Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

by Joss 18.12.14 13:33

Written statement from her son who coroner said BL had contacted before her death http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/dec/18/sky-news-journalists-give-evidence-inquest-alleged-internet-troll … #mccann

by **PeterMac** 18.12.14 13:37

aquila wrote:It's interesting the person with the 'cankles' was viewed in Scotland. Can that person be summoned and forced to attend a Coroner's Court in England as a witness?

I think not 'forced', though could be invited.
And other close family members with the relevant knowledge could of course be summoned to appear.
But the Coroner could read out in open court any document she might have received adverting to the identity of the owner of the Heroic ankles,
and link it with other evidence she might have received.
A Coroner's court is inquisitorial, not adversarial

by tiny 18.12.14 13:38

Its a fcuk shame theses so called journo,s didn't do there homework first,scum of the earth the whole fcuking lot of them.

RIP,BRENDA LEYLAND

by Bishop Brennan 18.12.14 13:41

tiny wrote:What does this mean.

there is nobody to which there is any foreseeability of any criminal action being taken."

It means that the police have completed their investigation and as far as they are concerned nobody has committed a criminal act. This means that they are satisfied that Brenda did in fact kill herself and was not murdered or coerced into it by someone else. The fact that Sky News hounded her in her own house, possibly told her that legal action (libel suit) was likely, and then featured her relentlessly on TV in an massively inaccurate way is not deemed as criminal.

Of course only Brunt knows what he said that day, and you can be sure we will hear only a very edited version. He knows that while criminal charges are unlikely, a civil case is still very much a possibility (it's why Sky's legal counsel wants to see all the evidence before the inquest). Certainly Brunt is now disgraced as a man and as a reporter, his reputation will never recover, and people will never forget.

But criminal action? As the coroner said - hard to foresee any possibility of that.

by Joss 18.12.14 13:49

Opening of Inquest into death of Brenda Leyland

Leicester Coroner’s Court

18 Dec 2014

Senior Coroner: Mrs Mason

For Sky: Counsel, Claire Dobbin (sp?)

Leicester Police: Sgt Taylor, Det Sgt Hutchins

Various press.

Sonia Poulton and ‘minder’.

Leyland family not present.

The coroner set out who will appear at the inquest.
Scope of inquest is essentially to establish who died, how, when and where. It is not about establishing fault or blame.

However, there is room to establish within the how, why Brenda died.

Although, at this stage, she did not envisage criminal proceedings, this may change on the day of the inquest.

There will be no jury, she will sit alone.

The police have completed their enquiries and all witness statements have been received.

There has been no disclosure of evidence to date to interested parties.

She does not require to hear the sons and will rely on the statement given to police by Ben Leyland.
Witnesses and evidence to be heard:

Dr West – pathologist (statement only)

Dr Smith – toxicologist (oral evidence)

Dr Zakrzewski – not Brenda’s GP, but had knowledge of her

Jonathan Levy – Sky (producer?)

Martin Brunt – Sky reporter

Ben Leyland – evidence only

Sgt Taylor – Leics Police

Det Sgt Hutchins – Leics Police

Expected duration of inquest – one day

Date – Friday 20 March

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic24240.html#p318012

by Joss 18.12.14 13:52

All witness statements will be disclosed to Sky’s counsel, though they must sign a disclaimer that the evidence will not be published ahead of the inquest.

The coroner placed Ben Leyland after Martin Brunt because his evidence relates to the period after Brunt approached his mother.

More info to follow. Sky are obviously seriously concerned.

by Jamming 18.12.14 13:52

Pretty much all of the reporting I have seen about the hearing today has been, sadly and predictably, singing the same old tune.... "internet troll", "1000's of messages attacking the McCanns", "4000+ hate messages at the McCanns" and so on...

Yet not one, that I have seen, has highlighted the alarming frequency with which the report by that coward of a "man" Brunt was broadcast, nor the scandalous amount of times the hounding of Brenda was scrolled across the SSN banners etc, perhaps forcing her into hiding and whatever ensued over those next hours

Sadly, to the masses, that'll be the crux of the story, no doubt to be followed by something along the lines of "poor Brenda couldn't live with the shame of her actions". Nothing to do with not being able to cope with the onslaught brought directly on her by Brunt & SSN & the obvious others of course...

by tiny 18.12.14 13:55

was it LIECESTER POLICE WHO DID THIS INVESTIGATION

by Bishop Brennan 18.12.14 14:03

Jamming wrote:Pretty much all of the reporting I have seen about the hearing today has been, sadly and predictably, singing the same old tune.... "internet troll", "1000's of messages attacking the McCanns", "4000+ hate messages at the McCanns" and so on...

Yet not one, that I have seen, has highlighted the alarming frequency with which the report by that coward of a "man" Brunt was broadcast, nor the scandalous amount of times the hounding of Brenda was scrolled across the SSN banners etc, perhaps forcing her into hiding and whatever ensued over those next hours

Sadly, to the masses, that'll be the crux of the story, no doubt to be followed by something along the lines of "poor Brenda couldn't live with the shame of her actions". Nothing to do with not being able to cope with the onslaught brought directly on her by Brunt & SSN & the obvious others of course...

All part of the continuing 'whitewash' process that uses the media to cover up ANY and all bad press that could be associated with the McCanns, their supporters, or their sponsors. Indeed you will notice that they are using the Inquest as a means of furthering the "troll" narrative whereby anyone who questions the "abduction" theory is part of a 'conspiracy theory' and must be outed and vilified. Brenda is to be portrayed as the perfect example of this 'nasty' person that attacks the McCanns.

And if these "trolls" should die, well, certainly the media do not care one jot - we see this in the entirely inaccurate and unsympathetic reporting that is broadcast and written today and on the days after Brenda died.

Remember - this is a very sophisticated and expensive cover-up, with top media experts being used. Of course it is made so much easier in this case because the media must also protect itself from its horrendous and ultimately deadly behaviour. This story will now vanish completely until next year. The "troll" headlines repeated and remembered. Job done.

by jeanmonroe 18.12.14 14:07

Joss wrote:Written statement from her son who coroner said BL had contacted before her death http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/dec/18/sky-news-journalists-give-evidence-inquest-alleged-internet-troll … #mccann

Brunt must be 'sh*ting' himself about what BL 'told' her son AFTER he left the 'confrontation'!

Could be 'anything' couldn't it?

She was, after all, 'supposed' to be a prolific 'writer' wasn't she?

(Not forgetting any phone calls that may be 'recorded' by her son)

"This 'piece of work' was sending up to FIFTY 'texts' a DAY, TO the McCann's" ('quote' from Carole Malone, D Mirror's 'STAR' 'investigative journalist'!)

We KNOW BL 'received' death THREATS, from Cindy Martin, McCANN SUPPORTER AFTER Brunt's 'confrontation' don't we?

DID Brunt 'KNOW' about ARDENT, McCANN SUPPORTER Cindy Martin, BEFORE his 'confrontation' with Brenda and her (CM's) 'possible' reaction, from her, AFTER his 'report' about Brenda?

What happens if, IF, the Coroner, decides, that Sky New's 'action', by Martin Brunt, WAS the MAJOR, indeed the ONLY contributating 'factor'. that led to BL, taking her own life?

(Question: Would BL be alive TODAY if she had NOT 'received' 'death THREATS' from an AVID, McCANN SUPPORTER AFTER Sky New's 'confrontation'?)

Imo, absolutely, a resounding...YES!

Civil 'action' against Sky News?

Cheque book out, AGAIN Rupe?

These McCann 'related' er, 'exclusive' erm, 'stories' are 'costing' you, an absolute 'fortune'!

eta: Just watching Sky News about the BIGGEST 'crime' story, child abuse/Met Police, and Sky New's CHIEF 'crime' correspondent, Martin Brunt, is NOWHERE to be 'seen'!

Got some other guy, reporting from outside SY, standing in the very same 'place/spot' Brunt knows so well!

Where's Brunt?

by tiny 18.12.14 14:09

It seems to me that brunt can doorstop anyone and will get away with it even if it results in another death ,Well I just hope to god that Brenda Leylands family do NOT let it rest.

by secrets and lies 18.12.14 14:14

@Justice-forum has just posted on Twitter that Brunt is to questioned by the coroner?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-30532027

Seems more like SKY journalists giving evidence.

by Joss 18.12.14 14:19

jeanmonroe wrote:
Joss wrote:Written statement from her son who coroner said BL had contacted before her death http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/dec/18/sky-news-journalists-give-evidence-inquest-alleged-internet-troll … #mccann

Brunt must be 'sh*ting' himself about what BL 'told' her son AFTER he left the 'confrontation'!

Could be 'anything' couldn't it?

We KNOW BL 'received' death THREATS, from Cindy Martin, McCANN SUPPORTER AFTER Brunt's 'confrontation' don't we?

DID Brunt 'KNOW' about ARDENT, McCANN SUPPORTER Cindy Martin, BEFORE his 'confrontation' with Brenda and her (CM's) 'possible' reaction, from her, AFTER his 'report' about Brenda?

What happens if, IF, the Coroner, decides, that Sky New's 'action', by Martin Brunt, WAS the MAJOR, indeed the ONLY contributating 'factor'. that led to BL, taking her own life?

Civil 'action' against Sky News?

Cheque book out, AGAIN Rupe?

These McCann 'related' er, 'exclusive' erm, 'stories' are 'costing' you, an absolute 'fortune'!

eta: Just watching Sky News about the BIGGEST 'crime' story, child abuse/Met Police, and Sky New's CHIEF 'crime' correspondent, Martin Brunt, is NOWHERE to be 'seen'!

Got some other guy, reporting from outside SY, standing in the very same 'place/spot' Brunt knows so well!

Where's Brunt?

Yes especially after Ben Leyland wanted nothing to do with the media. I also thought it was illegal to give out personal info. on social media & MSM as to a persons identity and where they live, work, etc.? Something to do with safety issues, and if that is the case then i hope certain people get the book thrown at them, but am not holding my breath on it.

by Joss 18.12.14 14:33

secrets and lies wrote:@Justice-forum has just posted on Twitter that Brunt is to questioned by the coroner?

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-30532027

Seems more like SKY journalists giving evidence.

Yes they will be giving evidence from what i have read. Hopefully about the Dossier and who gave it to them and their actions after that. Ben Leyland will also be giving evidence.

by jeanmonroe 18.12.14 14:41

Not 'forgetting' Brunt's er, 'following', imo, i'd say er ~~'stalking',~~ of BL a fair time BEFORE the 'confrontation' and her sad 'demise'.

He, Brunt, 'tried' to 'follow' ~~stalk?~~ one of her twitter 'friends' and even asked that 'friend' for an 'interview' days BEFORE he started ~~stalking~~ 'following' Brenda.

As Sky New's weren't 'gonna pay dosh' for that erm, 'interview', Brunt was told, in no uncertain terms, to FCUK OFF!

by Joss 18.12.14 14:51

jeanmonroe wrote:Not 'forgetting' Brunt's er, 'following', imo, i'd say er ~~'stalking',~~ of BL a fair time BEFORE the 'confrontation' and her sad 'demise'.

He, Brunt, 'tried' to 'follow' ~~stalk?~~ one of her twitter 'friends' and even asked that 'friend' for an 'interview' days BEFORE he started ~~stalking~~ 'following' Brenda.

As Sky New's weren't 'gonna pay dosh' for that erm, 'interview', Brunt was told, in no uncertain terms, to FCUK OFF!

Absolutely wrong to do what he did and i sincerely hope he will be punished for his vile actions.

by **PeterMac** 18.12.14 15:37

Interesting the difference between Sonia's tweet and the MSM interpretation.
Only time will tell which is correct.

by aiyoyo 18.12.14 15:42

tiny wrote:What does this mean.

there is nobody to which there is any foreseeability of any criminal action being taken."

The word "foreseenability" assumes a predisposed position was taken.

ODD!

by interestedobserver 18.12.14 15:45

It is interesting that Dr Zakrzewski, who is a psychiatrist, will be called.
Obviously if Brenda had any form of mental problems the doorstopping
could have pushed her over the edge.

by Joss 18.12.14 16:02

interestedobserver wrote:It is interesting that Dr Zakrzewski, who is a psychiatrist, will be called.
Obviously if Brenda had any form of mental problems the doorstopping
could have pushed her over the edge.

That is a possibility if the Dr. was her treating physician?

by tiny 18.12.14 16:16

Joss wrote:
interestedobserver wrote:It is interesting that Dr Zakrzewski, who is a psychiatrist, will be called.
Obviously if Brenda had any form of mental problems the doorstopping
could have pushed her over the edge.
That is a possibility if the Dr. was her treating physician?

If Brenda was ill then this even more disgusting what the dossier giver and brunt +all the other Gutter shite did to her.
Brenda was NOT a TROLL.

by ultimaThule 18.12.14 16:21

PeterMac wrote:
aquila wrote:It's interesting the person with the 'cankles' was viewed in Scotland. Can that person be summoned and forced to attend a Coroner's Court in England as a witness?
I think not 'forced', though could be invited.
And other close family members with the relevant knowledge could of course be summoned to appear.
But the Coroner could read out in open court any document she might have received adverting to the identity of the owner of the Heroic ankles,
and link it with other evidence she might have received.
A Coroner's court is inquisitorial, not adversarial

in the usual course of events witnesses living in England/Wales are asked to attend inquests voluntarily and, indeed, many are only too anxious to be of assistance in establishing the facts of the death which is under scrutiny. In cases where witnesses do not agree to attend voluntarily and their evidence is considered to be crucial, the Coroner can issue a witness summons to compel their attendance with threat of consequent arrest and proceedings for contempt of court if they do not comply.

If cases where witnesses live abroad, they can be invited to attend but cannot be compelled to do so.

It should be noted that a recent vote failed to establish Scotland as being a country outside the jurisdiction of the UK courts, which fact certain expensive extradition lawyers may care to argue should Ms Fat Ankles be found to be resident north of the border and declines an invitation to attend an inquest which is being held south of it. .

by **PeterMac** 18.12.14 16:35

aiyoyo wrote:
tiny wrote:What does this mean.
there is nobody to which there is any foreseeability of any criminal action being taken."
The word "foreseeability" assumes a predisposed position was taken.
ODD!

Several MSM outlets put quotes round that bit, but then all differ as to what was within the quote marks ! !
And Sonia, who was there, reports something more was said.

by aiyoyo 18.12.14 16:37

I dont get it how it can be legally correct for Sky Counsel to be given (even on a proviso) all the witnesses depositions?
Surely, at the very least Ben Leyland's statement should not be handed over to Sky.
For to be forearmed is to forewarned.

by jeanmonroe 18.12.14 16:47

From MCF, with kind permission from Kazlux:

Opening of Inquest into death of Brenda Leyland

Leicester Coroner’s Court

18 Dec 2014

Senior Coroner: Mrs Mason

For Sky: Counsel, Claire Dobbin (sp?)

Leicester Police: Sgt Taylor, Det Sgt Hutchins

Various press.

Sonia Poulton and ‘minder’.

Leyland family not present.

The coroner set out who will appear at the inquest.

Scope of inquest is essentially to establish who died, how, when and where. It is not about establishing fault or blame.

However, there is room to establish within the how, why Brenda died.

Although, at this stage, she did not envisage criminal proceedings, this may change on the day of the inquest.

There will be no jury, she will sit alone.

The police have completed their enquiries and all witness statements have been received.

There has been no disclosure of evidence to date to interested parties.

She does not require to hear the sons and will rely on the statement given to police by Ben Leyland.

Witnesses and evidence to be heard:

Dr West – pathologist (statement only)

Dr Smith – toxicologist (oral evidence)

Dr Zakrzewski – not Brenda’s GP, but had knowledge of her

Jonathan Levy – Sky (producer?)

Martin Brunt – Sky reporter

Ben Leyland – evidence only

Sgt Taylor – Leics Police

Det Sgt Hutchins – Leics Police

Expected duration of inquest – one day

Date – Friday 20 March

All witness statements will be disclosed to Sky’s counsel, though they must sign a disclaimer that the evidence will not be published ahead of the inquest.

The coroner placed Ben Leyland after Martin Brunt because his evidence relates to the period after Brunt approached his mother.

More info to follow. "Sky are obviously seriously concerned"*

* Don't know what 'that's' about or who 'wrote' it.
========================

Wonder why SP felt the 'need' for a 'minder'?

Log in for more topics