Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

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'?

by tiny 18.12.14 16:53

aiyoyo wrote: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.

My thoughts too,hope Ben Leyland queries this action that sky counsel want to take.

by aiyoyo 18.12.14 17:45

PeterMac wrote:
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.

Maybe MSM outlets can't say as much, in case sub-judice.
I tend to believe Sonia's version would have more accurate.

Imagine if MSM outlets were to say "possibility" of criminal action ....it will not be difficult to draw conclusion on a "name".......only two witnesses after all.....

by **PeterMac** 18.12.14 17:50

aiyoyo wrote:
Maybe MSM outlets can't say as much, in case sub-judice.
I tend to believe Sonia's version would have more accurate.

Working on it,

by interestedobserver 18.12.14 17:53

I can assure you that Sonia is correct.

by aiyoyo 18.12.14 18:07

Sky's counsel attended. Must have cause for concern.

Not usual for witness to bring counsel.

by AlexBG 18.12.14 18:22

interestedobserver wrote:It is interesting that Dr Zakrzewski, who is a psychiatrist, will be called.

A psychiatrist? Are we certain this is the same Dr Zakrzewski who "had knowledge of" Brenda?

by aiyoyo 18.12.14 19:47

AlexBG wrote:
interestedobserver wrote:It is interesting that Dr Zakrzewski, who is a psychiatrist, will be called.
A psychiatrist? Are we certain this is the same Dr Zakrzewski who "had knowledge of" Brenda?

Depending if she was his client , or he was there as a required procedure for a "suicide" inquest.

If he was her consulting psychiatrist that would make it worst for Brunt, doorstepping her someone vulnerable, increasing her anxiety and causing her great fear.....

by Guest 18.12.14 19:54

Sonia Poulton@SoniaPoulton
@DaSteelMan today I have witnessed first hand how the press intend to portray Brenda and the inquest. Selective reporting of what took place

7:38pm - 18 Dec 14

by Okeydokey 18.12.14 20:31

The coroner's name - Mason - is a bit unfortunate isn't it?

by Smokeandmirrors 18.12.14 20:37

This whole episode is just a shameful illustration of what the McCanns, their legal team and SY have created. Dragging this on and on in the full glare of publicity could have no other outcome than a good number of people becoming suspicious and fed up with the enormous volume of contradictory information swirling around. To then demonise and single out ONE individual (who was very mild compared to some of the fanatics out there) for a public media lynching was absolutely disgraceful on the part of Martin Brunt and Sky news.

The media, who have swung from supporting the McCanns to pointing the finger and then back again, amid a flurry of enormous payouts ARE a dangerous force. Poor Jacinta and the prank call was another of their unedifying performances, and although I do not agree with heavy censorship of the media, they SHOULD be held account when their antics result in suicide.

I used to be proud to be British, I laboured under the naive belief that our country was fair and just compared to the rest of the world, now I know it is governed by money and power crazed psychopathic paedophiles who care not a jot for any of us and have not a scrap of morality amongst any of their abhorrent ranks. We are living in dark times my friends.

by **PeterMac** 18.12.14 20:45

interestedobserver wrote:I can assure you that Sonia is correct.

Sonia was there, with her team. I cannot imagine that she did not pay attention the exact words spoken, nor that her team did not take notes.
What we are seeing here is the MSM, possibly still manipulated by Mitchell, twisting the words, even of HM Coroner, to "spin" it.
MSM are going with
"Coroner Catherine Mason told a pre-hearing at Leicester Town Hall: "I understand from my officers that from all the witnesses I intend to hear evidence from there is nobody that there is any foreseeable plan of criminal action being taken against."
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/416110/Sky-News-Martin-Brunt-Madeleine-McCann-Sweepyface-troll

HM Coroner IN FACT added words to the effect "but that can change"
That is an inconvenient truth for all the Pro-Child-Neglect and Pro-McCann team

THIS HAS BEEN INDEPENDENTLY CHECKED, and I am authorised to say so.

by **PeterMac** 18.12.14 21:00

Sorry to have used the Star. The English is gibberish, and is very obviously NOT what HM Coroner said,

Mirror, second up the list of literacy said "Coroner Catherine Mason said it was “not foreseeable any criminal action” would be taken against anyone in connection with the tragedy."~

Leicester Mercury said "She said: “I understand from my officers that of all of the witnesses to be called to give oral evidence there is nobody who will have any criminal action taken against them.”
which is not even similar to ANYTHING that any of the others said.

Worksop Guardian said "Mrs Mason told Leicester Coroner's Court: "I understand from my officers that, of all the witnesses who I have said that I will call to give oral evidence, there is no nobody to which there is any foreseeability of any criminal action being taken."
And al the others did the same.

Not one of them told the whole truth

SHE added words to the effect BUT THAT MIGHT CHANGE

by **Tony Bennett** 18.12.14 21:14

aiyoyo wrote:I don't 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.

@ aiyoyo

I think the principle is that any witness who may be subject to criticism is entitled to be legally represented, as well as anyone else with a clear interest (e.g. the next-of-kin of the deceased). I am not sure how the actual principle is worded, however.

Compare the inquest into the death of Lee Balkwell.

There, two of the officers most vulnerable to criticism at that inquest were the initial Senior Investiagting Officer, DCS Graeme Bull (subsequently found by the IPCC to have been guillty of 13 separate counts of misconduct in the case, and the subsequent S.I.O. in the case, DCS Simon Coxall (subsequently found by the IPCC to have been guilty of two counts of misconduct in the case). Both were separately represented by top barristers. The Chief Constable of Essex was also separately represented - basically to deal with all the other probable misconduct issues that would be (and indeed were) dealt with at the inquest.

In this way, these witnesses also become, in effect, parties to the proceedings, with full rights e.g. (a) to be legally represented at the hearing (b) to ask questions of other witnesses (c) to see all of the witness statements and (d) to negotiate with the Coroner over which witnesses are relevant.

So it was at the Lee Balkwell inquest that his family was up against three top police barristers, viz:

Miss Samantha Leek, instructed by Adam Hunt, Essex Police Force Solicitor, on behalf of the Chief Constable of Essex

Miss Phillipa McAtasney Q.C., instructed by Lewis Hymanson Small Solicitors, on behalf of the Police Federation for DCS Bull

Mr Adrian Chaplin, instructed by Lewis Hymanson Small Solicitors, on behalf of the Police Federation for DCS Coxall.

The Police Federation paid the bill for DCS Bull and DCS Coxall.

Essex taxpayers paid the bill for the Chief Constable.

by aiyoyo 18.12.14 21:48

I hope BL's son seek from Coroner the name of the person organising the dossier, the name of the person handing it to the Press.
Those responsible need to be questioned on the why,when,how and the whereforth etc. The Coroner owes it to BL's family to give them answers why she was singled out to be targeted and most importantly WHO did it.

What was Brunt involvement (if any) with those responsible for the dossier?
Did he collude with them? Were the McCanns and/or any of their family member/s directly or indirectly involved or associated with the dossier and "troll" doorstepping operations?

by Mo 18.12.14 21:58

Does anybody know if the actual film of Martin Brunt doorstepping Brenda will be shown in the Coroners Court? I think many of the questions being asked would be answered if they did.

Thanks
Mo

by Smokeandmirrors 18.12.14 22:14

aiyoyo wrote:I hope BL's son seek from Coroner the name of the person organising the dossier, the name of the person handing it to the Press.
Those responsible need to be questioned on the why,when,how and the whereforth etc. The Coroner owes it to BL's family to give them answers why she was singled out to be targeted and most importantly WHO did it.

What was Brunt involvement (if any) with those responsible for the dossier?
Did he collude with them? Were the McCanns and/or any of their family member/s directly or indirectly involved or associated with the dossier and "troll" doorstepping operations?

And not to forget that he LIED when he said police were investigating her. The police said they were not. And IF it was the McCanns who handed the dossier in as Hogan-Howe said, Gerry LIED about saying they don't use Twitter etc.

Lies, lies and more lies - I sincerely hope the disgusting duo get called to account for the lies they have told

by aiyoyo 18.12.14 22:15

@ TB,
I think the principle is that any witness who may be subject to criticism is entitled to be legally represented, as well as anyone else with a clear interest (e.g. the next-of-kin of the deceased). I am not sure how the actual principle is worded, however.

Legal representation entitlement is not the question here.
Rather I would like to know why Sky's counsel is entitled to be given all the witnesses statements ?

by **Tony Bennett** 18.12.14 22:56

aiyoyo wrote:

@ TB,
I think the principle is that any witness who may be subject to criticism is entitled to be legally represented, as well as anyone else with a clear interest (e.g. the next-of-kin of the deceased). I am not sure how the actual principle is worded, however.
Legal representation entitlement is not the question here.

Rather I would like to know why Sky's counsel is entitled to be given all the witnesses statements?

I refer to what I said in my post above.

SKY News has been made, in effect, a party to the proceedings, I think 'interested person' may be the phrase in inquests.

Anyone who is a party in court proceedings, or an inquest, is entitled to be represented by solicitors/barristsrs.

Both the parties themselves and their legal representatives are entitled to see everything - witness statements, expert reports etc.

Plus of course the jury, if there is one.

Did the Coroner refer to a jury at all?

by Woofer 18.12.14 23:07

Tony Bennett wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:

@ TB,
I think the principle is that any witness who may be subject to criticism is entitled to be legally represented, as well as anyone else with a clear interest (e.g. the next-of-kin of the deceased). I am not sure how the actual principle is worded, however.
Legal representation entitlement is not the question here.

Rather I would like to know why Sky's counsel is entitled to be given all the witnesses statements?
I refer to what I said in my post above.

SKY News has been made, in effect, a party to the proceedings, I think 'interested person' may be the phrase in inquests.

Anyone who is a party in court proceedings, or an inquest, is entitled to be represented by solicitors/barristsrs.

Both the parties themselves and their legal representatives are entitled to see everything - witness statements, expert reports etc.

Plus of course the jury, if there is one.

Did the Coroner refer to a jury at all?

There will be no jury, she will sit alone.

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

by Snifferdog 19.12.14 7:05

Something really stinks with the whole Brenda Leyland affair, as is the case with Jacinta Saldahna.

I realise that I may "miss out" on a lot of "info" not having a tv, but how convenient is it for TM that:

Brenda epitomized the main cross section of members of CMOMM and some other sites: Presentable middle age to older, fit and healthy female, active, comfortably off, with loving, successful older children, dogs, friends, healthy, house, pension etc, - in short - Somebody who had every reason to look forward to her golden years - BUT WHO DIED/LOST EVERYTHING FOR ONE REASON ALONE, because she did not give up on Madeleine.

I may be in for a tarring and feathering here from some, but it has to be said - perhaps Brenda never really existed as she has been portrayed.

I take everything I read or hear from the MSM with a fat pinch of salt. Why should one believe ANYTHING when there is hard evidence that politicians, their spokespeople, big business, the press, AND upholders of the law, lie freely to the public, whenever, and as much as they choose.

IMO. the message was sent through loud and clear:

BEWARE! YOU TOO COULD END UP LIKE BRENDA......

Jacinta, on the other hand, was used as an example as to the fate that may befall one should one even unwittingly become part of a spoof aimed at the Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha family.

We also have the lovely Machavillian Lord McAlpine, who died mysteriously, with no known funeral, soon after being outed as a raving paedophile, which he quickly tried to negate using tactics from a devious book he authored, "The True Machevillian", or some such fitting title.

This modus operandi seems to have worked well in the past, evidenced by the many taboo (politically incorrect???) subjects that we are "not allowed" to discuss, because some human says so, making certain subjects anathema to many, the modus operandi being brainwashing by persistent repetition, and the examples made of those that dare speak out, and stand by their convictions.

by **PeterMac** 19.12.14 8:49

Mo wrote:Does anybody know if the actual film of Martin Brunt doorstepping Brenda will be shown in the Coroners Court? I think many of the questions being asked would be answered if they did.
Thanks
Mo

I doubt it wil be shown, but HM Coroner has seen it, and may simply inform the court of that fact.

by jeanmonroe 19.12.14 9:52

Just asking:

WHEN did Brenda leave her house and go to the hotel?

Did the Police 'know' about the life threatening 'tweets' to BL from the 'ardent McCann SUPPORTER' Cindy Martin?

Did Brenda 'move' to the hotel, on Police 'advice' (as Sky News had exposed exactly where she lived) because of the life threatening 'tweets'?

Was BL's life, diliberately and consciously, 'put in danger' by Sky News employee, Martin Brunt, broadcasting WHERE she lived, thus possibly, exposing her home, and herself, to 'attack/assault' by 'rabid' McCann's 'SUPPORTERS'?

Did BL move to the hotel, because the Police, if they knew, of the McCann's SUPPORTER's 'tweets', did 'NOTHING'?

Even MWT 'informed' the police, about the LIFE THREATENING 'tweets' to BL

AND he 'told' J Gamble, an ardent McCann SUPPORTER about the 'threat' to BL's life.

Did Ex Cop Gamble 'inform' the police, (because, he too, also KNEW about the threats)

If not, WHY not?

Ergo, imo, the police DID 'know' (about the 'tweets' to BL)

WHAT did THEY (police) actually DO, (action?) after being informed, by an Ex Cop, about the THREATS to BL's LIFE?

What exactly did Sky New's 'head' of news 'gathering', JL, actually 'witness'? (NAMED as a 'witness' by Coroner, i believe)

Is Martin Brunt, still a 'kunt'? winkwink

(Rhetorical)

by Liz Eagles 19.12.14 10:02

I sincerely hope among many, many questions, the Coroner will ask Sky News why exactly they chose Brenda Leyland from a 'secret dossier' and why in God's name they thought it newsworthy (i.e. in the public interest) to show her face and Martin Brunt's door-stepping of her every fifteen minutes for an entire day.

by Woofer 19.12.14 10:03

PeterMac wrote:
Mo wrote:Does anybody know if the actual film of Martin Brunt doorstepping Brenda will be shown in the Coroners Court? I think many of the questions being asked would be answered if they did.
Thanks
Mo
I doubt it wil be shown, but HM Coroner has seen it, and may simply inform the court of that fact.

Thank goodness she has seen it.

I hope she`s also had sight of, not only Brenda`s harmless tweets, but also the sick, threatening tweets sent to her. And I hope she has also been advised who compiled the dossier.

by Snifferdog 19.12.14 10:10

aquila wrote:I sincerely hope among many, many questions, the Coroner will ask Sky News why exactly they chose Brenda Leyland from a 'secret dossier' and why in God's name they thought it newsworthy (i.e. in the public interest) to show her face and Martin Brunt's door-stepping of her every fifteen minutes for an entire day.

....which tells me All is Not as it Seems.