Brenda Leyland and the inquest

jassi wrote:An awful lot of strange people on Twitter & Facebook - better to steer clear of them altogether.

winjoy wrote:I'm sorry that I don't post often, so am rather an outsider here, but I am concerned about a FB group which was ostensibly set up in memory of Brenda Leyland and purported to be supportive of her and her family - https://www.facebook.com/groups/523769381091778/?fref=ts

However, since the inquest, which they regard as a put up job and the whole thing a conspiracy, they appear now to be turning against Brenda and, in particular, her family - and in particular Ben. They say that any normal family/son would be shouting the injustice from the rooftops and, because he isn't, then clearly he cannot be who he says he is.  They also say that the law firm he purports to work for doesn't exist in Los Angelese - which is true - strangely.

They have a theory, which appears to be popular, that Brenda never existed - the role played by Brenda when confronted by Martin Brunt, was played by Glenda Jackson (for those outside the UK you may not know that Glenda Jackson, a former actress, is a member of parliament in the UK).  They are absolutely determined that the whole thing was a McCann conspiracy, to generate support for the grieving parents, and are working to the ends of proving this.  Sadly, in the process, they are slagging off Brenda and her family.

I was a member there but have been banned for trying to correct some of their totally inaccurate statements - things which can be proved. It is not a democratic debate going on there - they don't want to hear from anyone who does not go along with their outrageous theories.

I just wondered if anyone here is also a member there and whether they are, consequently, able to inject some sanity into the so-called debate?

I'm sorry, again, but that website has upset me greatly.

winjoy wrote:Some wise words, thank you!  It just upsets me that a group set up in honour of Brenda has turned so against her and her son in particular - poor man.  It's horrible!  I've no choice as to whether I stay away unfortunately!  But in a free world I would expect free speech - which, at the end of the day, is exactly what Brenda was standing up for.  The minute I didn't agree with them - that was it - I was out!  They hadn't even heard of Hacked Off!  Honestly!  And they have convinced themselves that they will 'crack it'!

Marky wrote:

winjoy wrote:I'm sorry that I don't post often, so am rather an outsider here, but I am concerned about a FB group which was ostensibly set up in memory of Brenda Leyland and purported to be supportive of her and her family - https://www.facebook.com/groups/523769381091778/?fref=ts

However, since the inquest, which they regard as a put up job and the whole thing a conspiracy, they appear now to be turning against Brenda and, in particular, her family - and in particular Ben. They say that any normal family/son would be shouting the injustice from the rooftops and, because he isn't, then clearly he cannot be who he says he is.  They also say that the law firm he purports to work for doesn't exist in Los Angelese - which is true - strangely.

They have a theory, which appears to be popular, that Brenda never existed - the role played by Brenda when confronted by Martin Brunt, was played by Glenda Jackson (for those outside the UK you may not know that Glenda Jackson, a former actress, is a member of parliament in the UK).  They are absolutely determined that the whole thing was a McCann conspiracy, to generate support for the grieving parents, and are working to the ends of proving this.  Sadly, in the process, they are slagging off Brenda and her family.

I was a member there but have been banned for trying to correct some of their totally inaccurate statements - things which can be proved. It is not a democratic debate going on there - they don't want to hear from anyone who does not go along with their outrageous theories.

I just wondered if anyone here is also a member there and whether they are, consequently, able to inject some sanity into the so-called debate?

I'm sorry, again, but that website has upset me greatly.

well now, don't that just sound like a buncha people who didn't like the way the inquest turned out.

winjoy wrote:You surprise me cherry1 - I never had you down as a conspiracy theorist ;-)

cherry1 wrote:

Marky wrote:

winjoy wrote:I'm sorry that I don't post often, so am rather an outsider here, but I am concerned about a FB group which was ostensibly set up in memory of Brenda Leyland and purported to be supportive of her and her family - https://www.facebook.com/groups/523769381091778/?fref=ts

However, since the inquest, which they regard as a put up job and the whole thing a conspiracy, they appear now to be turning against Brenda and, in particular, her family - and in particular Ben. They say that any normal family/son would be shouting the injustice from the rooftops and, because he isn't, then clearly he cannot be who he says he is.  They also say that the law firm he purports to work for doesn't exist in Los Angelese - which is true - strangely.

They have a theory, which appears to be popular, that Brenda never existed - the role played by Brenda when confronted by Martin Brunt, was played by Glenda Jackson (for those outside the UK you may not know that Glenda Jackson, a former actress, is a member of parliament in the UK).  They are absolutely determined that the whole thing was a McCann conspiracy, to generate support for the grieving parents, and are working to the ends of proving this.  Sadly, in the process, they are slagging off Brenda and her family.

I was a member there but have been banned for trying to correct some of their totally inaccurate statements - things which can be proved. It is not a democratic debate going on there - they don't want to hear from anyone who does not go along with their outrageous theories.

I just wondered if anyone here is also a member there and whether they are, consequently, able to inject some sanity into the so-called debate?

I'm sorry, again, but that website has upset me greatly.

well now, don't that just sound like a buncha people who didn't like the way the inquest turned out.

or maybe a bunch of people who care about truth and justice!

winjoy wrote:You surprise me cherry1 - I never had you down as a conspiracy theorist ;-)

cherry1 wrote:

winjoy wrote:You surprise me cherry1 - I never had you down as a conspiracy theorist ;-)

Im not referring to the facebook group winjoy, haven't had a chance to go on and read that yet, but from comments you have said about them certainly don't agree with that at all.

I have an open mind on the result of the inquest, bearing in mind that Brenda said if anything  happened to her don't accept the first result and the view of those who attended seemed to be that certain things didn't seem to add up. I am also concerned about the coroner's remark about nobody could have foreseen what would happen, I believe that to be untrue as Brenda did mention to Brunt she had thought of suicide and he said he dismissed this as a throwaway remark. Brunt is not a stupid man, nobody would dismiss that imo as a throwaway remark, that should have alerted him to the possibility that she could have been in emotional distress and he should have halted the story going out. So my views about a conspiracy relate to that, nothing to do with the facebook page group.  

cherry1 wrote:Hi winjoy, I think I caused the confusion, my comment about a bunch of people seeking truth and justice was in reply to comments made by marky - regarding the general subject of the Inquest, in relation to many people feeling concerned over the inquest, my comments were not about the facebook group. I thought marky's comment was directed in general at people who had concerns but I see now he was directing his comment about the facebook group. It is a closed group and not a member but I would not agree with some of the points they have suggested from what you have said: