Brenda Leyland Inquest

Chris wrote:

Marky wrote:

Chris wrote:

Marky wrote:

Chris wrote:

Why would the coroner want to pre-empt the inquest conclusion before hearing the evidence/submissions? It seems perfectly reasonable to keep all options open. Incidentally concerning your earlier point on whether Sky were concerned or not. My guess would be an unconcerned Sky wouldn't have bothered to send a legal representative to the pre-hearing.

that doesn't answer the question and since no one else seems willing to, it's now reasonable to consider that the coroner's statement as it appears in just about everywhere that carried the story, is as printed.

oh, legal presence doesn't necessarily equate to concern. read the coroners statement again. carefully. coroners don't charge people. the police do that.

BIB Why would you think otherwise from a clearly syndicated (or plagiarised) story? For example, both the Guardian & Telegraph wording for the overall report are too close not to be drawn from the same source with the Telegraph even attributing it to an agency. The Leicester Mercury (who may well have had a reporter there) actually uses different words as a direct quote so your suggestion of a definitive and consistent quote from the media is ill placed.

I don't need any further reading thanks it is only you introducing non-existent powers for a coroner which is irrelevant to explaining the rationale for the presence of Sky's legal representation.

BIB ah right, a conspiracy theorist. indeed the leicester mercury didn't trouble themselves with the word 'foreseeabilty' but once again nowhere does the omission, allegedly independently verified, that many are up in arms about appear, which of course is the point of the discussion which you conveniently ignore. your final paragraph isnt really worth responding to as you appear to have chosen to ignore the point i was making; ain't i nice, could have put that much worse; but just for the hell of it, don't read too much into sky being legally represented. the polizie have spoken. no one called as witnesses will be charged. no one. at all.

Who is suggesting a conspiracy apart from you trying to defend a statement found lacking in substance about consistency? I haven’t ignored anything, someone who was there claims the wording used differed from that reported by the media. You on the other hand are seeking to make a case on "quantity" based on reports carried by those who were clearly not there to question that view. It is you who seems to have a problem suggesting a motive other than accuracy from someone who has disagreed with the media reports despite hearing the coroner first hand. Perhaps it is you who should be tagged the conspiracy theorist.  Personally I am not greatly excited either way but I would like to think the coroner remains open minded at the present time and if so I am happy to accept she qualified her statement pending hearing the evidence.  Having said that, I don’t (and never have) expect any charges to be made except in the very unlikely event foul play is determined. I haven’t suggested Sky’s legal team are taking an interest because of that eventuality as you appear to imply. It is much more likely their concern relates to possible criticism of their reporting and door stepping if the coroner chooses to make a narrative decision.

chrissie wrote:@ chris Well said!

@ marky Attack the post, not the posters.

chrissie wrote:I had you down as more intelligent than that but you lost me when you said you believed what the MSM reported. You remind me of someone, trying to put my finger on it, someone who belittles anyone questioning the facts, it will come to me..

Judge Dread wrote:

chrissie wrote:I had you down as more intelligent than that but you lost me when you said you believed what the MSM reported. You remind me of someone, trying to put my finger on it, someone who belittles anyone questioning the facts, it will come to me..

Chrissie... Marky is a WUM and best ignored...

chrissie wrote:I had you down as more intelligent than that but you lost me when you said you believed what the MSM reported. You remind me of someone, trying to put my finger on it, someone who belittles anyone questioning the facts, it will come to me..

chrissie wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

chrissie wrote:I had you down as more intelligent than that but you lost me when you said you believed what the MSM reported. You remind me of someone, trying to put my finger on it, someone who belittles anyone questioning the facts, it will come to me..

Chrissie... Marky is a WUM and best ignored...

Hi, I notice that you never post on here, although you do in response to marky. I will disregard your opinion if you don't mind.

Judge Dread wrote:

chrissie wrote:I had you down as more intelligent than that but you lost me when you said you believed what the MSM reported. You remind me of someone, trying to put my finger on it, someone who belittles anyone questioning the facts, it will come to me..

Chrissie... Marky is a WUM and best ignored...

chrissie wrote:

Judge Dread wrote:

chrissie wrote:I had you down as more intelligent than that but you lost me when you said you believed what the MSM reported. You remind me of someone, trying to put my finger on it, someone who belittles anyone questioning the facts, it will come to me..

Chrissie... Marky is a WUM and best ignored...

Hi, I notice that you never post on here, although you do in response to marky. I will disregard your opinion if you don't mind.

chrissie wrote:Hahaha!

Lioned wrote:

interested wrote:Does anyone know if the "Dr. Zakrzewski" who is mentioned as a witness to be heard (but not Brenda's G.P.) is by any chance a Psychotherapist or Psychiatrist who might have been seeing Brenda, who obviously was under tremendous stress after being accosted by Martin Brunt?

Sonia Poulton
@martin_liz @winnower1 @arongord @Ms_LeFaye unstable? YUP!They have called psychiatric witness who knew her from before but not recent. Bad.
7:58pm - 18 Dec 14

Not Born Yesterday wrote:I don't think that there is anything further that can be said until the outcome of the inquest is known.

We just don't know what, if any, effect the events of Brenda's last days - plus the abuse from the gutter element of the McCann supporters - had on what happened to her.

Marky wrote:

Lioned wrote:

interested wrote:Does anyone know if the "Dr. Zakrzewski" who is mentioned as a witness to be heard (but not Brenda's G.P.) is by any chance a Psychotherapist or Psychiatrist who might have been seeing Brenda, who obviously was under tremendous stress after being accosted by Martin Brunt?

Sonia Poulton
@martin_liz @winnower1 @arongord @Ms_LeFaye unstable? YUP!They have called psychiatric witness who knew her from before but not recent. Bad.
7:58pm - 18 Dec 14

why can't people read tweets or posts properley before making ridiculous claims about someone's stress levels.

interested on Thu 18 Dec - 18:30
Does anyone know if the "Dr. Zakrzewski" who is mentioned as a witness to be heard (but not Brenda's G.P.) is by any chance a Psychotherapist or Psychiatrist who might have been seeing Brenda, who obviously was under tremendous stress after being accosted by Martin Brunt?


Sonia Poulton
@martin_liz @winnower1 @arongord @Ms_LeFaye unstable? YUP!They have called psychiatric witness who knew her from before but not recent. Bad.
7:58pm - 18 Dec 14

Chris wrote:

Marky wrote:

Lioned wrote:

interested wrote:Does anyone know if the "Dr. Zakrzewski" who is mentioned as a witness to be heard (but not Brenda's G.P.) is by any chance a Psychotherapist or Psychiatrist who might have been seeing Brenda, who obviously was under tremendous stress after being accosted by Martin Brunt?

Sonia Poulton
@martin_liz @winnower1 @arongord @Ms_LeFaye unstable? YUP!They have called psychiatric witness who knew her from before but not recent. Bad.
7:58pm - 18 Dec 14

why can't people read tweets or posts properley before making ridiculous claims about someone's stress levels.

Is that the same as not reading the time on posts?

interested on Thu 18 Dec - 18:30
Does anyone know if the "Dr. Zakrzewski" who is mentioned as a witness to be heard (but not Brenda's G.P.) is by any chance a Psychotherapist or Psychiatrist who might have been seeing Brenda, who obviously was under tremendous stress after being accosted by Martin Brunt?


Sonia Poulton
@martin_liz @winnower1 @arongord @Ms_LeFaye unstable? YUP!They have called psychiatric witness who knew her from before but not recent. Bad.
7:58pm - 18 Dec 14

Chris wrote:

Marky wrote:

Lioned wrote:

interested wrote:Does anyone know if the "Dr. Zakrzewski" who is mentioned as a witness to be heard (but not Brenda's G.P.) is by any chance a Psychotherapist or Psychiatrist who might have been seeing Brenda, who obviously was under tremendous stress after being accosted by Martin Brunt?

Sonia Poulton
@martin_liz @winnower1 @arongord @Ms_LeFaye unstable? YUP!They have called psychiatric witness who knew her from before but not recent. Bad.
7:58pm - 18 Dec 14

why can't people read tweets or posts properley before making ridiculous claims about someone's stress levels.

Is that the same as not reading the time on posts?

interested on Thu 18 Dec - 18:30
Does anyone know if the "Dr. Zakrzewski" who is mentioned as a witness to be heard (but not Brenda's G.P.) is by any chance a Psychotherapist or Psychiatrist who might have been seeing Brenda, who obviously was under tremendous stress after being accosted by Martin Brunt?


Sonia Poulton
@martin_liz @winnower1 @arongord @Ms_LeFaye unstable? YUP!They have called psychiatric witness who knew her from before but not recent. Bad.
7:58pm - 18 Dec 14

Marky wrote:and that's the the last we'll hear from judge dumb until the inquest in march.

Judge Dread wrote:

Marky wrote:and that's the the last we'll hear from judge dumb until the inquest in march.

Don't bank on it...

interested wrote:

Chris wrote:

Marky wrote:

Lioned wrote:

interested wrote:Does anyone know if the "Dr. Zakrzewski" who is mentioned as a witness to be heard (but not Brenda's G.P.) is by any chance a Psychotherapist or Psychiatrist who might have been seeing Brenda, who obviously was under tremendous stress after being accosted by Martin Brunt?

Sonia Poulton
@martin_liz @winnower1 @arongord @Ms_LeFaye unstable? YUP!They have called psychiatric witness who knew her from before but not recent. Bad.
7:58pm - 18 Dec 14

why can't people read tweets or posts properley before making ridiculous claims about someone's stress levels.

Is that the same as not reading the time on posts?

interested on Thu 18 Dec - 18:30
Does anyone know if the "Dr. Zakrzewski" who is mentioned as a witness to be heard (but not Brenda's G.P.) is by any chance a Psychotherapist or Psychiatrist who might have been seeing Brenda, who obviously was under tremendous stress after being accosted by Martin Brunt?


Sonia Poulton
@martin_liz @winnower1 @arongord @Ms_LeFaye unstable? YUP!They have called psychiatric witness who knew her from before but not recent. Bad.
7:58pm - 18 Dec 14

Thanks to "Chris" for pointing out my query was prior to "Lioned" posting Sonia Poulton's tweet.