Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

by jeanmonroe 19.12.14 17:15

Please 'ascertain' the 'correct' twitterer before 'commentating'

Thankyou.

UT: you might want to 'delete/reconsider' your last 'post' if you're not SURE it is about the 'disgusting' twatterer' that twitted about BL.

Thankyou.

by ultimaThule 19.12.14 17:27

Due to tiny's subsequent post (below), I've also deleted the comments I made here..

by tiny 19.12.14 17:59

jeanmonroe wrote:Please 'ascertain' the 'correct' twitterer before 'commentating'

Thankyou.

UT: you might want to 'delete/reconsider' your last 'post' if you're not SURE it is about the 'disgusting' twatterer' that twitted about BL.

Thankyou.

sorry bout that,i think it came from stop the myths.it was re.tweeted by larrypkay,but I cant find it now--FOUND IT

Dr. Didit‏@Nora_ply 4h4 hours ago
@OlwynMassey @LarryPKay @Cisttootbp @Daily_Express No problem! I'm so glad you asked. #McCann pic.twitter.com/DXbvhY0hyN

More

Embed Tweet

Retweets 2
Favourite 1

by Liz Eagles 19.12.14 19:40

I make no bones about my dislike of Twitter and although I read the McCann hashtag it mostly leaves me cold (but that's just my opinion). For this reason I don't often post up a tweet from it. However, this one caught my eye.

Princess Princess ‏@Princessmc2014 16m16 minutes ago
You would truly hope that the cops running the UK Could remember the name of a missing child!!! NOPE #McCann http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y6c1aRUUPgE&feature=youtu.be …

by aiyoyo 19.12.14 20:03

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.

Among many questions I hope the Coroner will question Brunt: why did he accept her invite to go into her house to chat with her, and then not mention her side of the story in the programme?

by missbeetle 19.12.14 20:30

Snifferdog wrote:
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.

No tarring nor feathering from me, Snifferdog.

I hear what you're saying and I nod.

Something I only remembered this morning :

"Trolling" is also the practice of drawing in a lure -

- or a baited line - in fishing.

Brenda's Facebook account never seemed real to me.

My opinion only.

by Liz Eagles 19.12.14 20:36

missbeetle wrote:
Snifferdog wrote:
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.
No tarring nor feathering from me, Snifferdog.

I hear what you're saying and I nod.

Something I only remembered this morning :

"Trolling" is also the practice of drawing in a lure -

- or a baited line - in fishing.

Brenda's Facebook account never seemed real to me.

My opinion only.

I think you need to explain that misbeetle, otherwise I'll be guilty of continuing to think you're here to take the piss.

by missbeetle 19.12.14 20:45

Please don't feel guilty on my behalf, Aquila.

Explain what, though?

by Liz Eagles 19.12.14 20:51

missbeetle wrote:Please don't feel guilty on my behalf, Aquila.

Explain what, though?

No more from me missbeetle. No more indulgence into your gossipy little questions/suggestions and posts of no substance. No more.

by Liz Eagles 19.12.14 21:01

aiyoyo wrote:
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.

Among many questions I hope the Coroner will question Brunt: why did he accept her invite to go into her house to chat with her, and then not mention her side of the story in the programme?

I hope a lot of probing goes on in the Coroner's court but as I haven't a clue about these things I can only hope this is what will happen - and I will be attending the court on that day.

by Guest 19.12.14 21:25

missbeetle wrote:
Snifferdog wrote:
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.
No tarring nor feathering from me, Snifferdog.

I hear what you're saying and I nod.

Something I only remembered this morning :

"Trolling" is also the practice of drawing in a lure -

- or a baited line - in fishing.

Brenda's Facebook account never seemed real to me.

My opinion only.

misbeetle - could you expand on your comments about trolling and BL's FB account?

by juliet 19.12.14 21:39

missbeetle - your posts are at least interesting and move the discussion on. I wish aquila would stop sniping and insinuating.

by Liz Eagles 19.12.14 21:57

juliet wrote:missbeetle - your posts are at least interesting and move the discussion on. I wish aquila would stop sniping and insinuating.

What discussion would that be juliet? that missbeetle now infers that Brenda Leyland's Facebook account doesn't look right and backs it up with zilch?

Jeez, pull the other one. This is gossip-mongering and an excuse to have a go at this forum by...well....yourself amongst others. I know I'm gobby but I also know a bloody disruption when I see it.

I'm here for Madeleine McCann. I want the bastards who did for her to be brought to book.

In this terrible travesty Brenda Leyland died. I want those bastards brought to book too.

Oh, and there was another death in this which no-one gives a toss about anymore - that'll be one of the chaps who went out to search drains in PDL and committed suicide.

Forgive my lack of patience but indulging stupid insinuations and inferences from someone who is apparently sitting on a sofa in New Zealand, searching photographs online (there isn't a single photo missbeetle has put up that I haven't seen before/is not available) and making silly comments about what Kate & Gerry wear really grinds me down.

by Guest 19.12.14 22:23

Back to the topic under discussion. Aquila, good to hear you're going to attend the inquest.

I'm sure you have the support of most forum members, Aquila, when you attend the inquest.

by Liz Eagles 19.12.14 22:34

Ladyinred wrote:Back to the topic under discussion. Aquila, good to hear you're going to attend the inquest.

I didn't attend the hearing yesterday as it was too expensive to go for what was a pre-hearing and largely a waste of time and effort as someone else was bound to have reported back on it.

I can't stand Twitter. I don't do Twitter. I can only vaguely see the merit of Twitter. The reason I'll be attending the inquest in March 2015 is I want to see first-hand what information/questions will be asked about Sky News' hand in the death of Brenda Leyland. I want to see what other witnesses are called. I want to see if justice still lives in UK - and I want to see it happen first-hand.

by **Tony Bennett** 19.12.14 22:34

DID MARTIN BRUNT COMMIT A CRIMINAL OFFENCE BY 'STALKING' BRENDA LEYLAND?

It seems the Coroner has been informed by Leicestershire Police that neither Martin Brunt nor anyone else has committed any offence.

But what about 'harassment' and 'stalking'?

This is what the Crown Prosecution Service has to say on the subject:

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Stalking Legislation

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 was intially introduced as a Stalking Bill and was always intended to tackle all forms of harassment including stalking.

Although stalking offences were prosecuted under the PHA 1997, many victims of stalking felt that they were not taken seriously by the criminal justice system and that stalking should be a specific offence.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, s.111 created 2 new offences (inserted in PHA 1997):

Stalking - harassment which involves a course of conduct that amounts to stalking (s.2A(1) PHA 1997)
Stalking - s.4A (1) PHA 1997 which can be committed two ways namely:

- Stalking involving fear of violence (s.4A(1)(b)(i) PHA 1997) OR
- Stalking involving serious alarm or distress (s.4A(1)(b)(ii) PHA 1997)

The new stalking offences highlighted:

Stalking as a specific behaviour as opposed to harassment more generally.
Closed the lacuna when a course of conduct fell short of causing a victim to feel fear of violence but nevertheless caused a victim serious alarm or distress. (In this circumstance the police and prosecutors could only consider a section 2 summary offence).
The additional element in the new section 4A offence enable cases to be prosecuted when the defendant's behaviour falls short of fear of violence.
Affords more protection to victims of stalking.

Section 2A offence - Stalking

The elements of the section 2A offence are:

a course of conduct
which is in breach of section 1(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (i.e. a course of conduct which amounts to harassment) and
the course of conduct amounts to stalking.

This means that there has to be a course of conduct which amounts to harassment and that particular harassment can be described as stalking behaviour.

A course of conduct is the same as defined under section 7 of the PHA 1997 and referred to elsewhere in this guidance.

Definition of stalking

Stalking is not legally defined but section 2A (3) of the PHA 1997 lists a number of examples of behaviours associated with stalking. The list is not an exhaustive one but gives an indication of the types of behaviour that may be displayed in a stalking offence. The listed behaviours are:

(a) following a person,
(b) contacting, or attempting to contact, a person by any means,
(c) publishing any statement or other material relating or purporting to relate to a person, or purporting to originate from a person,
(d) monitoring the use by a person of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication,
(e) loitering in any place (whether public or private),
(f) interfering with any property in the possession of a person,
(g) watching or spying on a person.

Harassment that includes one or more of the above features is not automatically stalking. The course of conduct, assessed in the round, must fit the generally received interpretation of the word 'stalking'.

Prosecutors should note that the list in s.2A(3) is not exhaustive and it will be open to courts to consider other acts by a defendant and conclude that those acts constitute stalking even if they are not on the s.2A(3) list. It is likely that the defence may argue particular acts "associated with stalking" should not be classed as stalking but harassment and that their client is guilty of harassment, not stalking.

Where such an argument is raised, prosecutors should state that this should be a decision of fact for the magistrates to decide on. It is therefore imperative that the correct charge is laid from the outset.

Section 2A is a summary offence and a person guilty of the offence of stalking is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine.

by ultimaThule 20.12.14 5:03

jeanmonroe wrote:The ONLY question, imo, the coroner should be asking is:

"Would, could, it reasonably, be assumed, that BL, who had not broken any UK law, be 'here' today, if, MB and Sky News, had NOT broadcast her 'image and place of abode and twitter 'user' name' thus subjecting her to life threatening, threats, from so called McCann 'supporters' and 'implying', to her, that she had, broken UK law, which she hadn't, and the police were investigating"?

In an earlier post on this thread at 4.47pm Thursday Dec 18 you provided a most helpful account of the Pre-inquest hearing 'from MCF with kind permission from Kazlux'*, jeanm, and it seems to me that in saying that the

"Scope of (the) 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"

it is the intention of the Coroner to address, and hopefully provide answer to, the question you have posted above.

Given the circumstances surrounding Ms Leyland's premature death, it's only to be expected that Sky are "seriously concerned" and I suspect that certain others who are not named on the Coroner's list of witnesses are equally concerned, if not more so.

Eta to add link to jeanmonroe's earlier post: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t10515p370-let-s-not-forget-brenda#296500

by Joss 20.12.14 5:37

Tony Bennett wrote:DID MARTIN BRUNT COMMIT A CRIMINAL OFFENCE BY 'STALKING' BRENDA LEYLAND?

It seems the Coroner has been informed by Leicestershire Police that neither Martin Brunt nor anyone else has committed any offence.

But what about 'harassment' and 'stalking'?

This is what the Crown Prosecution Service has to say on the subject:

+++++++++++++++++++++++

Stalking Legislation

The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 was intially introduced as a Stalking Bill and was always intended to tackle all forms of harassment including stalking.

Although stalking offences were prosecuted under the PHA 1997, many victims of stalking felt that they were not taken seriously by the criminal justice system and that stalking should be a specific offence.

The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, s.111 created 2 new offences (inserted in PHA 1997):

Stalking - harassment which involves a course of conduct that amounts to stalking (s.2A(1) PHA 1997)
Stalking - s.4A (1) PHA 1997 which can be committed two ways namely:

- Stalking involving fear of violence (s.4A(1)(b)(i) PHA 1997) OR
- Stalking involving serious alarm or distress (s.4A(1)(b)(ii) PHA 1997)

The new stalking offences highlighted:

Stalking as a specific behaviour as opposed to harassment more generally.
Closed the lacuna when a course of conduct fell short of causing a victim to feel fear of violence but nevertheless caused a victim serious alarm or distress. (In this circumstance the police and prosecutors could only consider a section 2 summary offence).
The additional element in the new section 4A offence enable cases to be prosecuted when the defendant's behaviour falls short of fear of violence.
Affords more protection to victims of stalking.

Section 2A offence - Stalking

The elements of the section 2A offence are:

a course of conduct
which is in breach of section 1(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (i.e. a course of conduct which amounts to harassment) and
the course of conduct amounts to stalking.

This means that there has to be a course of conduct which amounts to harassment and that particular harassment can be described as stalking behaviour.

A course of conduct is the same as defined under section 7 of the PHA 1997 and referred to elsewhere in this guidance.

Definition of stalking

Stalking is not legally defined but section 2A (3) of the PHA 1997 lists a number of examples of behaviours associated with stalking. The list is not an exhaustive one but gives an indication of the types of behaviour that may be displayed in a stalking offence. The listed behaviours are:

(a) following a person,
(b) contacting, or attempting to contact, a person by any means,
(c) publishing any statement or other material relating or purporting to relate to a person, or purporting to originate from a person,
(d) monitoring the use by a person of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication,
(e) loitering in any place (whether public or private),
(f) interfering with any property in the possession of a person,
(g) watching or spying on a person.

Harassment that includes one or more of the above features is not automatically stalking. The course of conduct, assessed in the round, must fit the generally received interpretation of the word 'stalking'.

Prosecutors should note that the list in s.2A(3) is not exhaustive and it will be open to courts to consider other acts by a defendant and conclude that those acts constitute stalking even if they are not on the s.2A(3) list. It is likely that the defence may argue particular acts "associated with stalking" should not be classed as stalking but harassment and that their client is guilty of harassment, not stalking.

Where such an argument is raised, prosecutors should state that this should be a decision of fact for the magistrates to decide on. It is therefore imperative that the correct charge is laid from the outset.

Section 2A is a summary offence and a person guilty of the offence of stalking is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine.

Thanks for the info Tony. I was looking this up on the internet yesterday, and would think these laws very apt in the case of Brenda Leyland. I feel if criminality is established then the family of Brenda can bring those responsible to task on criminal charges and a case to be answered in a criminal court?

by ultimaThule 20.12.14 6:38

[quote="Joss"]

Tony Bennett wrote:
< snip >
Thanks for the info Tony. I was looking this up on the internet yesterday, and would think these laws very apt in the case of Brenda Leyland. I feel if criminality is established then the family of Brenda can bring those responsible to task on criminal charges and a case to be answered in a criminal court?

'Criminality' cannot be established by an Inquest which is a fact-finding investigation and not to be confused with the adversarial process of a trial, Joss.

The relevant law can be found in the Coroners Rules 1984 (as amended):

Rule 22
(1) No witness at an inquest shall be obliged to answer any question tending to incriminate himself.

(2) Where it appears to the coroner that a witness has been asked such a question, the coroner shall inform the witness that he may refuse to answer.

Rule 36
(1) The proceedings and evidence at an inquest shall be directed solely to ascertaining the following, namely
(a) Who the deceased was;
(b) How, when and where the deceased came by his death;
(c) The particulars required by the Registration Act to be registered concerning the death

(2) Neither the coroner nor the jury shall express any opinion on any other matter.

Rule 42
No verdict shall be framed in such a way as to appear to determine any question of
(a) criminal liability on the part of a named person.
(b) civil liability

by ultimaThule 20.12.14 7:03

j.rob wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:It's my understanding that Brenda Leyland was subjected to a concerted twitter attack by McCann supporters which may have begun in February of this year, jeanm, and I am curious to know whether this will be a subject of remark at the inquest into her premature death.

@tiny Can you provide a link to that truly disgusting tweet?

Definitely. You accuse your critics of the very thing that you yourself are doing. It's a surprisingly effective device. Especially if used on people who would never do such a thing.

It's a tactic commonly used by dictators, and other meglomaniacs of that ilk, who seek to gain supremacy by silencing their critics, jrob.

However, in this particular case, there would appear to be cause to suspect that Ms Leyland was deliberately targeted by, for want of a better term, agents provocateurs who may have been paid to attack her on twitter.

.

by **Jill Havern** 20.12.14 7:04

Tony Bennett wrote:DID MARTIN BRUNT COMMIT A CRIMINAL OFFENCE BY 'STALKING' BRENDA LEYLAND?

It seems the Coroner has been informed by Leicestershire Police that neither Martin Brunt nor anyone else has committed any offence.

Would that be the same Leicestershire Police that didn't think the McCann's had committed any offence by leaving their three children alone until one died and her body was concealed ~~in a blue sports bag~~ and hire car and a fighting fund set up so that they could ~~pay their mortgage and libel lawyers~~ search for their 'abducted' daughter and Leicestershire Police, who were on first name terms with the McCann's, set up a link on their police website that went directly to the McCann's fundraising site while they were still arguidos?

That Leicestershire Police you mean, Tony?

Let's Not Forget Brenda - Page 15 Police10

by **Tony Bennett** 20.12.14 7:39

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:DID MARTIN BRUNT COMMIT A CRIMINAL OFFENCE BY 'STALKING' BRENDA LEYLAND?

It seems the Coroner has been informed by Leicestershire Police that neither Martin Brunt nor anyone else has committed any offence.
Would that be the same Leicestershire Police that didn't think the McCann's had committed any offence by leaving their three children alone until one died and her body was concealed ~~in a blue sports bag~~ and hire car and a fighting fund set up so that they could ~~pay their mortgage and libel lawyers~~ search for their 'abducted' daughter and Leicestershire Police, who were on first name terms with the McCann's, set up a link on their police website that went directly to the McCann's fundraising site while they were still arguidos?

That Leicestershire Police you mean, Tony?

Yes, in fact the very same Leicestershire Police whose chief officer in the McCann case, Detective Chief Superintendent Bob Small, jetted out to Praia to Luz, and - hours before Jane Tanner very surprisingly identified Robert Murat as the abductor - had an extended chat with her, which some have suggested amounted to a secret briefing to name Robert Murat as the abductor and have him arrested (as part of a wider, concerted plan to make Murat the chief suspect, concocted by MI5, Special Branch and Control Risks Group)...

...and the same Leicestershire Police force which received two damning statements from Drs Arul/Savio Gaspar and Dr Katharine Gaspar in May 2007, and held on to them for 5 months until three weeks after Goncalo Amaral had been removed from the investigation...

...and the same police force which was required by persons unknown to set up an inter-agency task force on 8 May 2007, members of which Leicestershire Police refused to disclose, despite a recent Freedom of Information request...

...and the same Leicestershire Police force who gave Dr Gerald McCann a personal tour of their Madeleine McCann incident room in Enderby...

...and, yes, the very same Leicestershire Police force which linked to the fund-raising website of the McCanns when they were official suspects in the disappearance of their daughter...

...these are the folk who must decide whether to prosecute Martin Brunt and the other persons ay SKY News responsible for displaying Brenda Leyland on TV to an audience of millions at 15-minute intervals throughout one day early in October this year...

by Liz Eagles 20.12.14 8:15

This would be the same Leics Constabulary that Jim Gamble inferred was not fit to deal with the situation and Martin Brunt stood outside their HQ with their signage (said signage covered in cobwebs - just to give it that 'hick town' feel) to report. Remarkably as the Winters & Goose book was launched.

This would be the same Leics Constabulary that imposed extraordinary confidentiality agreements on the officers dealing with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

by Grim 20.12.14 9:25

aquila wrote:This would be the same Leics Constabulary that Jim Gamble inferred was not fit to deal with the situation and Martin Brunt stood outside their HQ with their signage (said signage covered in cobwebs - just to give it that 'hick town' feel) to report. Remarkably as the Winters & Goose book was launched.

This would be the same Leics Constabulary that imposed extraordinary confidentiality agreements on the officers dealing with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

The same force which presented Dr Gerald McCann with a mysterious bravery award ?

by jeanmonroe 20.12.14 9:32

The same Leicestershire Police force that wouldn't 'answer' queries because the Madeleine McCann 'case' was, a case, of NATIONAL SECURITY?

http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/anything-you-say/2009/02/who-was-listening-to-kate-and.html

LP 'gobberlygook'

"It is our decision that the Leicestershire Constabulary must maintain a position of neither confirming nor denying that any relevant information is held and that this response, which neither confirms nor denies that information is held, should not be taken as conclusive evidence that the information you have requested exists or does not exist".

by **Jill Havern** 20.12.14 9:35

And the same Leicestershire Police where Stuart 'call me Stu' Prior was on first name terms via email with the Tapas 7 who didn't want to go back to Portugal for the reconstruction.

And the same Leicestershire Police that refused to investigate Brian Kennedy for perverting the course of justice....

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/2010/11/leicester-police-wont-investigate-brian.html

Let's Not Forget Brenda - Page 15 Lynne_10

Even MP Lynne Jones didn't think there was anything amiss with Leicester Police.

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Leicestershire%20Constabulary

by Liz Eagles 20.12.14 9:43

Grim wrote:
aquila wrote:This would be the same Leics Constabulary that Jim Gamble inferred was not fit to deal with the situation and Martin Brunt stood outside their HQ with their signage (said signage covered in cobwebs - just to give it that 'hick town' feel) to report. Remarkably as the Winters & Goose book was launched.

This would be the same Leics Constabulary that imposed extraordinary confidentiality agreements on the officers dealing with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
The same force which presented Dr Gerald McCann with a mysterious bravery award ?

I can't recall Grim. There has been so much adulation by UK police for the McCanns it becomes a bit of a blur. Not a single person 'at the top' has done anything yet to find justice for Madeleine McCann. 10million pounds reported is a pee in the ocean and an open door to those media bastards who will not only milk but provide the cow.

There's a new push to find justice for Ben Needham...if anyone cares to look there's been a necessity for the UK police/government to give a bit of attention to Ben Needham, hence the digging in Kos in 2012. There's been the Kerry Needham book and now the adoption of Ben Needham for a 'why isn't every child treated the same' which will hit the headlines as soon as anything shitty might happen to the McCanns (the media cash cow) - and I'm not talking about family McCann - I'm talking about the media who have done nothing...absolutely nothing in favour of Madeleine. The media have done nothing other than milk the situation, create stories and stir up things for their own ends.

Any Police Constabulary which invites the father of a missing child to speak at a conference is beyond contempt, but then so is a charity that welcomes an ambassador for missing children who has still to be questioned in the disappearance of her daughter.

Follow the money.

by jeanmonroe 20.12.14 9:57

Listen out for the 'chorus' of 'VIP's, MP's, Police, Zlebs, Journo's, CW, TV people' who WILL 'say', if the T9 are 'implicated' in Madeleine's 'disappearance',

"THEY DIDN'T FOOL US, NOT FOR A SINGLE SECOND, WE ALWAYS 'KNEW' THEY WERE 'INVOLVED'

by Liz Eagles 20.12.14 10:10

Scotland Yard's job is to serve Madeleine McCann and no-one else.

ETA: I've yet to see a genuine sign of that.

by Joss 20.12.14 11:16

ultimaThule wrote:
Joss wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
< snip >
Thanks for the info Tony. I was looking this up on the internet yesterday, and would think these laws very apt in the case of Brenda Leyland. I feel if criminality is established then the family of Brenda can bring those responsible to task on criminal charges and a case to be answered in a criminal court?

'Criminality' cannot be established by an Inquest which is a fact-finding investigation and not to be confused with the adversarial process of a trial, Joss.

The relevant law can be found in the Coroners Rules 1984 (as amended):

Rule 22
(1) No witness at an inquest shall be obliged to answer any question tending to incriminate himself.

(2) Where it appears to the coroner that a witness has been asked such a question, the coroner shall inform the witness that he may refuse to answer.

Rule 36
(1) The proceedings and evidence at an inquest shall be directed solely to ascertaining the following, namely
(a) Who the deceased was;
(b) How, when and where the deceased came by his death;
(c) The particulars required by the Registration Act to be registered concerning the death

(2) Neither the coroner nor the jury shall express any opinion on any other matter.

Rule 42
No verdict shall be framed in such a way as to appear to determine any question of
(a) criminal liability on the part of a named person.
(b) civil liability

Thanks for your reply. I guess i should of been clearer in what i meant. I was thinking if any of Brenda's family have their own lawyer present at the Inquest, could they garner their own evidence, re- laws of evidence to be observed in cases of potential criminality? And i think we also read early in the case that Brenda's son is studying to be a lawyer in the U.S., and if that is the case he would know what his options are to take things further if there is culpability for his mother's death because of the stalking, harrassing and death threats made towards her.
I know the Coroner can't take the case any further than what her job is as a coroner, but perhaps as i mentioned others related to Brenda could? And then what did the coroner mean by saying "That could change", after the pre inquest hearing on the 18th?