Brenda Leyland inquest records suicide

ultimaThule wrote:

BlueBag wrote:I still don't get how you get helium to your hotel bedroom.

Buy a canister from a supermarket or Argos and carry it in a bag/pack it in a suitcase http://www.argos.co.uk/static/Product/partNumber/2754756.htm

Alternatively, order a tank of 'hippy crack' from the Middletons' online emporium http://www.partypieces.co.uk/helium-canister/helium-balloon-gas-canister.html and have it delivered to your home before transporting it to your destination of choice.

Hello ultimaThule - 'hippy crack' is nitrous oxide (laughing gas), not helium...

...it was popular here about a dozen years ago (I loved it) before being banned.

I was quite surprised to see it still available to partygoers in the UK :




Back to Mrs Leyland, though - no mention at the inquest of alcohol, was there...?

I would find it very odd if a woman who enjoyed a drink and a fag - 

- had not at least had a couple of wines before saying goodbye to her life.

Has there been any mention of a funeral?


Where's Snifferdog gotten to? I did enjoy reading her (?) posts and hope she is well.

Best wishes to you all.

The coroner reported that Brenda's body was released last year late October.

Did I blink and miss something?  I didn't see anything about this on the BBC national news.

The verdict is the verdict.

I am sure she did commit suicide. 

But I am equally sure that the way the inquest was conducted is quite shameful to this country.  

Another little bit of the body of British justice has rotted away.

I'm sure being invisible, despite caring and answering people in good faith. is a good thing..

There seems to be no point speaking unless you're well known/trusted, so shut it Christine. 

Back to reading.

Christina wrote:I'm sure being invisible, despite caring and answering people in good faith. is a good thing..

There seems to be no point speaking unless you're well known/trusted, so shut it Christine. 

Back to reading.

Christina, please keep on posting. I think as a rule 90% of posts are not reacted on, that does not mean they are not read. I was going to post about the balloon fill canisters when I saw your post. I read your other post too. I know the feeling that you are screaming at the sea, but believe me, people  are reading.

If I wasn't on the other side of the world, I'd have gone to this inquest -

(possibly heavily disguised with a moustache - or - I'm not sure -

- out there giving it what for, for Free Speech) -

- were any of Mrs Leyland's mates in attendance?

Did any forum members go, that are able to tell us about it?


Did not Mrs Leyland make a posting along the lines of...

..."If I'm found dead, please investigate" in late 2013...?

(I could so be wrong, and can't find the 'suspicious circumstances' tweet just now)


For such an apparently articulate woman - no suicide note doesn't sit right, either.

Had she left instructions for the care of her dog/s, for example?


Was the time of death mentioned?


As for the suicide instruction website being open on her iPad -

- had that iPad been fingerprinted? The helium canisters?

I'd've printed the instructions out, myself - 

- or scribbled them down.


I have wondered if Brenda had been a member of any of the online forums -

- as Twitter seems an odd place to start off on.

It was only really through reading, and then posting on this forum -

(and getting absolutely chewed at times)

- that I got a feel for just how complex and far-reaching this case is.


Tony - I don't suppose Brenda could have been the 'Woman from Wigan'

- who rang you up one time? Or am I geographically way out?


My thoughts only.

Last sentence
http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com.es/

Brunt killed Brenda Leyland.

Martin Brunt did not kill Brenda Leyland. Reprehensible to suggest otherwise!

I've just noticed HiDeHo has posted her video on Missing Madeleine in memory of Brenda Leyland.

If my link doesn't work could someone do the honours please?

With thanks to HiDeHo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LMih8I_EZk0

RIP Brenda Leyland.

aquila wrote:I've just noticed HiDeHo has posted her video on Missing Madeleine in memory of Brenda Leyland.

If my link doesn't work could someone do the honours please?

With thanks to HiDeHo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LMih8I_EZk0

RIP Brenda Leyland.

It works fine and thanks for posting.

PeterMac wrote:Last sentence
http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com.es/

Brunt killed Brenda Leyland.

I agree.

He missed the pivotal point that showing her face is tantamount to harming her.
And, harming her deliberately and knowingly given the phone conversation revelation.
He ambushed and cornered her, leaving her no choice, but to act out her thought out of extreme fear for her future quality of life.

That's the very thing (exposing her face) that worried her and feared most.
She lived her last moments in dreadful fear at the prospect of being judged by people whom she cared about. Must be extremely distressing and bloody awful for her when she made the call and plucked up the courage to tell him of her suicidal thoughts, only to hear no words of sympathy / dissuasion, and no offer of withdrawal from him. His offer of false security - of not naming her or listing her address is just bullshit - luring her into false sense of security when showing image of her is the antithesis to that.

It's basis common sense that every person lives in fear of being judged by family, friends and people that mattered to them, and not strangers they don't know hence leaving her name and address out is self-defeating and missing the whole point. MB telling her they will show her face but that was corporation's decision, not down to him hence not his decision to withdraw, is just total bullock. He was playing a game with her, using tactics, playing good man with one hand but bearing bad intention with the other hand.

He was playing red riding hood with her, believing he'd the coup on the hottest topic of the moment, at the same time pandering to the Mcs/source- killing two birds with one stone so to speak -
was a brilliant career building move.

He cares not one jot that she was a vulnerable woman living on her own and shows no concern for her well being whatsoever even after she'd braved herself to tell him about the drink and ending it all.

He KILLED her.
The circumstances building up and leading to her suicide should have been given serious considerations by the coroner Mrs Mason - that Sky vis-a-vis MB is the catalyst of her fate. It's not justifiable to say they were practising within guidelines of the law, not when the circumstances of this case is exception to the rules.

I don't recall seeing any journalist ever doorstepping Mr. & Mrs. and demanding to know why they left their 3 children alone with the result of one disappearing.   I do not recall any journalist ever doorstepping them and demanding to know why the 48 questions were never answered or why the 2 mortgage re-payments were made, or why the "Punch and Judy"  family pic. was taken and released when their 3 year old daughter was still missing.

Why then should Brenda or any member of the public be doorstepped and have their face and name all over tv because of posting tweets on twitter, posts which the police have said were not criminal?

Is it any wonder the gen public (many of whom made donations to their Fund) are asking why they are treated so differently?

Sky News are off the hook.

Martin Brunt is being consoled and portrayed as some sort of victim.

Brenda Leyland deceased is being called a McCann troll in the Press.

Brenda Leyland is called 'Leyland' in the body copy of articles in the Press.

Brenda Leyland hadn't broken any law.

What a disgrace.

Had Sky News done that to me I can say without doubt I would be suicidal.

Rolling news, every fifteen minutes, a whole day devoted to Sweepyface.

Martin Brunt needs to hang his head in shame.

399933135816626177|Mon Nov 11 16:14:24 +0000 2013|#McCann I would also hope that were I to die in odd circumstances people WOULD Q and not just accept the first version

(snipped from greptweet.com)

This is from Brenda's Twitter account, under the name of 'Sweepyface'.

Just to put things into perspective....this vile creature



Dr. Miles Bradbury, emerged from a court after being found guilty of the most heinous crimes against children passed by the awaiting Press with a comment to say he was 'sorry'. He was allowed out on bail for a month awaiting sentence.

Now that's BIG news....and yet the Press didn't doorstep him. Sky News didn't run an all day expose on his CRIME.

I don't believe I saw many (if any) tweets from Jim Gamble to show his disgust.

What I do remember is a book by Winters and Goose being promoted, a book endorsed by Jim Gamble and further supported by.....

Then comes the targetting of Brenda Leyland.

I actually feel a mixture of sickness and anger.

Can someone please post up HiDeHo's video in memory of Brenda, a human being who had committed no crime, who was hounded and Sky News say it was in the public interest?

Would Admin post up a separate thread for HiDeHo's video please.

missbeetle wrote:Tony - I don't suppose Brenda could have been the 'Woman from Wigan' - who rang you up one time? Or am I geographically way out?

You have made some very pertinent points in your post. I must say that reading through all the various accounts of the inquest, all sorts of details that you would expect to be covered during an inquest were not. As for the Coroner coming up with: 'We must make helium less available', as her headline conclusion, instead of 'We must stop powerful news media from hounding vulnerable women living on their own to death', then words truly fail me.

I am one of your fans. I think the photos you bring us are informative. Your comments may seem 'lightweight' to some here, but I always read them. And I can tell that you are geniunely interested in all the ramifications of this incredible mystery - and are here for genuine reasons.


To answer your question, no, Brenda Leyland wasn't the 'woman from Wigan', otherwise known here as 'The Riddler' (the one who posted her comments on Cristobell's blog). Wigan is some 100 miles (160 km if you do those in NZ) north-west from Burton Oevry in Leicestershire (Brenda's home). The woman's 'phone number was from Wigan, and she spoke about places in the Wigan area in her riddles. Amd spo0ke with a northern accent I think she was another plausible time-waster - a bit like 'universe' - who hooks some of us on a superficially attractive theory, but always wants us to look at that and not at the real issues in the case. "Look here, not there".

Besides that, there was no connection at all between any of the contents of 'The Riddler' and any of Brenda's tweets

Twitter is acting up a bit this morning but I have been able to tweet Sonia and get a reply.

She says NO evidence was presented in Court such as cans, photos etc.

whatsupdoc wrote:Twitter is acting up a bit this morning but I have been able to tweet Sonia and get a reply.

She says NO evidence was presented in Court such as cans, photos etc.

Are Coroner's Inquests always so vague?
I realise that they're not the same as criminal trials, but nonetheless, is it usual for them to be so blase about evidence?

There must be other routes by which the actual facts of the case and the evidence can be examined / made public, surely? Otherwise, how can the public be confident of the verdict?

I don't understand.

aquila wrote:Sky News are off the hook.

Martin Brunt is being consoled and portrayed as some sort of victim.

He may want to be seen as a victim but he's seen through for what he truly is.  
A despicable man, too full of himself and his power to build his career at the expense of someone's life.

I find the coroner's statement " I am satisfied that no one could have known what she was going to do and how she was going to do it" seriously lacking  a full understanding of crux of the matter on hand. Her statement is appalling - in bad judgement, inappropriate and insensitive.

For one thing, Brunt knew, he knew what she went through in her mind, she told him that herself.  That's direct evidence of direct knowledge, what more does the coroner need?
Had that been professed to a counsellor that is red flag straight away.  Given the impending situation Brunt was going to subject her to, that should have been red flag moment to anyone with common sense.

For another thing, the "....and how she was going to do it" statement is shockingly inappropriate.  Surely the "how" is not relevant ! Why would the "method" be of any relevance?  In what sense should it be relevance?  What is the coroner implying otherwise?  
An outside factor third party provocation causing death is a still an unjustified and untimely death, irrespective of the method used.
Is she suggesting had a different method been used, it would necessitate her looking at the evidence differently? But because it is helium it is not a suspicious death. She did not for one moment given considerations to the circumstances and factors contributing to her decision to take her life. In a sense the coroner was failing her fiduciary duty when she failed to take into consideration the exceptional circumstances of this case. She was simply going through the motion of an inquest as if a routine case.

In other words, was the coroner deliberating the case on the basis of suicide vs murder? And because  of the "method" used and victim history of depression, she's satisfied that it was a suicide.  Therefore the fact that Brunt was a catalyst, a provocateur that pushed someone in her anxiety condition to the edge did not matter to the coroner. It would appear the contributing factors that led to her death were never concerning issues to the coroner, nor issues she took into consideration when she came up with the suicide verdict . In a nutshell, she is satisfied BL was not done in (as in David Kelly).

If I were her family, I would complain about the coroner mishandling of the inquest or I would take the issue up with a lawyer on how, on the basis of Brunt depositions can he be taken to court, for a variety or reasons namely unfairly targeting her, neglecting her call for help, blatant disregard for her  safety and life, intrusion of her privacy and invasion of her human right, for pushing her to the edge etc.

aiyoyo wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Last sentence
http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com.es/

Brunt killed Brenda Leyland.

I agree.

He missed the pivotal point that showing her face is tantamount to harming her.
And, harming her deliberately and knowingly given the phone conversation revelation.  
He ambushed and cornered her, leaving her no choice, but to act out her thought out of extreme fear for her future quality of life.

That's the very thing (exposing her face) that worried her and feared most.  
She lived her last moments in dreadful fear at the prospect of being judged by people whom she cared about.  Must be extremely distressing and bloody awful for her when she made the call and plucked up the courage to tell him of her suicidal thoughts, only to hear no words of sympathy / dissuasion, and no offer of withdrawal from him.  His offer of false security - of not naming her or listing her address is just bullshit - luring her into false sense of security when showing image of her is the antithesis to that.

It's basis common sense that every person lives in fear of being judged by family, friends and people that mattered to them, and not strangers they don't know hence leaving her name and address out is self-defeating and missing the whole point.  MB telling her they will show her face but that was corporation's decision, not down to him hence not his decision to withdraw, is just total bullock.  He was playing a game with her, using tactics, playing good man with one hand but bearing bad intention with the other hand.

He was playing red riding hood with her, believing he'd the coup on the hottest topic of the moment, at the same time pandering to the Mcs/source-  killing two birds with one stone so to speak -
was a brilliant career building move.  

He cares not one jot that she was a vulnerable woman living on her own and shows no concern for her well being whatsoever even after she'd braved herself to tell him about the drink and ending it all.  

He KILLED her.  
The circumstances building up and leading to her suicide should have been given serious considerations by the coroner Mrs Mason - that Sky vis-a-vis MB is the catalyst of her fate. It's not justifiable to say they were practising within guidelines of the law, not when the circumstances of this case is exception to the rules.

I agree too. Showing her face every 15 min is what killed her.  In SKY's statement after the farce it says SKY considered it in the interest of the public, or words like that. WTF is the public's interest in having a woman haunted to death?

lj wrote:

I agree too. Showing her face every 15 min is what killed her.  In SKY's statement after the farce it says SKY considered it in the interest of the public, or words like that. WTF is the public's interest in having a woman haunted to death?

Since it is now on official public record that the Police said she has not done anything criminal, her family has a strong case if they take Brunt to Court for harassing and hounding her to her death.

What he did - labeling her a "troll" was criminal and without justification at all, as we now know. Also he should be charged for interfering with "witness" in the Police investigation on the dossier. Why would it be up to Brunt to deem what was in the public interest to know, when the police investigation on the dossier wasn't even concluded, even now at this point of writing the investigation of others on the dossier is still ongoing.

aiyoyo wrote:

lj wrote:

I agree too. Showing her face every 15 min is what killed her.  In SKY's statement after the farce it says SKY considered it in the interest of the public, or words like that. WTF is the public's interest in having a woman haunted to death?

Since it is now on official public record that the Police said she has not done anything criminal, her family has a strong case if they take Brunt to Court for harassing and hounding her to her death.  

 What he did - labeling her a "troll" was criminal and without justification at all, as we now know. Also he should be charged for interfering with "witness" in the Police investigation on the dossier.  Why would it be up to Brunt to deem what was in the public interest to know, when the police investigation on the dossier wasn't even concluded, even now at this point of writing the investigation of others on the dossier is still ongoing.

But what it also does is, give 'governments' the ammunition to make a case to make 'trolling' an offence.  
MSM have basically left out the police report that Brenda did nothing illegal, however MSM still want to make out Brenda was guilty of something and Runty & Co were the innocents just doing their jobs in an impeccable manner.

Upshot imo, 'trolling'  will be back on the agenda very soon.  Especially with the election coming up, and the nasty people using Twitter 'dissing' our friendly neighbourhood honest upright MPs. :puke:

If twitting one's opinions is considered "trolling" then many public figures are trolls, including "honest upright" MPs, Jim Gamble, Katie Hopkins etc.

It wasn't any old reporter from Sky who doorstepped Brenda, it was their senior Crime reporter to boot and usually referred to as that in any piece he does for Sky.    

I think most people would be very worried/frightened if a well known senior Crime reporter from such a company as Sky turned up and doorstepped them.  Then for him to say along the lines of the police are involved, well I don't know what to say really.

What the heck was going on?   - whatever it was I really think Brenda's family need, if possible, to seek advice about it all.

aiyoyo wrote:If twitting one's opinions is considered "trolling" then many public figures are trolls, including "honest upright" MPs, Jim Gamble, Katie Hopkins etc.

Ah... now we are in the realms of what is  " in the Public interest."

This is a phrase often used by media people from  the editor of the Sun to Nick Ferrari and his ilk and maybe Uncle Jim and other fellow travellers.

There is a song by the Jam in which (to quote )  " The Public wants - what the Public gets " inferring that the media deliver what they want the Public to get.

The Jam's song has been inversed. The media now cry that the Public are a demanding a lot and they are now demanding that said media types supply them with rightfully due fill of information.

There was a trial this week where a woman ( who was jailed for pasing info for cash ) was paid by some ' journalists ' for information.

The learned Judge said that the same journalists were alright because they were acting in " The Public interest" despite being party to the
crime she committed. It's a strange world indeed. Lord Levenson has been looking into the same. As usual nothing has come of it.

i think we now live in an Americanised land where morality has replaced politics and being as hypocrisy is the lubricant of society then the whole engine is running very rough because it's overfilled.

The old name for Fleet Street as was ( it no longer exists ) was ' The Street of Shame.' An apt title - not necessarily aimed at the poor sods who appeared in the articles but the place from whence the articles and stories came.

It has not improved and the same moralising and self promotion of the clowns who used to write the trash have now evolved and appear on our televisions and left Grub Street behind. For one the pay is betetr and exposure of one's ' talents? ' is broadcast to a much wider audience and bless 'em they can now put a face to a name.

In the midst of all this shameless self promotion the story and information doesn't matter. The likes of Brunty or any other schmuck who sits on a morning or afternoon sofa will very rapidly go from - Nuclear War imminent - to " and now the weather " with a vague smile as if they didn't listen to a word that they actually said themselves seconds ago.

Brunty is the fall guy in this instance I'm afraid - he's just another ( one of thousands ) of self promoters passing himself off as a journalist when in actuality he is nothing more than a presenter. He and many others don't find stories these days - they are handed stories from the Government of the day or Press association and Reuters. They are stringers. Just stringers. they pass on ( string ) other peoples' tales. Like gossip from behind the bike sheds at school.

They are not alone as Governments do the same . Cameron is presenter as is Milliband and Clegg. They are all players in the same game.
They don't put forward policies ( as in argue and fight for them) they present policies  first to the media and the media pass them on to the now demanding ( not my words - the journalists words ) public so that they can gauge opinion. Like the media people they have no overt opinions of their own despite the moralistic tones of the script.

I'm afraid the learned Judge has a lot to learn. Levenson the same.

As far as Brenda Leylands' unfortunate death is concerned a few things have struck me.

Martin Brunt was handed the " Dossier " from his source - which he refused to reveal.

He said that it had been handed over to the Police and she may be paid a visit by said police.

The Police ( which police? ) have now said that Brenda Leyland had committed no crimes.

Apparently he had tried to approach a few other alleged " trolls " prior to doorstepping Brenda.

Why did he decide to confront Brenda and not the others?

How did he pick his victim and why?

The claim is that he didn't know that Brenda Leyland suffered from Psychiatric probelms past and present.

OK. But did the compilers of the " Dossier " know something about Brenda's state of mind?

This is why the source might be important.

Big question for me is: Why Brenda and no other alleged troll?

There were at least hundreds if not thousands to choose from.

Perhaps Brunty will let us know in time?

Opinion only of course.