Brenda Leyland and the inquest

Its a free World anyone who wants to follow someone who trades on a missing 3 year old,your choice.

I'm not sure what "trades on" means in this context.

There are many bloggers who write about the McCann case - both sceptics and supporters; does it apply to all of them too?

No, only those with multiple identities.Hows the 'Bennett' hate site ? There's a few there who like to use the case of a missing child to play games !
What kind of pass time is that ?

How many on MMM now have new identities on CMoMM just so they can check up on whats being said about each other ?

Shamefull that genuine opinions are censored because they dont suit someones agenda !

sorry if already posted:

http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/Brunt_Devastated.html


"Brunt Devastated

" I was devastated, I still am and the enormity of what's happened will always be with me."

Martin Brunt speaking of the tragic death of Brenda Leyland, the enormity of what has happened will always be with him, he said.

How can the enormity of a death which you played a part, whatever way, however small, not always be with you, unless you are a lowlife?

Brunt I never took for a lowlife, but in the case of Brenda Leyland, he joined the club.

The death of Brenda Leyland it seems will always be with him, not because of the sympathy he has for her loss of life, her family, he is feeling sorry for himself.

He had the opportunity at the inquest yesterday to make, not amends, impossible to do that, but to do the decent thing:

To apologise to the Leyland family, to Brenda's sons for his actions for the enormous part he played in what led to her death.
To offer his sympathy and condolences. To not make it about his feelings, but theirs.

He didn't!

He spoke of his own devastation. Not theirs!

He passed up also the opportunity to do the right thing, and disclose his source, as to who are/is the lowlife with whom he colluded, and who put together the file which he used to threaten Brenda Leyland, just because he and they could.

That Mr Brunt, must have been devastating for the Leyland family to learn that you consider the life of the scum who put this file together of greater value than the life of an innocent person, their loved one?To know that you were not prepared to do what would have been right and proper for Brenda Leyland her family.

Instead Brunt whinged about his own devastation. How the events will stay with him.

For Brenda Leyland's family, her death remains with them for the rest of their lives. For her son, the young man Ben, who quite clearly loved his mother dearly, his life has been devastated by Brunt's actions. For the rest of this young man's life he has to live a life without her, without his lovely mum. My heart breaks for this young man.

So do not Mr Brunt, seek pity. You are undeserving!

What you did to Brenda Leyland, despicable. What you did not do for her, her family yesterday, just sickening!

Yeah, yeah, these poor journalists, they cannot reveal their sources, or these sources will no longer come forth with information, or as in this case, bring them a file where they wrongly accused Brenda Leyland, of committing crimes against the McCanns, and which Brunt, and Murdoch's Sky acted upon.

One has to ask why?

Brunt knew what he was doing, no question about it. He accepted the job of being the one despatched, to lie in wait, outside the home of Brenda Leyland, and as we now also know from his statement at the inquest, he waited for three hours for his opportunity to do so.

His Special Report was not put together in a day. It was a planned attack on Brenda Leyland by his employers at Sky, together with the vile vigilantes, Jim Gamble, Mitchell and the McCanns for sure would have known of it. For them NOT to have known that the round the clock newsreel of Brenda being attacked by Brunt was to be aired is not believable. For them not to have known about Brunt's Special Report, is too ridiculous for words.

They knew!

Brunt was and is part of Twitter. He knew and knows the score there. He knew that many of the McCann supporters posted vile and threatening twit messages to this lady. He himself, only days before he attacked her, began 'following her' on Twitter.

Brenda Leyland it seems posted a message querying Brunt doing so!

Brunt was up to no good for sure together with the others with whom he was colluding, the scum element of the McCann support.

Brunt is not a stupid man. He knew what he did and what he said to Brenda Leyland was so very wrong. Yet he continued.

He protected the person, on camera, who made the accusations against Brenda Leyland, and still does now.

What we all should be asking is HOW, they, Brunt, Gamble, McCanns, Mitchell, Sky, decided who from the alleged great numbers of persons that we are led to believe are contained in that file, was to be their target and WHY?

Who suggested Brenda Leyland from those they had to choose from?

Lots of questions still remain unanswered, but it looks like. unless a criminal case is brought against Brunt/Sky and the others, we will never know the full extent of their dirty deeds, or why they targeted Brenda Leyland. A woman innocent of any criminal act.

Questionable as to whether the same applies to those responsible for pushing this lady to commit suicide.

Of course we can say that no one could have known she would take her own life. But they ALL, each, and every one of them knew that such reporting by Sky, round the clock, screening the footage of Martin Brunt attack this lady, and followed by his Special Report, would have been enough to cause enormous distress and harm to whomever they chose as their target.

Brunt admitting yesterday that Brenda Leyland made such a comment to him, that she was thinking of this, should have been enough for Brunt to put a stop to this.

But they were all in too deep. They rolled with it.

We must not forget that Brenda Leyland was someone who held strong views about the McCann case, and voiced them. She cared that there should be justice for Madeleine, she was NOT a criminal.

The actions of Sky, Brunt, Gamble, the vile vigilantes, McCanns and Mitchell, the attack on this lady completely unjustified.

Brunt is no innocent party, absolutely not.

Brunt sold his soul to the devil that is Murdoch, and based on his conduct yesterday he hasn't asked for it back.

Yesterday he continued his assault on Brenda Leyland her family by his non disclosure of information.

What he did to this lady, her family, I hope haunts this man for the rest of his life.

And to remind us, he may have whimpered yesterday felt sorry for himself but his harsh words during his Special Report about an innocent lady, tell us that he had not a jot of sympathy for what he had done to her. From Brunt's Special Report :


Brunt:


After our initial exchange with Sweepy face she invited us in.

Off Camera she explained more about the anonymous tweets she sends from the heart of this pretty village. She had questions for the McCanns. She believed Twitter was a vehicle for expressing those thoughts.


She will probably never tweet again. She hoped she hadn’t broken the law.


Sweepy Face and the many others whose comments have been recorded may find that Scotland Yard may take a different view.


END



Martin Brunt, what a poor excuse for a decent human being. He showed not one iota of thought or care for this woman what he was doing to her. Now HE wants sympathy?

Brenda hadn't broken the law. Scotland Yard did Not take the same view as Brunt and his cronies.

Brenda Leyland did not discuss online the McCann case again. Brunt and his cruel cronies saw to that, they caused this lady to take her life. As her son Ben stated, Brunt was the final straw. This woman was being attacked, receiving real threats online. Brunt/Sky and the rest waded in!

And it has to be said. The reporting on this is shocking. Brenda Leyland is portrayed as some crazy lady who sat, and just fired off messages about the McCanns.

She was part of a group of many many people who discuss this case on Twitter, her twit messages were part of conversations with many others.

She was not some lone individual, not some nut just firing off messages. She made very valid, intelligent contribution to the discussions. She recognised absolutely that all was not right with this case, with the McCann version (s) of events.

And if truth be told that is the threat she posed the McCanns, like thousands of others, she knew the truth of what happened to little Madeleine has yet to be told.

We've heard an account of the truth by Kate McCann - only an account!

And that just won't cut it!

As to Martin Brunt, he has gotten off lightly. The Inquest is not a criminal trial, and he was informed that no criminal charges would be brought.

Perhaps, who knows, young Ben Leyland might have different ideas as to Brunt's fate!



l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
21st March 2015


**** Read Brunts Special Report in full, in Brunt Blogs above****

I doubt Ben Leyland will bother about Brunts fate,he seems to have known about his mothers state of mind and presumably felt it unnecessary to attend the inquest in person.

I think I can understand why Ben Leyland didn't attend his mother's inquest. as for Brunt, he will have to live with the consequences of his actions.i expect there are a number of people who already know who compiled the dossier. it has crossed my mind that the police will have a view on the people who compiled the dossier, the ones who gave it to the police, and the ones who gave it to sky. Sir BHH obviously felt it was in the public interest for people to know that it was the McCann family who gave the dossier to police.

tanszi wrote:i expect there are a number of people who already know who compiled the dossier.

Yes. Take a look at PeterMacs post over on Jills at 4.14pm, yesterday. Under the heading, Brenda Leyland inquest records suicide.
I think he's spot on!

I'll put the link to that post here as copying and pasting it does not produce the photos and other images.

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11113p60-brenda-leyland-inquest-records-suicide#305294

Not Born Yesterday wrote:I'll put the link to that post here as copying and pasting it does not produce the photos and other images.

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11113p60-brenda-leyland-inquest-records-suicide#305294

ah, auntie phil. i miss her.

Lioned wrote:I might be a hooligan but i dont have umpteen different personalities and a fetish for trolling forums with multiple socks promoting rubbish !
Just a game for some now.

true true.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:I'll put the link to that post here as copying and pasting it does not produce the photos and other images.

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11113p60-brenda-leyland-inquest-records-suicide#305294

What an unpleasant surprise - it should come with a health warning.

This comment by 'redcat' on the Leicester Mercury online site speaks volumes as to the reason why many feel the need to voice their opinions in one way or another if/when the 'Official' version fed to the masses is plainly and blatantly distorted or suspect. I am only surprised that the Mercury has allowed it to remain.

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Brenda-Leyland-inquest-McCann-Twitter-troll/story-26205016-detail/story.html

redcat | March 20 2015, 5:50PM
The woman is dead, it is rather nasty of you to keep referring to her as 'McCann Twitter Troll' -especially as I have read elsewhere that the police investigation into her tweets founds no laws had been broken. She held an opinion on the McCanns and their actions, both on that holiday and since, and she was quite entitled to do so and to publish it, so long as she broke no laws and committed no libel. (And if she had then the McCanns and their high-powered lawyers seem more than capable of extracting their financial due, as they have in many other cases). Perhaps if she had been able to make comments on the case in places such as the Leicester Mercury she may not have felt frustrated enough to follow the course of escalating action she did in her tweets. Her family obviously don't have the pull within the Mercury to ensure that no criticisms of her are allowed to be made in the comments sections, but you could at least not make all this even more painful for them by your headline referral to her as a 'troll'.



Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Brenda-Leyland-inquest-McCann-Twitter-troll/story-26205016-detail/story.html#ixzz3VDXc6N7Q
Follow us: @Leicester_Merc on Twitter | leicestermercury on Facebook

Thanks to "malena stool" for posting the comment from "redcat" who succinctly stated what was surely Brenda's escalating frustration that the McCanns have not been held to account for their role in whatever happened to Madeleine. And good for "redcat" for pointing out to the Leicester Mercury that their designation of Brenda Leyland as 'McCann Twitter Troll' is spurious given that what she expressed in her tweets broke no laws.

almostgothic wrote:I still read Blacksmith's blog posts and will continue to do so.

If that makes me unpopular, I don't give a flying one ......

That makes at least two of us. Blacksmith's latest (Monday, March 23, 2015) has been posted at www.blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com

I wouldn't touch L-Azzeri-lies-in-the-sun with a bargepole myself but I don't have a problem if anyone else feels differently!

The same goes for people who want to read Blacksmith.

interested wrote:Thanks to "malena stool" for posting the comment from "redcat" who succinctly stated what was surely Brenda's escalating frustration that the McCanns have not been held to account for their role in whatever happened to Madeleine.  And good for "redcat" for pointing out to the Leicester Mercury that their designation of Brenda Leyland as 'McCann Twitter Troll' is spurious given that what she expressed in her tweets broke no laws.

hmmm, i don't think the word 'troll' is limited to those break the law. it covers a somewhat larger catchment area than that and one that brenda leyland certainly inhabited.

or have rules been conveniently changed?

Not Born Yesterday wrote:I wouldn't touch L-Azzeri-lies-in-the-sun with a bargepole myself but I don't have a problem if anyone else feels differently!

The same goes for people who want to read Blacksmith.

might be wrong but that's not the point. if people want to read that kind of stuff then fine but people do have right to an opinion even if it's a negative one. personally, blacksmith and his kind are nothing more than rabble rousers and appeal to those with a mob like mentality. most intelligent, rational and logical people cast a very wary eye over people like blacksmith and are not afraid to speak their minds when he goes to far. like he did recently.

Brenda Leyland was not a troll.

cherry1 wrote:Brenda Leyland was not a troll.

No she wasn't, she was a person who was merely expressing an opinion.
She was a person who was subjected to the vile media manipulation that surrounds the whole 'mystery *cough* of this whole horrendous saga. She is a victim, not the first and I'm sure not the last

Exactly and it is disgusting the media and some others continue to refer to her as a troll.

cherry1 wrote:Exactly and it is disgusting the media and some others continue to refer to her as a troll.

evidence to the contrary.

Perhaps your definition of what the word "troll" means to you, Marky, would help us to understand where you're coming from.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Perhaps your definition of what the word "troll" means to you, Marky, would help us to understand where you're coming from.

clearly somewhat broader than others. just because it doesnt break any laws doesn't make it any better.

Now why doesn't that surprise me!

You are entitled to your opinion - it would help to know what you think constitutes troll behaviour.

[quote="Not Born Yesterday"]Now why doesn't that surprise me!/quote]

because deep down you already know the answer to your question. me, i don't feel,particularly inclined to spell it out as it will only encourage others whom likely endorse if not get involved with, this type of behaviour all because. "i have a right to" or "i'm entitled to"., to get all het up in defence of the fallen one.