Leyland inquest - NO criminal action expected

Especially at this time of year.....

Goodness me, Pouter is playing the conspiraloons like a fiddle.

Sonia Poulton @SoniaPoulton · 2h 2 hours ago
@martin_liz @winnower1 @arongord @Ms_LeFaye unstable? YUP!They have called psychiatric witness who knew her from before but not recent. Bad.

So, rather than admit that the deceased had issues which couldn't have been helped by involvement with a bunch of obsessives conducting a hate campaign, they're going to invent a whole new conspiracy theory?

Anything rather than admit their own roles in events?

...... unmasked as one of dozens of online ghouls who had posted sick messages......

That won't go down well.

http://www.stopthemyths.info/viewtopic.php?f=115&t=7098&start=700


Re: Police investigate McCann trolls
Postby Alibongo » Thu Dec 18, 2014 9:33 pm

:s_scratchhead
Is it's that odd anti thing again? They hear different to everyone else, a bit like 'the only assumption' becomes 'only an assumption'...........

Precisely. Sometimes they even hear words no-one else does. It gives them hope.

Too bad....that is exactly what they are.....ghouls.

Joana Morais ‏@xklamation 37m37 minutes ago
@SoniaPoulton Will you write something on what took place today? Would be great to have your views & thoughts re inq. besides the future doc


Sonia Poulton
‏@SoniaPoulton
@xklamation let me ponder that. I have to be careful not to interfere with documentary info but I take your point, thank you

Beyond parody.

You could not make this up.

I know, they continually reinforce each other's delusions and conspiraloonacy, and shriek like vampires dowsed in Holy Water if anyone dare point out anything resembling reality to them.

When they're not competing to be Head Pied Piper, that is.

Brilliant post, Bonny.

They're completely bonkers, Lily. The hounders don't even seem capable of processing this:


A pre-inquest hearing was told that no one is facing any criminal action over the death of Brenda Leyland, whose body was found in a hotel room after she featured in a Sky News report.

or this:



Adjourning the pre-inquest, Mason said she would be presented with written statements from a pathologist and one of Leyland’s sons at the next hearing.

The son she was speaking to - the one in LA, not the one in the UK on whose birthday her life ended - isn't even going to be speaking to the court in person, but via a written statement.

Do they need it drawn in crayon, for them to understand?

Some wonderful demolitions of the deluded, ignorant garbage currently being spouted by the haters and the self-proclaimed citizen churnalists:

http://www.stopthemyths.info/viewtopic.php?f=115&t=7098&start=700

Sample:


Re: Police investigate McCann trolls
Postby Vee8 » Thu Dec 18, 2014 9:47 pm

Not one of them told the whole truth

SHE added words to the effect BUT THAT MIGHT CHANGE


LIAR.

Quite.

And is pointed out later, there isn't much doubt where the fake 'court report' that appeared, uncredited and written by an Anon, on the Morais site came from, either. These old tricks only impress people that haven't seen them a thousand times before.


Re: Police investigate McCann trolls
Postby tigerloaf » Thu Dec 18, 2014 11:56 pm

[snipped]


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.

Not one of them is capable of reporting or writing objectively and accurately, they ALWAYS insert their own emotional incontinence into whatever they're gibbering on about, which is why their words are utterly worthless.

Some excellent posts on that thread.

Were you there, and tell me, did you notice?
They were all out of step but Jim

I don't know why, but Soya and her unnamed, unattributed 'independent witnesses' somehow reminded me of that old song.....

Odd how the unnamed, unattributed 'independent witnesses' claim to have heard something completely different to what NAMED witnesses, with no axe to grind, heard.

Especially as Soya and the unnamed, unattributed 'independent witnesses' are all biased and all DO have a particular axe to grind.


Were you there, and tell me, did you notice?
They were all out of step but Jim

I confess to getting a bit lost at times.

Are the "respected posters" really suggesting that the "dossier compliers" should be prosecuted by the police for handing it to, er, the police?

Or have I grasped the wrong end of the stick?

No, you're spot on, Jean-Pierre.

They've all gone quite mad. Dirtymac is leading the witchhunt for the hounders, proving beyond any reasonable doubt that he couldn't possibly ever have been a police officer. He seems totally unaware that the first thing the REAL police would do is take Leyland's computer/s.

Or that the REAL police know exactly who handed the Troll Dossier to them, and would routinely pass the information on to the coroner.

Also, Soya's 'body experts' are currently perving over, sorry, I mean examining, Dossier Woman's ankles so they can tell the police who it was that handed the documents over to the police.

bb1 wrote:No, you're spot on, Jean-Pierre.

They've all gone quite mad. Dirtymac is leading the witchhunt for the hounders, proving beyond any reasonable doubt that he couldn't possibly ever have been a police officer. He seems totally unaware that the first thing the REAL police would do is take Leyland's computer/s.

Or that the REAL police know exactly who handed  the Troll Dossier to them, and would routinely pass the information on to the coroner.

Also, Soya's 'body experts' are currently perving over, sorry, I mean examining, Dossier Woman's ankles so they can tell the police who it was that handed the documents over to the police.

That's handy

On the bizarre delusions currently gripping the haters and hounders:

http://davidbretisagod.forumotion.co.uk/t1071-sykes-take-on-truth-where-have-you-gone

A very good point from one of the sharper MM members:


independently confirmed by who? even the bbc, who can hardly be called best buddies with sky, seem to omit the so called omission. or is.that because it was never said in the first place.


Anyone that believes that Sky, the BBC, ITN, the Guardian, Daily Star, etc., are all in some vast plot, which has been unveiled by Plucky Soya and her unknown, unidentified, so-called 'independent witnesses' needs their head looked at, frankly. It's beyond ridiculous.

Who were the 'independent witnesses'? The fat bloke that holds Soya's camera:



and her ex-jailbird boyfriend? I think we should be told, in the interests of Truthseeking, Transparency, Keeping it Real and all that.

Sonia Poulton @SoniaPoulton · 2 hrs 2 hours ago
It's not #panicsaturday just because media says it is. People need to stop being manipulated into buying more stuff and acting brainless.

How very true! There's nothing more laughable than silly women getting upset because that £90 diary with the polka dot cover is sold out in their favourite Sloane Square shop!

So, Harlow 666 is still inventing sh*te about the inquest, and like all the other hounders, is ignoring the bits about:

1. The REAL police have finished their investigation.

2. No-one is going to be charged.

It's fascinating, watching the way the Gonzo cult continually try to alter reality.

Idiot hounder:

I was thinking if any of Brenda's family have their own lawyer present at the Inquest, could they garner their own evidence, re- laws of evidence to be observed in cases of potential criminality? And i think we also read early in the case that Brenda's son is studying to be a lawyer in the U.S., and if that is the case he would know what his options are to take things further if there is culpability for his mother's death because of the stalking, harrassing and death threats made towards her.

Slight problem there - it was LEYLAND that was doing the stalking, harrassing and threat-making, as they would know if they waded through the vast mountain of her horrible tweets and FB posts.

And far from her family having their own lawyer there, her family in the UK didn't even attend the inquest. Possibly because she'd fallen out with them all.

I am none too sure where all this about her son being some kind of high-powered lawyer in the US has come from; they've probably got the wrong person yet again- they did imagine he was twenty, not thirty. I stand to be corrected, but is not the LA son just some kind of musician? Or lawyer by day, musician by night? Again, he isn't going to be attending the closing inquest, all that is going to happen is that a statement from him will be read out.

They might like to consider the possibility that a woman with issues got in with a bad crowd, behaved abominably, and then couldn't handle the shame when her nasty secret became public knowledge.

After all, the REAL police have her computer/s and are quite capable of seeing what she was doing for themselves.

Incidentally, where were all Leyland's hater friends when she needed them? They're making a lot of noise now, with their faux-concern and predictable attention-seeking and conspiraloonacy, but where were they when it mattered? I suspect the REAL police also have the answer to that.

I see the intellectually challenged poster "Joss" has, very helpfully, provided an extract from the UK legislation government website.

Re: Let's Not Forget Brenda

Post Joss Today at 11:39 am


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27


1. Offence of sending letters etc. with intent to cause distress or anxiety.E+W
(1)Any person who sends to another person— (a)a letter, electronic communication or article of any description which conveys— (i)a message which is indecent or grossly offensive; (ii)a threat; or (iii)information which is false and known or believed to be false by the sender; or (b)any article or electronic communication which is, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature, is guilty of an offence if his purpose, or one of his purposes, in sending it is that it should, so far as falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above, cause distress or anxiety to the recipient or to any other person to whom he intends that it or its contents or nature should be communicated. (2)A person is not guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a)(ii) above if he shows— (a)that the threat was used to reinforce a demand made by him on reasonable grounds; and (b)that he believed [F4, and had reasonable grounds for believing,] that the use of the threat was a proper means of reinforcing the demand. (2A)In this section “electronic communication” includes— (a)any oral or other communication by means of a telecommunication system (within the meaning of the Telecommunications Act 1984 (c. 12)); and (b)any communication (however sent) that is in electronic form. (3)In this section references to sending include references to delivering or transmitting and to causing to be sent, delivered or transmitted and “sender” shall be construed accordingly. (4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

_____________

Yes, I think that just about covers Brenda's actions as far as the McCanns are concerned.

So glad they agree that she was harrasing them.

Nice lady!