Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

by **PeterMac** 31.10.14 15:51

sonic72 wrote:I've said before that I think PM is involved in the mccann's online doings. Now I am certain.

Her star pupil set up the website, and very probably still runs it. £ 37,000 for a £ 370 site is nice work if you can get it.

by **PeterMac** 31.10.14 16:08

It is a bit like Gerry saying in his statement that "HE has no more photos in HIS possession" when his WIFE is sitting in the same police station with a camera full.
Strictly correct. Strictly not a lie.
But not in accordance with normal usage, nor common decency and honesty.
But who cares about that anyway ?

by Guest 31.10.14 16:14

PeterMac wrote:Just a random selection of photos for people to compare. No link between any of them, of course.

Ankles
" />" />

Bangle
" />
" />

Hair
" />
" />

Favourite Colour
" />
" />

"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 .. .

Anyone want to Purport anything ?

I'm not sure.

The woman in the video 4mins 25secs when her face is in silhouette has prominent cheekbones giving a distinct shape to her face. Philomena hasn't. Her cheekbones are non-existent and her face is fleshy and shapeless.

Plus the bangle on Phil's arm is tight - her wrist fills it. The bangle worn by the dossier woman is loose.

Just my opinion.

Plus, weren't the McCanns from Glasgow not Edinburgh?

by tiny 31.10.14 17:10

could be the other sister ,or a pro who lives that way

by Joss 31.10.14 17:14

I think it is difficult to tell who that is in the video that is posted because it is fairly well blocked out. The size of the woman is pretty much the same, and the hair kind of looks similar, and depending on the different time frames of the photos compared to the video, PMc could look slightly different now to then? I think she would own more than one bangle too probably, and i agree they are different bangles. I don't really know where the McC's are from?
And i have read now that two different scources mention family handed in the dossier.

by ultimaThule 31.10.14 17:35

Even though the sun appears to be giving it cheekbones it may not possess, the face in the video looks distinctly fleshy to me, Dee and I sometimes wear bangles that are not of the close-fitting variety.

We know that Uncle Phil has travelled to Portugal, Turkey, and to London, where she was seen outside the Houses of Parliament, and I've no doubt she's capable of ~~anything~~ getting herself from Ullapool to Edinburgh.. .

If this isn't Phil it could be Trish who, in common with her sister, is also not built like a whippet.

by Guest 31.10.14 17:46

by Woofer 31.10.14 18:24

Stillthinking wrote:
Woofer wrote:@stillthinking - yes defend your little brother if you know he is innocent IMO, but the whole family must know by now that he is not. Would I defend my brother if I found out he was not as innocent as he`s trying to make out? I don`t know the answer to that.

As an observer, uninvolved in the case, using logic not emotion, the main things that jump out to me are Kate refusing to answer questions and the dogs alerts. Were I emotionally involved in the case/related to K&G then I guess I might jump to the same conclusion Philomena did, that Portuguese police were trying to set K&G up. Or I might also reach the conclusion that as Gerry did answer his questions and there were no alerts on his clothing that he wasn't involved.

Have to disagree there. I believe the only reason they would suggest the police are trying to set them up is because they are guilty themselves - its a guilty person`s first line of defence when they think they have been sussed. If you think about it why would any police force not want to help find your child? Why would any police force want to set you up? If you were genuinely innocent, they could suspect all they liked but it would get them nowhere. I will never believe that a mother whose child was missing would not answer every single question put to them. A mother would be almost hysterical to tell EVERYTHING. Maybe Philomena has fallen for this but if she has thought about it logically she must have grave suspicions, but then maybe she is blinded by her closeness to her brother.

by sonic72 31.10.14 18:57

PeterMac wrote:
sonic72 wrote:I've said before that I think PM is involved in the mccann's online doings. Now I am certain.

Her star pupil set up the website, and very probably still runs it. £ 37,000 for a £ 370 site is nice work if you can get it.

I didnt know that about the pupil, but I did hear kate mccann say in an interview with Sandra F that she does all the website work herself, so she must be paying herself a wage for doing it?!

by Brian Griffin 31.10.14 19:01

Woofer wrote:
I will never believe that a mother whose child was missing would not answer every single question put to them. A mother would be almost hysterical to tell EVERYTHING.

Quite so! Everyone normal expresses disbelief at how Kate could be so calm and calculating, and refuse to answer those questions. It just doesn't make sense! A mother of sane mind would risk prison, even her life to protect her child, yet we have Kate acting so utterly un-motherly in this situation. In fact, it is so far-removed from what I would expect, I have to wonder whether Madeleine really is Kate's natural daughter.

In my opinion.

by ultimaThule 31.10.14 19:26

Dee Coy wrote:

Has it become a case of 'if the calves fit', Dee? Is it Phil, is it Trish, is it Gerry in drag, or Kate in a fat suit?

Only Brunty and his cameraman know the answer and, should they refuse to divulge the identity of the mystery woman, we might be treated to the sight of the 4 above mentioned 'suspects' plonked on a Crimewatch sofa with an efit of a pair of chunky legs as a backdrop. big grin

Fwiw, my money is staying on Uncle Phil ~~yer boots~~.

by Guest 31.10.14 20:00

by Guest 31.10.14 20:11

Seriously, if the dossier compiler is found to be a relative of, or a person close to the McCanns, what would be the implications of this if there are illegalties identified during the compilation process?

Can we expect to see the issue swept under the carpet? For Brenda, we should not allow that to happen.

by **PeterMac** 31.10.14 21:28

Dee Coy wrote:Seriously, if the dossier compiler is found to be a relative of, or a person close to the McCanns, what would be the implications of this if there are illegalties identified during the compilation process?
Can we expect to see the issue swept under the carpet? For Brenda, we should not allow that to happen.

Thank you for that. I agree.
They have hounded an innocent women - innocent of the crimes alleged by Brunt, Sky and the Dossier, in any event - apparently to her death.
It is therefore incumbent upon decent people everywhere to find the truth of what happened and the truth about who was involved.

It a few theories are "purported" which turn out to be incorrect, than that is a regrettable by-product of the monster the Mccanns have created.

by **PeterMac** 31.10.14 21:44

ultimaThule wrote:
Has it become a case of 'if the calves fit', Dee? Is it Phil, is it Trish, is it Gerry in drag, or Kate in a fat suit?
Only Brunty and his cameraman know the answer and, should they refuse to divulge the identity of the mystery woman, we might be treated to the sight of the 4 above mentioned 'suspects' plonked on a Crimewatch sofa with an efit of a pair of chunky legs as a backdrop
Fwiw, my money is staying on Uncle Phil ~~yer boots~~.

(The calves belong to someone with long term "heaviness" issues. You don't develop that amount of muscle bulk within a short time.)

But of course Bruntie may be asked by HM Coroner for Leicester City and South Leicestershire,
Mrs C.E. Mason, in case Number 2868/14, to be heard on 18/12/14, the case of
In Re: Leyland, Brenda Kathryn Gabrielle (Deceased)
some penetrating questions.

A Coroner's court is a Court of Law, BUT is not adversarial.
It is, almost uniquely in English law, INQUISITORIAL.
It is there to find out what happened, not to see if one lawyer can out-argue the other.

What is an inquest?
An inquest is a fact-finding inquiry to establish who has died, how, when and where the death occurred. It is not a trial - no one is on trial in a Coroner's Court. Unlike other Courts, whether civil or criminal, there is no prosecution or defence. The Coroner's jurisdiction is inquisitorial rather than adversarial or accusatorial. The Coroner and others who are "properly interested persons" simply seek the answers to the above questions.

Must a witness attend court? Witness summonses and contempt of court
If a witness lives in England and Wales and has evidence that the Coroner regards as relevant and important to help in establishing the facts of the death, he/she can be required to attend Court. A witness will usually be asked to attend the inquest voluntarily, but if they do not agree and their evidence is crucial, the Coroner may issue a witness summons to compel their attendance. If the witness then does not attend he/she may be arrested, brought before the Coroner and charged with contempt of Court. This is an offence that is punishable with a fine or a term of imprisonment.

Who decides which witnesses to call?
The Coroner decides who should be called to give evidence as a witness, and the order in which they give evidence, but the Coroner will listen to representations made to him by "properly interested persons" as to who should be called. Anyone who believes they may be of help or believes a particular witness should be called should inform the Coroner. The test is whether the witness is likely to provide evidence that is relevant to the matters that the Coroner has to investigate. The Coroner will decide whether the evidence is relevant to the investigation of the death.

Will the inquest be reported by the press and media?
Inquests must be held in public in accordance with the principle of open justice, so members of the public and journalists have the right to, and indeed may, attend the inquest and press reports may appear.

What about other legal proceedings?
Civil proceedings will normally follow (rather than precede) the inquest. When all the facts about the cause of death are known, it is possible that civil proceedings may be brought and a claim for damages made.

by plebgate 31.10.14 22:25

Thank you for posting that PeterM.

Snipped from your post -

"
What about other legal proceedings?
Civil proceedings will normally follow (rather than precede) the inquest. When all the facts about the cause of death are known, it is possible that civil proceedings may be brought and a claim for damages made. "

IF civil proceedings are brought after the inquest, I wonder who could be sued?

by ultimaThule 31.10.14 22:58

Dee Coy wrote:Seriously, if the dossier compiler is found to be a relative of, or a person close to the McCanns, what would be the implications of this if there are illegalties identified during the compilation process?

Can we expect to see the issue swept under the carpet? For Brenda, we should not allow that to happen.

Other than having experienced some curiousity as to what inspired the compilation of the 'dossier' and who compiled it at what, given the considerable internet/social media activity in relation to the case over the past 7+ years, appears to me to be this relatively late date, I haven't given thought as to whether there would be any 'implications' of the type you've mentioned, Dee

That said, my initial opinion is that it would very much depend on whether this 'dossier', which we are informed by no lesser personage than the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis was handed by a McCann family member to Operation Grange and, such is my understanding, redirected to Leceistershire Police for appraisal of its contents, was accompanied by a formal complaint.

If any such complaint makes allegation(s) against an individual, or individuals, named in the 'dossier' which can be shown to be false, there may be a case for the complainant(s) to answer otherwise, It seems to me, that reliance can only be placed on the court of public opinion to pronounce verdict.

However, despite the above prognosis, imo a case of harassment can be made against at least one party to the events which led up to Brenda Leyland's premature death and it is my intention to set this out in detail in a subsequent contribution to this thread in due course.

While I derive some comfort from knowing that, regardless of whatever the relevant authorities may determine in this matter, while rightminded folk have breath in their bodies any injustice done to the beloved and devoted mother who was known to the twitter community as 'sweepyface' will most certainly not be 'swept under the carpet', I very much doubt this will provide solace to her family and friends.

by Joss 01.11.14 2:40

Woofer wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
Woofer wrote:@stillthinking - yes defend your little brother if you know he is innocent IMO, but the whole family must know by now that he is not. Would I defend my brother if I found out he was not as innocent as he`s trying to make out? I don`t know the answer to that.

As an observer, uninvolved in the case, using logic not emotion, the main things that jump out to me are Kate refusing to answer questions and the dogs alerts. Were I emotionally involved in the case/related to K&G then I guess I might jump to the same conclusion Philomena did, that Portuguese police were trying to set K&G up. Or I might also reach the conclusion that as Gerry did answer his questions and there were no alerts on his clothing that he wasn't involved.

Have to disagree there. I believe the only reason they would suggest the police are trying to set them up is because they are guilty themselves - its a guilty person`s first line of defence when they think they have been sussed. If you think about it why would any police force not want to help find your child? Why would any police force want to set you up? If you were genuinely innocent, they could suspect all they liked but it would get them nowhere. I will never believe that a mother whose child was missing would not answer every single question put to them. A mother would be almost hysterical to tell EVERYTHING. Maybe Philomena has fallen for this but if she has thought about it logically she must have grave suspicions, but then maybe she is blinded by her closeness to her brother.

ITA with what you say. There is never a good reason in a missing child case for parents to not co operate with the authorities to find the child. The first 48 hours are critical in locating a missing child. Authorities will also initially try to rule out family members by questioning them.
I think that is what most of us find so incredulous in this case is the non co operation of the mother to work with the police by answering any questions they had for her in determining what led up to Madeleine being missing, and to date there has never been an explanation of why she didn't do so.

by ultimaThule 01.11.14 7:16

PeterMac wrote:It is a bit like Gerry saying in his statement that "HE has no more photos in HIS possession" when his WIFE is sitting in the same police station with a camera full.
Strictly correct. Strictly not a lie.
But not in accordance with normal usage, nor common decency and honesty.
But who cares about that anyway ?

I care, PeterM, and I have every confidence that I am far from being in a minority of one and that common decency and honesty are values which will continue to be handed down through generations and that personal integrity, or the lack thereof, defines us all.

by **PeterMac** 01.11.14 8:14

ultimaThule wrote:
I care, PeterM, and I have every confidence that I am far from being in a minority of one and that common decency and honesty are values which will continue to be handed down through generations and that personal integrity, or the lack thereof, defines us all.

I assure you that you are not in a minority of one, nor indeed in any minority.
The internet and Comments, where allowed, on any article associated with this disgraceful situation proves that.

by Liz Eagles 01.11.14 20:12

Jim Gamble's company INEQE quotes as its clients....Sky News and the BBC

https://ineqe.com/specialist-advisors/

by Guest 02.11.14 8:54

aquila wrote:Jim Gamble's company INEQE quotes as its clients....Sky News and the BBC

https://ineqe.com/specialist-advisors/

Makes one wonder exactly what service is being provided to such esteemed organisations that they cannot find elsewhere or manage "in house".

by sallypelt 03.11.14 17:12

I don't know if this has already been posted:

http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2014/11/mccanns-real-trolls-bridge-part/

The suicide of an English woman in a hotel room on the 4th of October, 2014 made worldwide headlines. Her name was Brenda Leyland from the village of Burton Overy in Leicestershire. Leyland died two days after a well-publicized encounter with Sky News crime reporter Martin Brunt.

Brunt is a well known journalist in the UK; hence, one would think Leyland was some public figure accused of murder, sex offending, or mass fraud. However, Leyland, a 63-year-old mother of two, was unknown to the public at large. She had no criminal convictions either; thus, what was her heinous crime? Well, she was an aggressive critic of the McCanns and their supporters on Twitter!

This two-part follow-up to our popular 2013 article here at TSW will discuss “Team McCanns” targeting of Leyland (something they deny). This woman is the most recent, and tragic example of their aggressive war on freedom of expression and speech. Therefore, in light of the support for Leyland the author decided to address a niggling question concerning the McCanns current popularity.

This just some extracts from the above link.

by Doug D 03.11.14 18:58

Thanks for that sallypelt,

Further snip:

‘The McCanns leave us with the two possibilities.

The first being they likely thought they would win public support outing Leyland. If this is the case, their advisers are apparently mistaken. Leyland, for all her foibles, would now have Twitter followers numbering in the tens of thousands.

The second possibility conjoins with the first. Many believe Team McCann also chose Leyland as an “example” to scare ordinary people out of speaking critically. This is a rather scary allegation, and it shall form the basis of Part II of this article.

Stay tuned for more on the McCanns and share your thoughts below.’

Interesting to see what they have to say in Part 2.

by missbeetle 18.11.14 7:35

Something that has rumbled away in the back of my mind is Ben Leyland's tribute to his mother :

He added: 'I am love and I am light, thanks to you'.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2782066/I-love-mum-I-miss-forever-Grieving-son-s-tribute-internet-troll-dead-hotel-room-exposed-targeting-Maddie-McCann-s-parents.html#ixzz3JOxrhR3U
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

This phrase "love and light" - is it a modern-day version of the old "peace and love" valediction?

Or does it have a slightly more cosmic edge to it?

A search on Google for "I am love and I am light" gives the first result as lightworkers.org -

- something to do with the Great White Brotherhood...?

(of which I know next to nothing)

Thoughts, anyone?

by Doug D 18.11.14 8:27

Part 2 of the article can be found here:

http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2014/11/mccanns-real-trolls-bridge-part-ii/

Just a snip:

‘Choosing one of the more aggressive twitterers could have been dangerous in the sense Brunt and the McCanns might be shamed by a tirade. Hence, in choosing Leyland they calculated she wouldn’t react with anything but fear. Thus, when we consider the intensity with which they followed her online, the probability team McCann physically staked out Leyland some weeks before Brunt turned up is rather high. If true, this adds even more scandal and alarm to the whole McCann saga.’

It also passes comment on Jim Gamble's objectivity and professionalism.

by Janetta 18.11.14 8:52

Missbeetle, I don't think there is anything unusual in using the words" love and light". You will find this term is exchanged between friends in e.g. the Spiritualist Church all the time. I have received quite a few cards and letters which finish up wishing me "love and light" and I don't think too much should be read into this. I find those words very comforting.

by plebgate 18.11.14 8:57

Yes, I tend to agree with Janetta's post that it is an expression used by Church people. A very good friend of mine uses it when something sad has happened. My friend is very kind and also gives great comfort to people in time of need.

by Joss 19.11.14 2:45

The words Love & Light i think are spiritual terms, being that we are eternal beings and pure consciousness in our natural state, and physical life is but only one small aspect of what we really are.
I must say i have had a very personal experience of this a few hours after my son was killed in a car crash. He came to me as a vision, (not a dream), that same evening, and he was incredibly love & light as i saw him. I have never had that same experience and to me it was the most precious gift to let me realize we are more than what we think we really are.

by missbeetle 19.11.14 5:10

Joss - I was so sorry to read you had lost a son in a car accident -

- what a beautiful way to see him again in a vision of love and of light.

My late father once laid his hand on my shoulder and called me by a childhood nickname -

- he had been dead three years and yet it was him - so real. Not a dream and not a ghost.

Janetta - thank you also for your take on the phrase -

- the Spiritualist Church is something I'd not come across before -

- like so much else relating to this case it's been interesting having a read up on it.

Blessings and best wishes to both of you.