(GEARING UP) VERDICT FOR THE LEYLAND 'SWEEPYFACE' TROLL - SUICIDE

scoobydoo » Mon Mar 23, 2015 9:52 am

Ok, there has been a lot of talk about who was responsible for Brenda leyland's suicide, but no one has mentioned social media. It was obvious that her tweets were abusive, she may well have sent only 400 mentioned Kate and Gerry by name and they may not have been criminal, but she sent hundreds upon hundreds more about the McCann case accusing witness of being prostitues and encouraging people to stalk them, accusing named politicians of being p.a.e.d.o.philes, trying to convince the mccanns children they were unloved, conducted a campaign to hinder sales of a book about the case etc. it was not the case she just questioned, voiced opinions and was a bit nasty. Why did twitter and amazon allow this, why do they still allow it? Why do face ok hosts hate group that discussing how to harm the mccanns, why do forum hosts host hate forums that plot against the mccanns and their supporters to the extent they claim to be able I get hold of a child witnesses homework? Surely they are facilitating them and the group support fools them into thinking their behaviour is normal? If calling these people to account is going to end with being told they are too mentally unstable to be held responsible then why the hell don't social media get called to account for facilitating them? Surely it's like giving a drug addict a needle and a batch of bad heroin?

Re: The inquest of Brenda Leyland
Postby Randomleigh » Sat Mar 21, 2015 10:47 am

Chinagirl wrote:
What, exactly, was this Ann-Kristine person saying/doing to disrupt proceedings, and occasioning the coroner's admonition? Was she making loud disparaging remarks towards the witnesses or the coroner?

Both! A total embarrassment to herself, the coroner, witnesses, Brenda's family and to Brenda. She should be thoroughly ashamed of herself, but of course, she isn't!

Coroner's officer reads Ben Leyland, the (youngest) son's written report

Her death was on fourth of October 2015

Initially the family home was in Rothley (note. Did I hear this right?)

Brenda was a social figure in the village and she had close friendships within that village.

She had a fractious relationship with one neighbour over a wall or fence. There were emails and conversations that had taken place. There was a verbal altercation with the neighbour and other neighbours and villagers had spoken to her about this argument. She was upset and embarrassed. Brenda didn't like to think she was disliked. This was approximately a week before the reporter from Sky visited her saying Scotland Yard had a dossier on her.

He suggested pursuing a legal claim and discussed how to prevent her picture being published. He called solicitors in London at approximately 1600 to 17:00 hours UK time. He returned her call that night and said his mum panicked and went silent.

He logged on to her account and she had put a picture of his dog and his location as LA on her account. He still tried to contact the solicitor and wanted to help. He felt the story would blow over. Ben also contacted his father that night to let him know of the situation.

On Thursday 2nd of October the story broke on Sky News. Ben had no success trying to contact his mother that day. He contacted a neighbour who had been asked to cat sit for a few days while she lay low. He thought she had gone to other family. An email contact said she felt cheerier.

Saturday 4th October Ben received a call from his father about the death of his mother.

It was said she had attempted suicide before, a number of years ago.

His report continues saying she was very happy in the village however she had struggled with depression over the years and had alienated people in the past. She had difficulty connecting with people.

She was undergoing therapy, with medication for anxiety and extreme bouts of depression.

She had struggled with health conditions, and had physical, untreatable health issues.

He heard panic and fear in her voice after the Sky intervention. It was the final straw. She was broken, weak and completely destroyed by what occurred.  

Postby Randomleigh » Mon Mar 23, 2015 3:42 pm

I thought it was time to do a comparison between Poultons "approach" of me and Martin Brunts "approach" of Brenda Leyland and have a look at the differnces. One thing that is the same is< that neither of us were expecting it.
The differences, when Martin Brunt approached Brenda Leyland outside her home, he called out her name, identified himself and then asked her "why do you use your twitter account to attack the McCanns"?

When Sonia Poulton accosted me, I'm calling it accosted because that's an accurate description of what happened, she didnt identify herself, she waved her arms around (a lot) and started to spit out vile lies and false accusations at me "so Randomleigh what have you got to say for yourself, here to laugh at Brenda Leyland , you who claimed to be a police officer, one of those reponsible for the hounding of Brenda"

Not one single words of what she screeched is actually TRUE!! If she were a proper investigative journalist she would have known that. Instead she's gathered her information, without checking it, from some of the biggest nut jobs ever to disgrace twitter and decided it must be "true". When Martin Brunt asked his question to Brenda Leyland about using her twitter account to attack the McCanns, he got a response, not a denial, Brenda stated "I'm entitled to do that".

Then later on that same morning Brenda Leyland (without prompting) invites Martin Brunt into her home, where they chat OFF CAMERA for approx 30mins, no mention by Martin Brunt of needing "transparency". After which Martin Brunt gives Brenda Leyland his business card and email address, telling her to contact him with any concerns she may have. Brunt and Leyland speak twice on the phone, Brenda it seems is happy with how Brunt and Sky News are going to use the footage they got, no attempts were made by Leyland to have the story stopped.

After I was accosted by Sonia Poulton I approached her, I asked her did she want to speak to me, she said she did, I asked could it be OFF CAMERA and she said no, she needed transparency. This is not something iI wanted to do but I agreed anyway to avoid a repeat of what had happened on our earlier ecounter. Bearing in mind I was alone, she had her mob of unruly trolls plus her boyfriend who I've heard is a very unsavoury character.

My contact with Poulton after she approached me is very different to that of Brunts with Brenda, I was not given a business card or an email address, this has been my contact with sonia Poulton since our encounter on Friday

 Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton Mar 20
Today we got on camera one of TRUE #mccann trolls who HOUNDED #BrendaLeyland. Then she hid in a toilet and went out back door. Oh the shame.

@dminnimouse you should see our footage. A pure coward completely revealed. "I'm going to report you Sonia" Oh right. *quaking*

Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton Mar 20
@fiorifan It's an organised campaign. She was reporting for team. #mccanns should publicly denounce these online savages. But will they?

Sonia Poulton ‏@SoniaPoulton Mar 20
@LHLNews wait until you see our footage. She got doorstepped good and proper.

and she's also tweeted a picture of the back of my head with something equally as derogatory as all of the above. If anybody is able to find tweets anything like this, in the days after Brunt approached Brenda Leyland I'll eat my hat.

He was the consumate professional at all times, something Sonia Poulton seems incapable of being, instead surrounding herself with the worst trolls to ever disgrace the internet. Luckily I don't have any pre existing mental health conditions and I come from a very loving family. My husband and I have 5 beautiful children and an extremly happy marriage, I feel incredibly blessed every single day.

Dear Sonia Poulton, you DO NOT have my consent to use the footage you got of me, for video or any other publication.

I dont remember Brunt sending derogatory tweets about Brenda Leyland after their encounter, unlike Poulton, happy to humilate and taunt me to those who have fed her all the lies in the first place.

catkins » Mon Mar 23, 2015 6:51 pm

urcrazy wrote:The guy in the middle is almost certainly James Haydon.

A serial 'campaigning' troll, who started off as a leading light of the Hillsborough JFT96 tweeters and bloggers.

And who ended up being HATED by his erstwhile colleagues, and comprehensively rejected. Because he's a duplicitous, underhand weirdo.

At which point he decided to put all his energies into tweeting about child sexual abuse.
And the McCann case.

The number of twitter accounts, blogs, facebook pages and the like he's started over the years are truly legion. People have tried to log them, but basically run out of time and space. He's incredibly prolific.

Such are the people Poulton is photographed with. It's unknown, at this stage, quite who is using who.

Screech does seem to attract a certain kind of troll................proving once again that it's true....Like Attracts Like...

catkins » Mon Mar 23, 2015 6:56 pm

Randomleigh wrote:It's been brought to my attention by (a prolific hater troll) that I've missed some of the key details from Fridays inquest. The missed detail appears to be from Martin Brunts witness testimony, when I posted it on Friday night I attempted to c&p what I'd typed into my iPhone and then edit before submitting to the thread. Everything I post here (cept 1 post today) is from iPhone which is quite tricky tbh.

The Martin Brunt post didn't go to plan, I left it until Saturday morning and edited it then, but yes I've clearly missed a key detail. FTR this was not intentional, the detail missed is part of the conversation Brenda Leyland had with Martin Brunt about "ending it all" this was during a telephone conversation iirc.

Another detail was part of another conversation Brunt had with Brenda, he says he hopes he "hasn't ruined her day",her response was "I'm not sure if you ruined my day or my life" or words to that effect.

I'm sure there's other detail I've missed, the reason for missing the Brunt details was technical. I can totally appreciate why tin foil hat Tait, would see this as intentional but I assure you it was not. I apologise profusely, I'm not a court reporter and have done the best I can ALONE, with just my trusty iPhone with an unruly troll sat on my left, who's constant mutterings "impacted" on my concentration and "reporting" :rolleyes:

I'm happy to amend and add any other "key details" I've missed.

No need to apologize your account was very good considering the "troll pressure" you were under. The couple of points were printed in the papers so no one missed anything.

If tottie head wants something to moan about tell him to check the "2 Court reports" on her Hidehopeless's daft aimoo site....apparently loud mouth Ann missed rather a lot that didn't fit her agenda.

Randomleigh » Mon Mar 23, 2015 7:49 pm

scoobydoo wrote:

Truthiness2 wrote:Haydon managed to miss all of the son's testimony when texting from court on Friday didn't he?

Taitohead should wind his neck in....oh I forgot...he has no neck as that Mount Rushmore equivalent he has for a jaw has compressed it.

What like her son saying she could be vicious, that he was shocked when he saw her tweets and was disappointed?

I must confess that I don't remember the "vicious" remark in Bens statement, who reported that first? The part about him accessing her account and his shock at her tweets and seeing the picture of HIS dog and her location as LA, I recall all of that. But not the vicious remark, Hence that's not in my account either, or at least I don't think it is ??

Tbh at times it was difficult to hear witnesses, not just because of troll features, they were seated quite a distance from we were, so in the case of the softly spoken psychiatrist in particular, that made it hard. Plus in my case trying to keep up with what was being said whilst furiously keying it all into my iPhone.

scoobydoo » Tue Mar 24, 2015 12:00 am

urcrazy wrote:Oh dear, Chemtrail AKW is having a fit of the vapours over remarks made on a Facebook page suggesting she behaved disgracefully at the inquest.

Well you might not have actually heckled love, but you caused enough disruption to get a warning.

And no, that doesn't entitle you to 'Pam's HOUSE and ALL her MONEY' as you are screeching all over Twatter.

Really, what a chump she is.

She also needs to realise that even if something is untrue and stated as fact it's still not libellous if it's not defamatory to you specifically I.e it would have to lower a reasonable persons opinion of you. Given her general behaviour using the words heckling as opposed to tutting and whispering so much it disturbed proceedings is not going to defame her.

Besides which her behaviour probably counts as heckling anyway.  

Truthiness2 » Tue Mar 24, 2015 12:05 am
heckling

Also found in: Legal, Encyclopedia.

heck·le
(hĕk′əl)
tr.v. heck·led, heck·ling, heck·les
1. To try to embarrass and annoy (someone speaking or performing in public) by questions, gibes, or objections; badger.

2. To comb (flax or hemp) with a hatchel

urcrazy » Tue Mar 24, 2015 12:25 am
Well I don't think she was combing hemp.

May have been smoking a very closely related plant though......

Incidentally, she's claiming she 'doorstepped' the BBC, by which she means she walked up to them and started ranting.
They declined to use it.
She's now offering to have an open, live debate with Sky. I think she's confused and thinks that when she gibbers at THE sky she might get a reply.

She's barking.
So sue me.

The Real Deal Steel ‏@DaSteelMan 2h2 hours ago
I bet Brunt was over the moon when a proxide dwarf turned up looking like a 5 year old that raided mum's wardrobe. #McCann

From Myths with thanks for the post and to another forum for the comment.

Re: The shame Leyland felt
Postby scoobydoo » Thu Mar 26, 2015 9:18 am

It's just so strange. Brenda leyland didn't really try to be anonymous, she used to have the sweepyface account under her own name and connected the username to her real name on amazon where she tried to campaign against a book about the case. She contacted various people including brunt. She said some diabolical things not just about the mccanns but anyone connected including accusing people of p.a.e.d.o.philes, being involved in a campaign against someone who just had the misfortune to be a witness. Yet when brunt turned up she was mortified at being exposed even though she didn't seem at all surprised to see him there or that he knew who she was. If she didn't want people to know what she was up to why use her own name? Living so close to the mccanns it's not unlikely someone in her village would have been interested enough in the case to buy the book and look on amazon or read #mccann. In fact it's more unlikely someone wouldn't. It's like she had seperated the two parts of her life so completely it never occurred to her that what she was doing was real.

Incidentally i wonder why they never spoke to her friend who was driving her the day she saw brunt?

tigerloaf » Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:58 pm
It never ceases to amaze me that these hounders like Ann-Kristine Westwood have spent the last seven years of their lives obsessing like lunatics over this case.

I was just advised that she was a noted hounder from way back in 2007, posting as 'the slave', an interesting name indeed. What kind of person bestows that name upon herself I wonder?

Apparently there is interest developing in the MSM about a documentary looking at these hounders and clearly sick individuals. No doubt the Leyland case of a mentally disturbed woman being involved as a hounder will have stirred the interest. But there are many, many other obsessives and perverts involved. Perhaps this will be their best chance to air their views? I do wonder how many of them will show the world just what kind of person they really are by being interviewed and seriously questioned on camera and asked to defend their claims?

Justice forum:  
Quote from: Faithlilly on Today at 03:09:53 PM
Awful I'm sure but I have seen no remorse from anyone involved in BL's hounding. In fact I believe one rather callous individual actually went to her inquest.

Further this was not simply about some rather silly nonsense on Twitter. This was a woman's reputation being torn to shreds every fifteen minutes on national TV just because she disbelieved the McCanns and wasn't afraid to say so. Now tell me truthfully Lace do you really think the punishment fitted the crime?

Online Alfred R Jones
Executive Member
******
Posts: 3597

Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
« Reply #1863 on: Today at 06:05:38 PM »
Here is Faithlilly's current signature line in all its ungrammatical glory. It's an unattributed quote and Faithlily has ignored my question asking who wrote it, but that is by the by:

"The McCann supporters and all else who played their part in this seedy affair, needed to silence this lady. The consequences of their attempts to do so, resulting in the loss of her life. Will this bother these type of people? Not a jot! Some have no conscience, no moral compass."

According to Faithlilly this quote references the McCann supporters who "hounded Brenda to death". I would like to know by name (forum ID or twitter handle will do) exactly who allegedly hounded Brenda to death and what means they allegedly used to achieve their aim.

 Brietta:

"The McCann supporters and all else who played their part in this seedy affair, needed to silence this lady. The consequences of their attempts to do so, resulting in the loss of her life. Will this bother these type of people? Not a jot! Some have no conscience, no moral compass."

I definitely think that one comes under the umbrella of ... "Put Up or Change Your Signature".

Online davel
Executive Member
******
Posts: 8419
oh Lord its hard to be humble

Re: 'Justice For Maddie' Campaigners...
« Reply #122 on: Today at 07:12:11 PM »

carlymichelle on Today at 06:46:10 PM
i agree and i think mcann supporters who still bash her even though she is dead are VERY VERY low indeed what do they want blood??  

If I continue to bash Brenda...as you put it...and you continue to be appalled...it might just dawn on you and others how appalling your treatment of the McCanns has been...so...Brenda brought all her troubles onto herself with her vile trolling of the McCanns

Online davel

Re: Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.
« Reply #1907 on: Today

 Quote from: Alfred R Jones on Today at 11:26:41 AM
A serious accusation that McCann supporters hounded BL to her death appears over 4000 times on this board. Despite repeated requests for Faithlilly to provide evidence to back up this statement, she has failed to do so and yet still this disgraceful and insulting signature line is allowed to remain on this board, repeated over 4000 times. What is the owner of this board going to do about it?

You are making a very good point. This posting of blatant lies is a contributory factor in Brenda's death. Brenda believed the type of rubbish faith posts...that's why she felt justified in her hounding of the mccanns. So we could turn the tables and say that faith should take some responsibility in Brenda's death. It is her type of constant abuse that is fuelling the flames of hatred

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 - xxxxhttps://www.facebook.com/groups/523769381091778/?fref=ts   remove xxxx to access link

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.

janine bresnick ‏@BresnickJanine  27m27 minutes ago
@amsterdamkush @Gr8Darwinians Darwin would be turning in his grave at the overt stupiduty. #mccann troll posing as an educated being

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.

janine bresnick ‏@BresnickJanine 21h21 hours ago
@urcrazytoo I've no idea who you are as you're anonymous like all cowardly #mccann trolls. But you think you understand DNA. No you don't.

Re: Helium Overdose?
Post Richard D. Hall on Sat Mar 21, 2015 1:31 pm

It looks to me like a classic problem reaction solution "Hagalian dialectic". Create the problem (people killing themselves over the McCann issue), get a reaction - which we are seeing now in the media and soon to follow will be the "solution". Which I predict will be to pass some sort of emergency legislation allowing them to close down websites and internet content that could be considered negative towards the McCann's. Wouldn't surprise me if the government make an announcement on it. I hope I am wrong. The helium suicide is very unlikely in my opinion, I suspect murder made to look like suicide. In my view whole thing is a psy-op orchestrated probably my Murdoch and MI5. I was approached by a journalist acting for the Guardian the other day. They are preparing an article (probably hit piece) on the fact that people do not think the media are asking the right questions in relation to the McCann's. They were desperate to get me on camera to make comments. They refused to agree to my conditions, which were mainly that they show me the piece before it airs so I can check it for accuracy - so I did not give them an interview. I suspect they are planning a hit piece on the "beliefs" of those who have found information on the internet about the McCann case. The journalist is Jenny Kleeman.

Quote from: stephen25000 on Today at 07:15:59 AM
Well, here's a turn up for the books.

Just seen this on amazon.


'Apparently there is a facebook group which maintains that Brenda Leyland never existed and the entire story was a bizarre hoax with the central role of ''Brenda'' being played by 78 year old former transport minister, MP and twice academy award winning actress Glenda Jackson.

I never expected to come across a more ridiculous suggestion than Hotrod's Second Coming, but I have to say this one really takes the biscuit. These people need locking up.'

Now if that is true, what does that say about the mindset of some mccann supporters ?

Lee Ryan
School of Hard Knocks, University of Life
Added by Petra Johnson about 6 months ago

He doesn't realise it's a PRO AMARAL group.        

https://www.facebook.com/groups/523769381091778/?fref=ts

It's stuffed with haters like Astro, Anna Esse and others. One of the Admin is leading Pitchforker and pretendy 'DNA expert' Bresnick, who just adores Amaral.

Sorry, chum, they're YOUR side.

Randomleigh wrote:
Ok so next came the written statement by Brenda's son Ben read out by the coroners clerk.
And I can confirm from that, that Martin Brunt approached Brenda on the 30/09 and that Brenda rang her son in LA (Ben) that day to tell him what had happened.

Ben describes his mother as a proud and stubborn woman an active social figure in the village she lived with some close relationships within that community. She did however have a fractious relationship with one of her neighbours. They were locked in an ongoing dispute over a boundary wall/fence. Ben states that about a week prior to Brunt approaching his mother, there had been a heated exchange between Brenda and her neighbour which had become public knowledge in her village. Ben states his mother felt very embarrassed about the altercation and it had caused her considerable distress.

Brenda rang Ben at approx 1600 on the 30/09 to tell him about her experience at being approached by Martin Brunt earlier that day. She tells Ben about her twitter account @sweepyface and that she had been tweeting her opinions about the McCann family. She explains that Brunt had told her a dossier of tweets/posts had been handed over to SY and that her tweets could be subject to legal proceedings. Ben states he tried to reassure his mother that everything will be ok, she's worried of being exposed on sky news, he tells her he will speak to a solicitor in London, not to worry and it will all blow over. Ben states Brenda feels reassured by this but after speaking to her is unable to get hold if the solicitor. He rings her later that day/evening to tell her he's been unable to contact the solicitor and states his mother seemed upset during this phone call and "despondent"

At some point then, Ben accesses his mothers twitter account @sweepyface and is shocked at what he sees. He rings her on the 1/10 to tell her how disappointed he is over her @sweepyface account but tries to reassure her that the story will blow over and that he'll continue to try contact solicitor in London. Also at some point Ben tells his father about what's been happening via telephone.

Ben didn't get to speak to his mother again. He was alerted that the story had broke on sky news on the 2/10 and tried to ring Brenda without success. He arranged for someone to contact her neighbour to see if everything was ok. Neighbour reports that Brenda has left her home and asked her to look after her cat. He did receive an email from Brenda later that day to say she felt much "cheerier".

That's the last contact he had with her, his father contacted him on the 4/10 to say Brenda had been found dead in the Marriott hotel.

Ben talks about his mothers struggles with mental health, her difficulty in forming relationships and her stubbornness. He mentions how she would cut people out of her life and because she was stubborn would not allow them back in. He mentions her previous suicide attempt, her extreme bouts of depression and time she'd had to spend in psychiatric units. He talks about how her extreme depression had made her "alienate those who were close to her"

He did say she seemed much happier since moving to Burton Overy, but he had no doubt that, the panic and fear after the sky news report was the final straw for his mother.

He wrote this statement on the 16/10.