Let's Not Forget Brenda

Joss wrote:

I guess I should have 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?  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...

• http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27
  

Tony Bennett wrote:

Joss wrote:

I guess I should have 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?  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...

I think Ben Leyland is unable to take things any further.

We have been told that he has submitted a written statement to the inquest.

How can he realistically do anything to influence the outcome of the inquest? He lives 5,000 miles away in California and as a student he probably has little or no money. His mother's death will have come as a shock, and no doubt he has his own views on responsibility for his mother's death, but can he afford to hire a lawyer? Almost certainly not.

What troubles me most about this case - which is clearly, post-Leveson especially, one of profound public interest - is the Coroner's refusal to empanel a jury.

Here is Manchester Council Coroner's explanation of when a jury should be called:

QUOTE

At most inquests, there is no jury and the Coroner makes all the decisions himself. However, at a small number of inquests, a jury is needed. The Coroner will call a jury if a person dies in custody when the death is not clearly due to natural causes, or if their death was linked to their own or someone else's actions while at work, or to certain health and safety issues. The Coroner may also decide to use a jury in other cases because he feels it would be helpful or in the public interest.

UNQUOTE
 
There is sufficient evidence in the public domain that the SKY News team and Martin Brunt hounded Brenda Leyland to her death. Arguably the world's most powerful media organisation up against a troubled and lonely divorcee.

And the Coroner decides that it is not in the public interest to call a jury?

I wonder whyever not?

Joss wrote:

• http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27
  

1. Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety.E+W
(1)Any person who sends to another person—  (a)a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys—   (i)a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;   (ii)a threat; or    (iii)information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or    (b)any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,   is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.  (2)A person is not guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a)(ii) above if he shows—  (a)that the threat was used to reinforce a demand made by him on reasonable grounds; and   (b)that he believed [F4, and had reasonable grounds for believing,] that the use of the threat was a proper means of reinforcing the demand.   (2A)In this section “electronic communication” includes—  (a)any oral or other communication by means of a telecommunication system (within the meaning of the Telecommunications Act 1984 (c. 12)); and   (b)any communication (however sent) that is in electronic form.   (3)In this section references to sending include references to delivering or transmitting and to causing to be sent, delivered or transmitted and “sender” shall be construed accordingly.  (4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

jeanmonroe wrote:

Joss wrote:

• http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27
  

1. Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety.E+W
(1)Any person who sends to another person—  (a)a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys—   (i)a message which is indecent or grossly offensive;   (ii)a threat; or    (iii)information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or    (b)any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature,   is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated.  (2)A person is not guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a)(ii) above if he shows—  (a)that the threat was used to reinforce a demand made by him on reasonable grounds; and   (b)that he believed [F4, and had reasonable grounds for believing,] that the use of the threat was a proper means of reinforcing the demand.   (2A)In this section “electronic communication” includes—  (a)any oral or other communication by means of a telecommunication system (within the meaning of the Telecommunications Act 1984 (c. 12)); and   (b)any communication (however sent) that is in electronic form.   (3)In this section references to sending include references to delivering or transmitting and to causing to be sent, delivered or transmitted and “sender” shall be construed accordingly.  (4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

Did BL SEND 'anything' 'TO' (very important) the McCann's?

NO!

Did a McCann 'SUPPORTER' 'SEND' DEATH 'THREATS' 'TO' BL aka 'Sweepyface' as 'exposed' by MB and SkyNews?

YES!

jeanmonroe wrote:It IS 'criminal', in UK law, to 'send' death 'threats'!

Even MWT, Ex-cop, 'sent' a 'copy' of the 'death threat' 'tweets' TO BL, to UK POLICE FORCES!

And, AND, he also 'retweeted' the 'death threat' tweets to McCann 'SUPPORTER', Ex CEOP CEO, J Gamble!

J Gamble, McCann 'SUPPORTER', KNEW about the 'death threats' to BL, because a fellow  ex-cop, MWT, HAD 'informed' him!

So NO 'nobody told me', 'I didn't know that' from J Gamble, in the future!

All 'screenshotted and saved', by thousands of people!

Gamble 'KNEW' of the 'death threats' SENT to BL!

Although i don't know, or can't remember, IF Gamble also informed the UK Authorities that a UK citizen WAS being sent 'life threatening' 'threats' from his fellow McCann 'SUPPORTER'', Cindy Martin.

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.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Joss wrote:

I guess I should have 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?  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...

I think Ben Leyland is unable to take things any further.

We have been told that he has submitted a written statement to the inquest.

How can he realistically do anything to influence the outcome of the inquest? He lives 5,000 miles away in California and as a student he probably has little or no money. His mother's death will have come as a shock, and no doubt he has his own views on responsibility for his mother's death, but can he afford to hire a lawyer? Almost certainly not.

What troubles me most about this case - which is clearly, post-Leveson especially, one of profound public interest - is the Coroner's refusal to empanel a jury.

Here is Manchester Council Coroner's explanation of when a jury should be called:

QUOTE

At most inquests, there is no jury and the Coroner makes all the decisions himself. However, at a small number of inquests, a jury is needed. The Coroner will call a jury if a person dies in custody when the death is not clearly due to natural causes, or if their death was linked to their own or someone else's actions while at work, or to certain health and safety issues. The Coroner may also decide to use a jury in other cases because he feels it would be helpful or in the public interest.

UNQUOTE
 
There is sufficient evidence in the public domain that the SKY News team and Martin Brunt hounded Brenda Leyland to her death. Arguably the world's most powerful media organisation up against a troubled and lonely divorcee.

And the Coroner decides that it is not in the public interest to call a jury?

I wonder whyever not?

Ristretto wrote:

plebgate wrote:I cannot see why Blair and Brown has been brought into the posts about Brenda.

Brunty, ASFAIK did not doorstep Brenda about Blair and Brown, so why post about them?

Also where is the proof that Brenda has commited libel?

Ristretto seems to be a budding lawyer or sumat.   I think this poster will get on well with UT.

Because the libel she posted as sweepyface is part and parcel of the role she played online.

I really do find the question on the last line of your post amusing. Are you one of the conspiracy brigade who explain everything by referring to the Paedophile conspiracy?
Show me the evidence that supports what Brenda Leyland posted about these two men and I might go along with you. Till then its as valid a claim as the one about the Queen being a lizard, only far more likely to be challenged as libel. Remember the onus is on the person making the claim to prove it.

Only a budding lawyer eh? Shows what you know doesn't it!

jeanmonroe wrote:I think you'll find HM Coroner does indeed KNOW about the 'death threat' tweets TO BL.

Many people 'sent' that 'evidence' to the Coroner's Court.

WHAT she'll 'do' about 'it' is, i'm afraid, anybody's 'guess'!

I think her 'remit' is 'where, when, how and cause' of 'death'

I don't 'see' a 'WHY' there!

Nothing, that i know of, to stop her 'asking' about the 'WHY'

istbc.

Because the 'WHY' would possibly encompass the EVENTS  'leading up' to her 'death'

Which, of course, would possibly bring MB's and SkyNew's 'actions' into sharp 'focus' and CONFIRMED 'death threats' to the widowed, pensioner, BL.

j.rob wrote:

Ristretto wrote:

plebgate wrote:I cannot see why Blair and Brown has been brought into the posts about Brenda.

Brunty, ASFAIK did not doorstep Brenda about Blair and Brown, so why post about them?

Also where is the proof that Brenda has commited libel?

Ristretto seems to be a budding lawyer or sumat.   I think this poster will get on well with UT.

Because the libel she posted as sweepyface is part and parcel of the role she played online.

I really do find the question on the last line of your post amusing. Are you one of the conspiracy brigade who explain everything by referring to the Paedophile conspiracy?
Show me the evidence that supports what Brenda Leyland posted about these two men and I might go along with you. Till then its as valid a claim as the one about the Queen being a lizard, only far more likely to be challenged as libel. Remember the onus is on the person making the claim to prove it.

Only a budding lawyer eh? Shows what you know doesn't it!

Given what is now coming out in the press, there is no earthly reason why part of this case might be bound up with paedophile rings. And there are many red flags waving in that direction. In actual fact, the McCanns and their friends frequently spoke about how they were worried that the motive for Madeleine's disappearance was paedophilia. Kate was convinced of it - she writes about it in her book.

The Gasper statements; the social worker who tried to speak to Kate on Friday 4th May 2007 and was moved away by David Payne; David Payne's claim that there was a 'pact' between him and the McCanns; Gerry's CATS number; the McCanns and the Tapas flagging up alleged chit-chat about paedophiles while hanging out in the children's playground area (as you do). And other huge red flags like deeply inappropriate photos of Madeleine wearing make-up or in poses that are highly staged and not natural.

So the McCann and their friends are very much a part of the "conspiracy brigade" who explain everything by referring to the Paedophile conspiracy.  They are, of course, also part of a conspiracy brigade (whose numbers now have thankfully dwindled to exclude pretty much everyone outside TM) that alleges that Madeleine was abducted by an unknown person or persons (probably a paedophile and/or part of a paedophile ring).

Show me the evidence that Madeleine was abducted from the apartment by a mystery person or persons from 9pm until 10pm on Thursday 3rd May 2007?

Okeydokey wrote:

canada12 wrote:

Julchen wrote:I've been wondering for some time now:
Has her funeral taken place and I've missed it, or if not then why not?

Jule

I've wondered the same thing. Can't see any notices, stories, etc. It's possible the family requested a private ceremony with no publicity. But one does wonder if something else is going on... ie, her body being kept until the inquest is over...?

It's very likely because the first inquiries into her death were inconclusive i.e. she hasn't had a decent burial or cremation yet.

The cause of death could easily be something like vagal inhibition brought on by terror at her treatment by people I don't need to name.  We've no idea at all what passed between her and the last people to see her (or text her? or leave messages on her mobile phone? ) before her death.

One thing I do know is it was completely outrageous of the coroner to declare there were no suspicious circumstances before the cause of death was ascertained.

But such legal outrages are exactly what we have come to expect in all matters associated with this case.

Smokeandmirrors wrote: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.

jeanmonroe wrote:I think you'll find HM Coroner does indeed KNOW about the 'death threat' tweets TO BL.

Many people 'sent' that 'evidence' to the Coroner's Court.

WHAT she'll 'do' about 'it' is, i'm afraid, anybody's 'guess'!

I think her 'remit' is 'where, when, how and cause' of 'death'

I don't 'see' a 'WHY' there!

Nothing, that i know of, to stop her 'asking' about the 'WHY'

istbc.

Because the 'WHY' would possibly encompass the EVENTS  'leading up' to her 'death'

Which, of course, would possibly bring MB's and SkyNew's 'actions' into sharp 'focus' and CONFIRMED 'death threats' to the widowed, pensioner, BL.

jeanmonroe wrote:so I don`t see how the McCann trolls cannot be charged.
------------------------------------------

so I don`t see how the McCann's SUPPORTING 'trolls' cannot be charged.

Woofer wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:I think you'll find HM Coroner does indeed KNOW about the 'death threat' tweets TO BL.

Many people 'sent' that 'evidence' to the Coroner's Court.

WHAT she'll 'do' about 'it' is, i'm afraid, anybody's 'guess'!

I think her 'remit' is 'where, when, how and cause' of 'death'

I don't 'see' a 'WHY' there!

Nothing, that i know of, to stop her 'asking' about the 'WHY'

istbc.

Because the 'WHY' would possibly encompass the EVENTS  'leading up' to her 'death'

Which, of course, would possibly bring MB's and SkyNew's 'actions' into sharp 'focus' and CONFIRMED 'death threats' to the widowed, pensioner, BL.

Hope she`s also been sent a copy of Brenda`s tweets so she can see they were not sent TO the McCanns and how they were merely questioning a case.

Agree, she has been wrongly informed by the police if they`ve told her no crime was committed - it definitely was. Someone I know was sentenced to 3 years in prison just for sending mildly threatening texts to a family member - the charge was `causing someone to be fearful`, so I don`t see how the McCann trolls cannot be charged.

Joss wrote:
< snip >
Exactly. Madeleine McCann is not even officially listed as an abducted child but a missing child.

ultimaThule wrote:

Joss wrote:
< snip >
Exactly. Madeleine McCann is not even officially listed as an abducted child but a missing child.

Can you provide a link to the official lists of abducted and missing children, Joss?  Does Madeleine McCann''s name appear as a missing child on the lists for Portugal or those of the UK?

Have you seen these children?

• 
  

  Madeleine McCann

  Current age: 11Missing since: 03 May 2007Missing from: Overseas
  

PeterMac wrote:Strange definition of CHILDREN, I think.
Perhaps almost as od as using "Abducted"

" />

Joss wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Strange definition of CHILDREN, I think.
Perhaps almost as od as using "Abducted"

" />

Well i guess they are someone's children, even though they are young adults and then older adults as well. I don't know why they are listed under missing children though? Maybe people in the U.K. or Portugal might know why?

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.

FH wrote:

Joss wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Strange definition of CHILDREN, I think.
Perhaps almost as od as using "Abducted"

" />

Well i guess they are someone's children, even though they are young adults and then older adults as well. I don't know why they are listed under missing children though? Maybe people in the U.K. or Portugal might know why?

Because they went missing when they were technically children, under 18?

Joss wrote:I really think most of us want to know Why Brenda was singled out in the crazy dossier?