk/help/handbook/section-4-1-before-the-inquest

sallypelt wrote:
...

However, you need to be very careful and seek advice from your solicitor or one of the organisations listed in this guide about what is sensible to say in public before the inquest as it could have a negative impact. For example, if there is the possibility of someone being charged with a criminal offence, it is not usually a good idea to speak publicly about the facts or events involved in the death.

http://www.inquest.org.uk/help/handbook/section-4-1-before-the-inquest

I suspect this is the main reason that disgraced journalist Martin Brunt has not said anything about his involvement in Brenda's death - even though he has been back on twitter for a couple of weeks now.

Bishop Brennan wrote:

sallypelt wrote:
...

However, you need to be very careful and seek advice from your solicitor or one of the organisations listed in this guide about what is sensible to say in public before the inquest as it could have a negative impact. For example, if there is the possibility of someone being charged with a criminal offence, it is not usually a good idea to speak publicly about the facts or events involved in the death.

http://www.inquest.org.uk/help/handbook/section-4-1-before-the-inquest

I suspect this is the main reason that disgraced journalist Martin Brunt has not said anything about his involvement in Brenda's death - even though he has been back on twitter for a couple of weeks now.  

I would imagine so, and with the inquest coming up this month i wonder if he has lawyered up and is going by a lawyers advice?

Joss wrote:
I would imagine so, and with the inquest coming up this month I wonder if he has lawyered up and is going by a lawyers advice?

Murdoch / Sky will have seen to that within minutes.
He will be under strict instructions, and will even now be rehearsing his answers
They do not want a Corporate Manslaughter looming over them
http://www.hse.gov.uk/corpmanslaughter/about.htm
The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 is a landmark in law. For the first time, companies and organisations can be found guilty of corporate manslaughter as a result of serious management failures resulting in a gross breach of a duty of care.

Companies and organisations that take their obligations under health and safety law seriously are not likely to be in breach of the new provisions. Nonetheless, companies and organisations should keep their health and safety management systems under review, in particular, the way in which their activities are managed or organised by senior management.

It should be borne in mind that HSE is only one of the health and safety regulators that might produce relevant health and safety guidance. Organisations and companies can also seek guidance from any regulators in their own industry or sector.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/194272/No_secrets__guidance_on_developing_and_implementing_multi-agency_policies_and_procedures_to_protect_vulnerable_adults_from_abuse.pdf

2.5 What constitutes abuse? In drawing up guidance locally, it needs to be recognised that the term ‘abuse’ can be subject to wide interpretation. The starting point for a definition is the following statement:
Abuse is a violation of an individual’s human and civil rights by any other person or persons.     Like LYING to them on prime time TV News slot about the Pollce tracking them down?

The Corporate in-house lawyer will have pre-empted all manner of questions likely to arise at the Inquest and have the answers prepared for MB to memorise and rehearse for his Stand appearance.
But, it will be interesting to see if he will be asked why he lied to her about Police investigating her and what his answer will be; or rather what answer the in-house lawyer had supplied to him for said question.

saw this on twitter,dont know if it means anything.


More

• Embed Tweet
  

Sonia Poulton @SoniaPoulton  ·  7 hrs 7 hours ago
@56cheffy Yes Brenda's inquest. Just discovered it has been changed from final to pre-review. I find that Interesting development #mcann RIP

Just speculating here, but one of Brendas sons was either studying or practicing Law in the states. It occurs to me that if he feels Sky's conduct was responsible or some other darker reason behind her death, then it could be that he is working hard to secure justice for his mother. I don't know how these things work, but it is not unreasonable to assume that given the publicity surrounding this death following the frankly disgraceful behaviour of Martin Brunt, it won't be a rubber stamp job. The outcome of this is going to be watched carefully by thousands and Twitter and the like won't let this be quietly brushed under a carpet.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:Just speculating here, but one of Brendas sons was either studying or practicing Law in the states. It occurs to me that if he feels Sky's conduct was responsible or some other darker reason behind her death, then it could be that he is working hard to secure justice for his mother. I don't know how these things work, but it is not unreasonable to assume that given the publicity surrounding this death following the frankly disgraceful behaviour of Martin Brunt, it won't be a rubber stamp job. The outcome of this is going to be watched carefully by thousands and Twitter and the like won't let this be quietly brushed under a carpet.

I hope your right,if it wasn't for brunt Brenda would still be alive,a needless death just to make the mccanns look like the victims.
R I P Brenda.

tiny wrote:saw this on twitter,dont know if it means anything.

It is correct

http://coroners.leicester.gov.uk/current-inquests/?entryid78=582748&char=L
" />



perhaps Brunt and Philomena are not available that day ! !
What we DO know is that HM Coroner has received a lot of information and documentation about the Dossier of death, and the involvement of several people.
We do know that she has had some "discrepancies" in evidence pointed out to her.

There is always a remote chance that she may convene a Jury !

I sincerely hope a jury will be called on this Peter. Wouldn't it be refreshing if just ONE thing relating to the Madeleine case went through and was concluded in a fair, reasonable and timely fashion. We can but hope.

Philomena?,have I missed something

Philyerboots bears a remarkable resemblance to Ms Obese Fat Ankles whose face was obscured in Martin Brunt's Sky News report, tiny.  Mr Brunt chose not extend this courtesy to Brenda Leyland and thus ensured that she could be readily identified by all and sundry.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:I sincerely hope a jury will be called on this Peter. Wouldn't it be refreshing if just ONE thing relating to the Madeleine case went through and was concluded in a fair, reasonable and timely fashion. We can but hope.

I share your hopes, Sandm.  The time is long overdue for those who have shamelessly used the media for their own ends, and for those who have allowed this parlous state of affairs to come about, to account for their actions.

Fingers crossed with yours

There must be something extraordinary about Brenda Leyland's death. I haven't heard that she's had a funeral, so I believe that they haven't released her body to her family. There must be something seriously "wrong" for them to hold onto her body all this time. I have had family members who had inquests, but that didn't prevent them having a funeral MONTHS before their inquest

sallypelt wrote:There must be something extraordinary about Brenda Leyland's death. I haven't heard that she's had a funeral, so I believe that they haven't released her body to her family. There must be something seriously "wrong" for them to hold onto her body all this time. I have had family members who had inquests, but that didn't prevent them having a funeral MONTHS before their inquest

It could be that they had a private funeral, very quietly and out of the public's eye.

canada12 wrote:

sallypelt wrote:There must be something extraordinary about Brenda Leyland's death. I haven't heard that she's had a funeral, so I believe that they haven't released her body to her family. There must be something seriously "wrong" for them to hold onto her body all this time. I have had family members who had inquests, but that didn't prevent them having a funeral MONTHS before their inquest

It could be that they had a private funeral, very quietly and out of the public's eye.

Canada, this may be the case. I find it hard to believe that Brenda's body hasn't been released to her family

ultimaThule wrote:Philyerboots bears a remarkable resemblance to Ms Obese Fat Ankles whose face was obscured in Martin Brunt's Sky News report, tiny.  Mr Brunt chose not extend this courtesy to Brenda Leyland and thus ensured that she could be readily identified by all and sundry.

Her 'waddle' is exactly the same.

Catherine Mason is the senior coroner for Leicester.  Let`s hope her seniority bodes well for a thorough inquest.

http://coroners.leicester.gov.uk/the-coroner/