MYTHS TAKES ON THE INQUEST

aiyoyo:   Those responsible need to be questioned on the why,when,how and the whereforth etc. The Coroner owes it to BL's family to give them answers why she was singled out to be targeted and most importantly WHO did it.

Truthiness:   Singled out?

Seriously?

Why did she and others (such as the troll asking the question) single out this family of a missing child for the sort of hatred, harassment, libel, hounding and death threats, that the McCanns have suffered for nearly eight years? :s_dunno

EIGHT years of threats to themselves and their children.

Eight years of being accused of murder, p.a.e.d.o.philia and being members of an international s.e.x ring.

Eight years of death threats, stalking, harassment, requests for ISIS to behead them.

Eight years of MPs, Select Committees, PMs, the MET, newspapers, Crimewatch...etc. being bombarded with petitions, letters, threats etc. about the McCanns

Eight years of sick images and sexual discussions of Madeleine and extensive, perverted analysis of images of her.

 tigerloaf » Thu Dec 18, 2014 11:56 pm
How can there be any criminal action? There is no police investigation going on.

The Coroner was specific that the police investigation was over and done with.

These haters and numpties are being led up the garden path by two pathetic people whose only goal is to further their imaginary careers as "journalists", Poulton and Morais.

Almost her first tweet this morning was a direct admission from Poulton that she is not approaching the Inquest of Brenda Leyland as an unbiased reporter. She told everybody just how biased she really is.

545525625411620864|Thu Dec 18 10:26:59 +0000 2014|As a journalist I must always seek to be fair but dammit! The death of #BrendaLeyland is wrong on so many levels #atinquest #McCann

She later tweets about the MSM being selective. Rampant hypocrisy on her part.

545664377782034432|Thu Dec 18 19:38:20 +0000 2014|@DaSteelMan today I have witnessed first hand how the press intend to portray Brenda and the inquest. Selective reporting of what took place

And her attempt to explain the fact that she has a completely different account of what happened in the Inquest to a dozen or so other professional court reporters is quite pathetic and utterly meaningless.

545689236788510720|Thu Dec 18 21:17:07 +0000 2014|@xklamation I've just had a chance to catch up with press reporting from today. Poor. Reporters must have been in a different room to me!

No, Ms Poulton, the genuine reporters who are experienced in describing to the public without personal bias, were in the same room as you. They simply recorded what happened more accurately than you did. That is hardly surprising as your loathing of Brunt and your perverted sanctification of this proven nasty woman, Leyland, was eating you up as you tweeted and clearly blinding you as to what was actually being said. People who are feeling sick rarely concentrate well.

545527880856633344|Thu Dec 18 10:35:56 +0000 2014|@fiorifan @b_balou @challengegovuk @jontait42 @nicholas_net @philipindigo @rosalindahu I felt sick all the way, eaten up.

Your tweeting of the Inquest today, Ms Poulton, was utterly incompetent if it was intended to resemble real journalism. For example, your wild claims such as the one about journalists being scared is not reporting. It is like most of your old articles just fluff.

545527880856633344|Thu Dec 18 10:35:56 +0000 2014|@fiorifan @b_balou @challengegovuk @jontait42 @nicholas_net @philipindigo @rosalindahu I felt sick all the way, eaten up.  

Where is your evidence for that idiotic claim? There is none. Its just fluffy opinion designed to appeal to the delusional hounders and haters you spend your time among on social media. And I ask this genuinely, what kind of fool would take your opinion on anything seriously? You have made yourself look a complete ass over the last year being at one time a devotee of the lunatic Icke and a supporter of his craziness. You made yourself look a total wally when you allowed Rosalinda Hutton (who lied about being a journalist) to claim that she was an expert on the McCann case. A nodding donkey would have given as much information as that bouncing old drug addict on the arm of her sofa on your blogged Skype chat. I am sorry, your opinions are of as much value as those of your fellow twits like RothleyPillow (or should that be Pillock?), Synonymph and those like Bennett and JillyCL whose OCD has led them to excessive and obsessive hate campaigns.

And when you asked the cops outside the PM's residence for their comments on what he was thinking about some issue or other I was laughing hysterically. That isn't journalism. It is desperation for attention. People don't care what issue you are filming about. They are too busy laughing at your stupid actions. Your opinions shrieked so loudly that you never hear anything else and your completely silly actions in your videos drown out the actual issues.

As for the dossier there is no likelihood whatsoever of it being a key matter in the Inquest, no matter how many times the haters and hounders and fellow trolls of Leyland want it to be so. Even you, Sonia Poulton admitted in your first tweet from the Inquest that the Coroner was interested in the sequence of events after Brunt met Leyland. You appear basically either to be just too stupid to realise the significance of what you yourself posted or you are deliberately deluding yourself and/or others.

545519621231890432|Thu Dec 18 10:03:07 +0000 2014|#BrendaLeyland inquest 20/3/2015 #MartinBrunt called for evidence. Coroner: "in sequence of events it starts after contact with Mr.Brunt"

I saw a few minutes of the recent Bennett-promoted hate video and gave up because it was not only ridiculous, not only completely flawed regarding facts but was deadly boring with a voice that could put the fans on the Kop asleep during a Merseyside derby. I look forward to your video when it appears on a blog site or Youtube because I don't believe you will be boring. You are too funny for that. Your running round desperately trying to persuade serious people to be interviewed by a complete nobody will make it worth staying the course of all the errors of understanding, errors of fact and idiotic claims that we all know (including you I suspect) will be included in your upcoming "documentary". Presumably your attempt to make money out of this case with your home movie (filmed by your ex lottery winning partner I believe) will not now begin to bring the money in till at least late March, not that Youtube click throughs bring that much cash in as that fool in Canada learned.

tigerloaf:   Putting it very bluntly.

Brenda Leyland was singled out because she was a fool.

She was singled out because she tweeted her hate originally using her own name attached to her account.

She was singled out because she made herself known to Martin Brunt directly via Twitter. Anyone reading her tweets can see this fact for themselves.

She was singled out because she was the only Brenda Leyland living in the area which she stated she lived in and a couple of minutes of perfectly legal investigation would have revealed her address.

She was singled out because Martin Brunt was doing his job properly. He was invited by this woman to contact her. He was investigating the vile hate abuse which the McCanns have suffered from vile trolls like Brenda Leyland and all those now trying to make her look like a saint.

When this woman contacted him via Twitter it would be natural for him to presume that she was willing to give him her account of her actions, her reasons for her trolling activity etc.

When he did contact her she was adamant that she was entitled to troll and post hate abuse on Twitter. Only after reflection did she realise that she was most certainly not entitled and might be facing legal action.

Nothing Brunt did was illegal. Nothing Brunt did was even morally wrong. If somebody wishes to publish her claims about others to the world, to express her vile hateful thoughts about innocent individuals where they can be read by millions then that person should expect to be challenged. If a person cannot (as it appears Brenda Leyland could not) defend their publishing vile hate abuse then perhaps they shouldn't get involved in doing it.

People like that Aiyoyo character on Havern's/Bennett's forum simply avoid reality, geniune facts and common sense when they do their "research" because they have discovered that is the only way that they can make their imaginative and incoherent theories make sense. Bennett is the prime example of such a "researcher". Hutton does it as well in her little hidey hole, JillyCL regurgitates it all ad nauseum, S*** Hyland from Scunthorpe scratches around in the dirt produced, Deborah Butler from Aylesford drunkenly tries to keep up, Brown plays profiler, and Poulton takes what they all say as Gospel. No wonder they seem to go round in so many spinning circles time chasing each other's tails. Still it keeps them off the streets.

The hagiographical biography, the documentary, the canonisation of Brenda Leyland (the sad and sick troll) is being designed and planned by these numpties without the slightest regard to the facts about her tweeting or any actual knowledge of her life.

The Coroner's summing up at some point in time after the Inquest hearing in March will be the reality, not the opinionated fulminations from the likes of these nobodies.

Scoobydoo: Whoever compiled the dossier acted within the law. They saw threats and abusive behaviour and handed copies to the police? What exactly is wrong with that? As for brunt, he is a journalist who contacted someone who had previously contacted him. He didn't exactly doorstop her, he was very unagressive and was several metres from her door and she walked over to him. He wasn't up in her face, blocking her way etc. The gentleness of his approach was demonstrated by the fact she invited him into her home. Is that an act of a woman who felt terrorised by a man? Neither did he do anything dodgy to get her identity. She used to tweet under her own name, but even just with the name sweepyface it took me all of two seconds to get her name, village, size, hobbies, age etc. So normal journalistic methods consisted of Google! Why shouldn't she have appeared on a news story about abusive online behaviour. Sky were actually kind to her in that they didn't mention she sent tweets addressed to the twins, and harassed a witness helping to drive her off social media and made her according to Brenda Leyland scared!

There is not a case for legal action against sky, who whoever reported the abusers to the police.
Leyland had been exposed and everyone knew about her behaviour, she was suddenly without her account and probably had nothing else to fill her life with which brought her loneliness into focus, estranged from one son, divorced and with another son in America. It is also possible that she had damaged her son's singing career as he is going to be tied to the McCann troll story, and if she got a criminal record she might be denied access to the states so couldn't visit her son.