Sunday, 5 October 2014

Pee in the Pot, or get off It! Two years on from death of Brenda Leyland

Two years ago this week, Gerry McCann, the father of a missing child, demanded that an example be made of the internet 'trolls' he claimed were hounding and threatening his family online.  The McCann family or a 'group of concerned citizens' had compiled a dossier of 'offenders' and ex head of CEOP Jim Gamble and Sky's Martin Brunt took it from there. This was Jim Gamble's cleansing of social media at it's finest and a taster of his own particular form of justice.

The victim they selected, Brenda Leyland, hadn't in fact committed any crime, she, like myself and thousands of others simply refused to accept the establishment line that Madeleine McCann was abducted by a stranger.  The McCanns and those who assist them, truly believed they could stamp out all their critics with a gang of thugs patrolling the internet and via hard cash in the libel courts. To be fair, for a while there they succeeded. 

Unfortunately for Gerry McCann, Jim Gamble and Martin Brunt, their jackboot, vigilante tactics appalled the public, whatever Brenda had done, she did not deserve a public execution.  They selected Brenda because she was 'ordinary', but it was that ordinariness that made her everyone's mum, nan and aunty - the McCann couple, already seen as cold, were now chilling.

It is bizarre that two years on, Operation Grange seem as far from a conclusion as they were at the outset but probably not surprising.  The grisly details of what happened the night Madeleine disappeared have become the back story, it's what happened from that night onwards, that will make the Chilcott report look like a couple of hours of light reading. 

The incumbent Blair government perverted the course of justice.  There is no nice, or euphemistic way of putting it.  It was obvious to the first two Portuguese policemen on the scene that the abduction was staged, and ten years on, to anyone who looks at the facts without the 'but they are such a nice couple' blinkers, it still is.  The problem Operation Grange have, is that once they point the finger at Gerry and Kate, the entire house of cards will collapse.

What was said during Gerry's one to one chats with PMs Blair and Brown?  Or indeed between Kate and Cherie?  One thing we can be sure of, every word will be kept verbatim.  Are we to believe that two British Prime Ministers, with all the country's top advisors, police and Special Branch, were taken in by Gerry and Kate?  Not only were they taken in, they put the full services of the establishment at Team McCann's disposal.  That's an Oops right up there with Okily Dokily Mr. Bush.  

How many New Labour cabinet ministers were schmoozing the McCanns?  Or police chiefs attending their fund raising events?  Will the highly experienced and decorated Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe and Jim Gamble explain how they were so misled by a couple of tricksters the average housewife could spot within seconds?  The unveiling of a fake abduction would reveal a sea of red faces and a scramble by those who should have known better to find excuses for supporting such an obvious scam. 

I kind of get the predicament Operation Grange finds themselves in and the difficulties they must have in releasing public statements.  At some point they will have to pee in the pot or get off it.  It has been clear for some time that OG are not looking for an abductor, which translates, 'we know who's responsible but we don't have enough to prosecute'.  Gerry's 'Nooooo evidence' mantra seems to be holding up quite well, but you can't keep throwing public money at an investigation that's going nowhere. 

Unfortunately, while the silence of Operation Grange might temporarily hold back the floodgates, (who dare publish while Gerry and Kate have so much on so much power over so many - including Amazon?), the walls of the dam could give at any time, and the entire team could look like procrastinating fools. You can imagine the water cooler chat, 'Seriously! Scotland Yard's finest didn't know?', following The Sun's serialisation of Kate's latest memoir 'Gotcha You Mugs!'. 

Those of us who know more about this case than is healthy, would argue the 'No Evidence' point quite vigorously, a quick google of Madeleine McCann, will not only throw up every rational argument for why the parents were involved, it will do it in alphabetical order and with pictures. 

Whatever is going on behind the scenes in an effort to limit the damage when Madeleine hits the headlines again, should not be used to take out members of the public.  And vigilant groups, even if they are 'establishment' ones, should not have the power to destroy lives. 

If I were Brenda's family, I would still be mad as hell, but I respect their right to privacy.  I think unless you understand the full horrors of the abuse of power in Madeleine's name, we 'McCann geeks' will always seem a little strange. My own adult sons think I am quite bonkers.  When justice finally arrives for Madeleine, Goncalo and all those 'destroyed' by the McCanns and their henchmen, I want to see Brenda's name cleared, public apologies for those vile troll headlines that drove the poor woman to her death.  The use of the word 'troll' has sinister undertones and it will be used unscrupulously by those intent on policing the internet and targeting dissenters.  In the case of Brenda it was used as a warning to others that spectacularly backfired. 

I think on this sad anniversary, it is important to remember the ghastly way in the full might of the establishment and the media were used to destroy the life of an ordinary woman who dared to question an obvious lie. 

RIP Brenda Leyland
  

___________________________________________

RIP BRENDA LEYAND (SWEEPYFACE)

So Sky's rolling news day on McCann trolls has resulted in the death of Brenda Leyland (Sweepyface) a middle aged lady angered by the lies of Gerry and Kate McCann. Seven years on, despite being suspects in the eyes of the rest of the world, in the UK they are still being treated like victims and being compensated financially.  No amount of money will satisfy Gerry and Kate, they have had over £4m, they also want the Laws to be changed so their crimes will never be reported.  We have had a news blackout in the UK for the past 7 years.  Why?

The McCanns didn't have any threats against them or their children.  Their witness claimed this in the Lisbon libel trial, but could not substantiate it.  Several months on, no-one has been arrested or charged for threatening the McCanns.  A bit like the abductor.

The biggest threat they could find to the McCanns was poor old Brenda, an obviously shy, timid lady who clearly presented no danger to the McCanns whatsoever.  But she was to be the scapegoat, the face of the cruel campaign against an innocent family.  She was the line of least resistance - had they doorstepped any of the more outspoken among us, we would have given them an interview they couldn't broadcast, on the hour, every hour, etc without Carter Ruck jumping down their throats - now re-employed by McCanns it seems and kerchinging nicely. 

Did Martin Brunt threaten her? If so, what with?  He had pretty much done the worst thing imaginable, but it clearly left her in great fear.  She fled from her village.  More doorstepping perhaps?  Her past raked up?  Did she have mental health issues?  Did any of her family?  Was she a vulnerable adult in any way? Surely Sky News would not have carried out such a catastrophic public attack without making a few basic checks? 

Were the McCanns going to go after her financially, as they have done with Goncalo Amaral, demand that she sell her house?  Was she facing threats of financial ruin? How could a regular person stand up to Carter Ruck? Her limited 'I thought I was entitled to' - portrayed her as ignorant, but what else did she say when she took the crew inside her house?

What did the police say to her?  Afaik, she was not arrested or cautioned, but did they give her a 'stern' taking to? And how stern was that talk?  Normal people with no criminal record or dealings with the police would be terrified. What Laws did Brenda break, if any?  Lets hope the police taped their interviews with her, if I were her family, I would demand they be revealed at the Inquest - and there should definitely be an Inquest.

However, Jim Gamble's hope of using 'outing' as a device to stop people asking questions about the McCanns, or indeed anything, has spectacularly backfired.  The consequences of such sinister threats have become all too apparent.  I would imagine legal talks are frantically underway as we speak, Sky News cannot just brush this off, they must at the very least, issue an apology to Brenda's family.  No Court in the world (maybe N.Korea or UK under McCann Rule) would have found Brenda guilty of anything.  If worse tweeters exist, then why didn't Sky go after them, why go after a fragile, quiet lady in a pretty village, who clearly posed no threat to the McCanns whatsoever.  The cynic in me pictures the McCanns looking up the property prices as one reason, but more likely the subliminal message was 'it could be you'.  There were threatening undertones in that news report, and more than a tinge of cruelty in the way the story was reported.  They couldn't hide their glee at exposing a respectable middle aged lady as a vicious internet troll to all her friends, family and neighbours. It was pitchforking at its very worst.

However, any gleeful thoughts Gamble and McCanns may have of outing people on a regular basis must now be treated with the seriousness it deserves, as Brenda's tragic death has proved.  The punishment Brenda received (based on no evidence) was way beyond anything a Court could have dished out.  It seemed more like payback, than a genuine news story,  Her face, and home, was broadcast every hour, on the hour, as she was publically labelled as a 'Hater', continually hounding the family of Madeleine McCann.  She wasn't.  She was angry at this blatant miscarriage of justice as many are.  Nothing she did deserved the kind of punishment she received.  The death of a child is always emotive, especially when those charged to uphold the law appear to be covering it up. Sky News acted as Judge, Jury and Executioner.  Brenda is dead because of what she was accused of, not because of what she did.  She probably said a lot more in that Sky interview than 'I thought I was entitled to', but will we ever know?  They wanted to label her as evil, and they did.
 
Brenda, bless her, knowingly or unknowingly, may well set off a chain of events that will bring about the final downfall of the McCanns and their minions.   Jim Gamble and the McCanns wanted to use her as an example of what will happen to anyone criticising them, but her suicide has turned the tables.  Now they have to justify what they have done to her. 





178 comments:

  1. We've now entered an entirely new circle of hell

    I don't know this lady or her posts - only the SKY footage - and she came across as coherent and moderate in that

    now she is on a mortuary slab

    I'd like to hear from Martin Brunt - Brenda invited him to her home - what was said/implied or even threatened?

    RIP

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rosalinda

    is this a blog - or snail mail?

    Pull yer finger out

    ReplyDelete
  3. RIP Brenda Leyland. Did the police inform sky news about this dossier, or did the supporters send it direct? Surely if these people were concerned about the couple they wouldn't even have thought about sky. Or is it that there's more to this dossier as it would first seem? Vindictiveness towards those who disagree with them and haven't been shut up by previous threats, perhaps?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have to admit I don't know much about the McCann issue but I saw this story about Brenda and find it very tragic that she was hounded to death for having an opinion. Lot worse things posted on twitter than what she said. Poor lady, so sad, she didn't deserve this; condolences to her family.

    ReplyDelete
  5. just to add balance tro this crazy rant of a blog I'd like to point that the money most recently won in court by the McCanns was donated to charity

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most recently? How much was that and what about the rest?

      Delete
    2. so they have now become charitable ?

      Delete
    3. Crazy rant? For 7 years the McCann media monitoring machine has done everything in its power to silence critics of the parents. They have kept a Hate List and files on everyone who questions the dodgy abduction story - all now being shredded and whooshed.

      Sky News's dedicated McCann day was intended to cause outrage and stir up hatred towards anyone who has the audacity to question the parents of the missing child. They were effectively, rabble rousing, inciting anger from the mob against one elderly lady, living a quiet life in a small sleepy village. She was to be used as an 'example' to us all, 'keep your gob shut, or this is what we will do to you'.

      Ditch the word trolling. Brenda, like all of those who speak out about this case are truth seekers, we want justice for the forgotten child.

      And those who post anonymously by the way, do so, because of the 7 year long organised campaign by McCann supporters to intimidate, harass and threaten anyone who dares to question the parents.

      Delete
    4. I think the level of hatred and obsession with the McCann's is sick. Did anyone ever go to Pontin's or Butlin's as a child in the 60's? If so you may remember the Red Coats and Blue Coats going from chalet to chalet checking you as a sleeping child whilst your parents went out for a nights entertainment. What a sad world we live in where children are not safe for adults who prey on them and how sad that when one unlucky child gets taken her parents are hounded by people who exist just to hate.

      Delete
    5. Ah the ever quoted Butlins. I remember going there and it was a fenced and gated security patrolled holiday camp. Nobody could just walk in and out, and yes some people did leave their children in their LOCKED chalets and use the nursery checking service.
      The McCanns, on the other hand, dined INSIDE the semi-secure holiday complex but unfortunately they left their 3 kids on the OUTSIDE of the holiday complex, on the corner of a main road with a flight of stone steps leading up to the patio doors which the McCanns claim they left OPEN. For anyone to come off the street and do anything they wanted to in the apartment- who would stop them? Kate McCann is on video stating she almost didn't check the children and nearly just LISTENED at the door. So that's ok then, the kids could have fallen on the tiled floor, choked whilst being sick or simply cried for their parents or even been abducted.
      I never heard of anyone's child being abducted at Butlins either, lost yes abducted no..

      Delete
    6. The money the McCanns "won" was an out of court settlement, as all their large pay outs have been. It may have been given to them on the proviso that they gave it to charity seeing as the UK government has seen fit to pay out of our taxes £7million so far for the search for Madeleine, the search her parents are still to start, but have left it up to everyone else to do on their behalf. Saying that, they did search for an hour I believe according to Kate McCann on the morning of 4 May 07 when it got light.

      Delete
    7. Linda at 06.28

      We only have the McCanns' word that they were checking on the children at regular intervals, do you take that at face value? Do you never query their changing stories? How do we know whether the children were left alone at all?

      According to the Portuguese Police Madeleine had an accident and died in the apartment and her body was removed. The cadaver and blood dogs, Eddie and Keela, were brought in, one indicated to a cadaver, the other indicated to blood, are they to be ignored?

      As has been said many times, neglect = abduction, no neglect = no abduction. Did the McCanns' go for the get out clause "neglect" to save their skins?

      Delete
    8. Which charity would that be Mr Anonymous? would it be their own limited company? Do you think the whole world is as stupid as you appear to be? I suggest you stop listening to media propaganda, I suppose you have The Sun delivered too .

      Delete
    9. 05.20 - I go for the second as there isn't an iota of evidence that Madeleine was abducted except for the Tapas friends' statements. However, there is evidence that there was a cadaver in apartment 5a and in the McCanns' hire car.

      Delete
  6. Well, she got a taste of her own medicine and didn't like it. She anonymously trolled the McCanns (and others), unlike you who are happy to put your name to your piece. Its the anonymous nature of this behaviour which leads people to think that they can say absolutely anything they want about another party without necessarily backing it up with facts. Particularly on Twitter where you are restricted in your argument by the limited number of words you can use.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She didn't troll the McCanns. She voiced an opinion on the internet. Lots of people do it.

      Where are your "facts" about what you accuse Brenda Leyland?

      Delete
    2. I can't find it now, but last week I found a cached page of her Twitter account where she made a "joke" along the lines that the McCanns deserved to be in pain for the "rest of their miserable lives". Now, that is just plain nasty and should form no part in the debate about the Madeleine case. It is an example of trolling and the sort of thing that people think they should be able to say on social media these days without recourse. And in her case, this wasn't just a one-off bad taste joke, it was part of a long running campaign against the McCanns from behind the mask of anonymity - which is trolling.

      Delete
    3. Sort of like Kate McCann saying of Goncalo Amara "He deserves to be miserable and feel fear" you mean.

      Having an opinion about someone, even a negative one, isn't trolling them. You're changing the meaning of the word to suit yourself and your agenda. The trolling claim is propaganda to smear and dehumanise people who don't believe the McCanns or are strongly critical of them. People can say what they like on social media, as long as they stay within the confines of the law. We do actually have freedom of speech, even if they are opinions you don't like.

      As far as long running campaigns go, the McCanns have been running one for over seven years now to convince us of their innocence in the disappearance of their daughter. With your new improved definition of the word trolling, I think we could equally say that they are trolling the British public.

      Perhaps Martin Brunt should be doorstepping them now.

      Delete
    4. Well, first of all, I don't have any agenda - especially with respect to the Madeleine case. I was commenting more on the trolling aspect of it - and what Brenda Leyland was doing was trolling as far as I'm concerned. And you are right that people should be allowed freedom of speech. However, we are using out of date laws which aren't really appropriate when dealing with "social media". In the digital age its quite easy for somebody to have millions of nasty comments aimed at them (albeit within the libel laws), and this may be enough to drive someone to suicide. Its not right.

      And to show that I don't have any particular agenda that I'm trying to drive home, I will make this my last post on the subject.

      Delete
    5. You've sidestepped all my points unsurprisingly. You have a set of obvious double standards, standards that can gloss right over Kate's ill wishes for Amaral, whilst at the same time advocating a law change because what Brenda Leyland said about the McCanns. She was a woman speaking on the internet to a tiny audience, Kate's book was read by thousands. So whose opinion causes more damage?

      For someone who doesn't have an agenda, it's interesting that your desire for a law change fits right in with what the government is currently planning - a whole new set of laws to limit freedom of speech on social media. So I guess people can read this exchange and draw their own conclusions.

      It's also somewhat stomach churning for you to bring in the spectre of suicide, when it is Brenda Leyland who is dead at her own hand after being stalked and scapegoated by the mainstream media. There are definitely people who need to be brought back into line because their behaviour has overstepped the mark, but it's not the critics of the McCanns.

      Delete


    6. Leaving aside the fact that Amaral wrote a book that deterred people from looking for the child.... Amaral said she was dead... so why look.... leaving that aside.. Amaral went out of his way to blame the McCanns with no evidence. Where is the evidence?


      Sweepyface posted on twitter... her audience was a potential 100 million users. Hardly a small sample. Leyland tweeted up to 60 times a day.... mostly toward the McCanns... obsession surely.

      I think the only conclusion that can be drawn, by a sane person.. there is a huge difference between opinion... and hate fill tweets. Even trolls must see that.

      Delete
    7. First of all dump the words hate and troll, they have no place in an adult discussion.

      If people dislike the McCanns it is not because they have a detached in the suburb with room for a pony. They dislike them because they children alone and unprotected in a holiday apartment every night while they 'were really into' their friends. As a result of that neglect a 3/4 yr old child is missing, and as the Portuguese Attorney General said at the end of his report, probably dead.

      Dogs don't lie. A child is missing and two dogs specialising in the detection of blood and cadaver odour alerted 11 times, only to McCann related items.

      The McCanns have used the public for the last 7 years as form of income - they appear regularly on our screens, presenting themselves as ongoing victims of a press that keeps giving them large wades of cash.

      If they don't want comment, the answer is simple. Live their lives as others do and stay out of the limelight! Content themselves with the £4m+ they have already received, and accept that they do not have the power to force people to believe them.

      It might also be a good idea for them to start telling the truth!

      Delete
    8. When I read some of your posts, Rosalinda, I can't help wondering why you're so involved in this case. I think that you are a good writer and good at putting your thoughts on a page. My fascination with the McCann case comes more out of an interest in why people find it so compelling. Regardless of what is true and what is not, it strikes me that you should seek out something more interesting to write about. I don't know ... global warming, third world poverty, racism or... How about Oscar Pistorius? I can't believe that a black, female judge did not find him guilty of murder. What do you think?

      Delete
  7. you live by the sword you die by the sword, too many of you cowards out there who use the internet to torment others to paper over the cracks in your own life.
    As soon as your bubble world is popped, you realise you have nothing to live for.

    I don't for one second believe any decent civil human believes the mccans killed their own kid. So to punish them like that was depraved, she knew that once she had been discovered.

    I don't give two shits that she died, she crafted her own doom and paid the price.

    It was entirely her own doing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Would a decent human being not 'give two sh*ts' that she died?
      You are filled with hatred and post hate and yet have the audacity to condemn her for what you believe was the same behaviour. Just priceless.

      Delete
    2. The public will not be silenced! MSM have blacked out the facts and the truth relating to Madeleine's disappearance and they will not print comments. Brenda and thousands and thousands like her have taken to social media because they know the McCanns and their minions are lying to us. Are we angry? You bet we are, and we will continue getting the truth out there by whatever means we can.

      I personally don't know how any decent civil human can cover up the death of a child and make money from it.

      Delete
    3. "you live by the sword you die by the sword, too many of you cowards out there who use the internet to torment others to paper over the cracks in your own life." says the Anonymous person, doing exactly that.

      Delete
    4. Quite a lot of decent, civil humans believe the McCanns may have had some involvement in their daughter's disappearance, for the simple reason that the available evidence suggests that this is the case.There are many questions that still need answering. I don't personally know anything about sweepyface, whether her comments on the case were reasonable or not (Would be pleased if someone could tell me what she actually did say) I don't agree with with anyone throwing abuse at someone else but it is perfectly acceptable to question the McCanns account of events. Your comment is interesting Anon 01.43 because sadly it indicates that you are just the sort of person that you are accusing others of being

      Delete
    5. Dickhead your day will come trust me!!!

      Delete
  8. Perhaps she did back it up with facts. Facts about the McCanns which many find unsavoury are hardly difficult to find. They're actually harder to avoid or ignore and pretend do not exist, if you are determined to behave in such a fashion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where did she get these "facts" from though - the bungled Portuguese investigation? Some nonsense blog pertaining to know the "facts"? Unless she was involved in the actual investigation (which she wasn't) any "facts" that she was aware of would have been at best second hand and undoubtedly subject to bias. You can find "facts" galore on the internet to support whatever view you hold - look at the amount of Creationist nonsense that's out there for instance.

      Delete
    2. 00.21

      Oh, how you wish the Portuguese investigation was bungled, think on McCann pros, think long and hard as Kama may come one day and hit you all where it hurts very, very hard. Actually, the way things have happened over the past few days it's on its way.

      Delete
  9. ***I don't for one second believe any decent civil human believes the mccans killed their own kid*** Get real...many believe the McCanns are responsible (which by their own admission, they are if only for abandoning 3 babies for five nights...) but are more concerned about the unprecedented cover up

    ReplyDelete
  10. By the nature of he death, she was obviously vulnerable and unwell. Which would also explain her thinking around the mccanns. Should sky have been more diligent? Should the internet be restricted to people who are healthy mind? Will this further the sick maccann conspiracy of others with similar mental health issues? Yes to all 3.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I agree that this woman was clearly vulnerable but I don't see why you have assumed she was mentally ill. It is possible to to make a rash and panicked decision such as suicide without being mentally ill and all those I know who are suspicious of the McCanns are of entirely sound minds. In addition I do not believe the internet should be restricted. Who would decide what does and does not qualify as a healthy mind and why should it matter? Do people with mental health issues not have the right to interact with others using technology?What terrible danger did this woman pose with the use of her words that you would have her silenced?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She was obviously mentally unwell, she killed herself. That is a clear sign of mental health issues. What did she do? She made her contribution to the massive ocean if pig swill conspiracy theories about the mccanns. The ones that start with ' why did you leave your children alone' and ends with presidents, prime ministers, 2 governments, lots of police forces, hundreds of officials, the whole of the media and thousands of people conspiring to protect the mccanns for some reason that is never explained but usually involves masons and paedophiles. A conspiracy which in itself is a sign of an ill functioning mind. Twitter has a hardcore of individuals who are unhealthily obessed with this case and feed into each others obsession. They are more responsible than sky for her death.

      Delete
    2. Yeh, that 'we all wear tinfoil hats' dinosaur has been used many times. No we do not. It may have escaped your attention, but the Portuguese police released the files pertaining to the investigation of missing Madeleine McCann. The FACTS within those files are freely available on the internet.

      We know the McCanns are lying because we have done the homework. And you know what, it wasn't in the least bit difficult, all you have to do is google the McCanns files. We know exactly what we are talking about, as did Sweepyface, now dead.

      Delete
  12. I’m not sure I buy the argument that she was simple voicing an opinion. If someone posts coherent arguments and rational questions then I don’t think anyone could have any issue with anything they say – anonymous or not. However, the general tone of the messages, with more than a tinge of nastiness, suggests her motivation was more personal amusement than a search for some kind of justice.

    Should she have been hounded? I think trolling is a serious mental illness, with its perpetrators often highly unstable individuals, and if its purpose wasn’t to hurt others it might receive genuine sympathy. Sky should probably have given some consideration to that. However, as we all know, once the modern press get their teeth into a story, they are very unlikely to hold back.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Nicely written piece Rosalinda, and I have to fully agree with the sentiment within.
    So many questions just about this small segment of the McCann saga will just be added to the long list of questions which started back on 03/05/07
    As the story twists and turns, more and more are dragged in, victimised, then spat out by the media, strangely leaving the parents as the 'victims' of the whole affair.

    I too was enraged and wrote my own piece on it, hope you don't mind me sharing with you.

    http://michaelsnasdell.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-mccanns-trolls-and-media.html

    ReplyDelete
  15. Al lot of angry trolls out there (and in here) today, pissed off that one of their own has been outed and exposed for the sad old mentally ill person that trolls invariably turn out to be once their much-prized anonymity has been stripped from them. She was so ashamed of her actions she took her own life. What is it going to take for the other nasty-minded obsessives who delight in posting libellous comments about parents who lost their child before they too realise just what they've become?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're the one in here behaving like an angry troll.
      Is that anonymity a nice snug fit for you?
      BTW I'm Neve Grey, Huntingdon, Cambs.

      Delete
  16. Why weren't the cadaver dogs believed? The dogs they used had never been wrong in the past. Are we certain that Brenda Leyland committed suicide?

    ReplyDelete
  17. 4000 tweets since last November, almost entirely directed at the McCanns, is more than just voicing an opinion. On 8 September, for example, she managed 40 tweets, including this charming little gem:

    " I think Kate #mccann sees herself as a modern day Eva Peron beautiful, suffering, instead of a booze filled nymphomaniac "

    ...and this, on 29th August:

    "Sharon Stone in Fatal Attraction mode to play Kate, Jack Nicholson in the Shining mode to play Gerry."

    ...and thousands of others, at a frequency of dozens per day. As the Sunday Mirror put it: this was one fecked up bitch.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The MCanns sold their souls to the devil long ago 08:05, with Hello style photoshoots and intimate details of their love lives. They choose to keep a constant media presence, even Sky News McCann day was carefully manipulated to ram the message home that people are not allowed to criticise the parents. The public won't tolerate that, so tough.

      As for your 'one fecked up bitch' remark, take a few moments to think about Madeleine's last few moments of life, probably lying behind a sofa alone while her parents were at the Tapas bar.

      Even DCI Redwood stated Madeleine may not have left apartment alive. That means dead 08:05, a little girl, not yet 4, dying alone or in circumstances each of us can only shudder to imagine. So who is the fecked up bitch 08:05?

      Delete
  18. I work in mental health and genuinely believe that anyone obsessed with an incident involving complete strangers that happened over 7 years ago has issues, mental health or personality problems. To post 1,000's of messages critisising the McCann's seems hateful to me. I was outraged when I first heard they had left their children but a few months in and reading the kind of stuff I was reading about the McCann's l began to feel sorry for them. We have had yet another baby killed by a pet dog in the UK this is happening over and over again, people simply do not learn when it comes to putting their children in harms way they never think it's going to happen to them. So the child they love gets killed and they know they are at least in part to blame and have to live with that. Do these people get internet hate forums set up about them where they get trolled for years? No and nor should they, it's sick. The McCann's screwed up, they made a dreadful error of judgement and they LOST THEIR CHILD. God isn't that bad enough without people wanting to stick pins in their eyes on top?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You may work in mental health Linda, but you have very little understanding of it. Having a fulfilling and rewarding hobby goes hand in hand with good mental health and those who have a 'cause' to fight for, will live longer - unless bumped off, of course.

      Some people do crosswords, some knit. The internet has opened up doors to all sorts of hobbies, especially for the homebound. Some people use the internet to fight for a cause they believe in, and there is nothing wrong with that! And this doesn't just come from me btw, it comes from a legitimate psychiatrist. In many ways the internet is the 21st century version of chatting over the garden fence, and unfortunately some people forget that they are in fact talking to the entire world.

      There is no comparison whatsoever between what the McCanns did and children killed by pet dogs, and the suggestion people should hound them is abhorrent.

      The McCanns can't just demand that people believe them, especially in this age of information when the truth and facts are at the fingertips. We do not base our disbelief on rumours or myths, someone died in Apartment 5A, and a child has been missing for 7 years. More often than not, 2+2 does = 5.

      Brenda was fully justified in not believing the McCanns and she was fully justified in voicing her thoughts on twitter. I expect the powers that be despise twitter, because it can be used by anyone - its a great leveller. Ordinary people like Brenda and myself can speak out, we can have a voice, so we must be stopped by whatever means necessary.

      Now you have the nerve to say that people who don't believe the McCanns must have mental health issues! Lol, McCann supporters have been using that old tosh since 2007.

      Well news for you my dear, our mental powers are running to full capacity, we are able to spot a fecking great scam when we see one.

      Delete
    2. It's true that many people make mistakes and have to live with the consequences. The thing about the McCann case though is that there still has not been a satisfactory answer for events. The lack of any evidence of an abductor indicates that it is possible that the McCanns are continuing to evade taking responsibility for what happened. This is the reason that people do not let the matter drop.

      Delete
  19. Rosalinda you seem totally obsessed with nailing the McCanns, even the death of Brenda Leyland is just another opening for you to take a pop at the Mc Canns.
    Brenda was wrong in what she was doing and clearly her own overwhelming guilt at being found out proves she was wrong in what she did.
    The saying "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones" seems very apt here.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Overwhelming guilt? Are you for real? What did she have to feel guilty about? Defending a dead child? She was the victim of an evil plot to protect the parents of the dead child at any cost.

    She was the victim of a McCann PR stunt - the most vulnerable anti on the McCanns 'Hate List' website, the next name at the top of their target list is a severely disabled lady in a wheelchair. Her mind is fine, btw, and she won't be able to run away from the news team.

    Get it in your head 08:41, Brenda didn't do anything wrong. The police did not even bother going to see her. The dossier compiled by the now deleted hate fest site Exposing the Myths is in the public arena and those responsible for hounding this poor woman to death will not get away with it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. She knew posting 4625 tweets about the Mc Canns only shows her to be like you a rather sad angry and judgemental person with serious issues, thats why I say she felt overwhelming guilt she knew she was wrong and had been exposed.
    She was not a poor old woman she was 63 years of age an intelligent woman who went to university, many of her tweets appear to have just been personal insults mocking the McCanns, hardly constructive in solving the tragic loss of maddy.
    I don't know or have too much sympthy for the McCanns they have to live with the terrible decision they made to go for a meal and leave those children unsupervised.
    It does not however grant licence to people like you and Brenda Leyland the right to hound people via social media for years on end.
    Your obsessed Rosalinda switch off your pc go and talk out your anger/obssesion issues about the McCanns with a qualified therapist and get your life back.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obsessed you think? Possibly, but I like to think of myself as a finisher - that is, when I start something I will see it through. Of course, I didn't know that 7 years on the UK would hope its population were so dumbed down they would buy a fairy story as factual and that I would still be here.

      I might have dropped the subject several years ago, but the McCann Media Monitoring Unit made me a target of their campaign. Unfortunately for them, I was not going to take all the threats, smears and blacklisting lying down. They want to take this to the end, fine by me.

      Truth gives you courage you see, it speaks for itself, I'm happy to face any one of them in a Court of Law, I have plenty to say. :)

      Delete
    2. Rosalinda- I take my hat off to you for using your own identity. In my mind, this puts you a step above other McCann 'doubters'. (I won't say 'haters'). However, it seems to me that your talents could be used for bigger purposes - let's say helping the neglected, missing children (still alive) that have no profile whatsoever? Why the obsession with a child that you believe is dead (and probably is dead, regardless of what one believes about the parents), when there are so many living children in need of a voice such as yours? I would have thought that a broader cause would give your talents a more worthy outlet, and one that might actually help a child who is suffering now?

      Delete
  22. There is a special kind of crazy attached to you Missing/dead children groupies. That's what you are. ghoulish groupies. We saw the same insanity in the little girls murder in Florida. You people get in chat rooms and twitter, making far flung accusations , spreading rumors, acting like you know all of the facts of a case. You whip yourselves up until you sound psychotic. There is an unnatural personal investment over a child you dont know, and vitriol and rage toward people who have been neither charged or convicted, who also have lost a child. You are all quite mad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are no far flung accusations or rumours Mark, the abduction story doesn't add up no matter which way you look at it.

      If you knew anything about the case Mark, you would understand that it goes much further than a missing child. You may happy for the world to spin with you blissfully unaware of what is going on, but some of us are not.

      Delete
    2. Thank you Mark, and also to the anonymous poster above pointing out how nuts this Rosalinda is and Brenda was. I care not about the McCann case, there are thousands of children killed by others each year and that poor girl was just one more, no matter who did it. The real annoyance is that this Rosalinda says "Obsessed you think? Possibly, but I like to think of myself as a finisher." Holy shit, this wasn't your daughter you old bat! Get a life, how much joy to you really derive from strangely missing and honouring a dead girl you never saw and hating the parents that may or may not have killed her? Focus on you, go for a walk, adopt a cat. Stop thinking about this dead girl at all costs, you're delusional.

      Delete
    3. This case is about at least eight people attempting to pervert the course of justice and prevent the truth being known about the death of a 3 year old girl.Two of those are the parents and anyone with any decency will endeavor to ensure that all those involved will be brought to justice.Remarks such as the one above simply make us more determined.

      Delete
  23. Does anybody have a rough idea how many times you have to tell a complete stranger that they're obsessed before you qualify for that adjective yourself?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Can somebody please tell me why there seems to be so many pro McCann comments on this blog, it is just a tad obvious!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am interested to know what the McCann supporters have to say about this tragic development 11:47 - so far they have said nothing whatsoever to justify the way in which Brenda Leyland was hounded.

      I want a chance to respond to them, and I want to give others a chance to respond to them too. I won't publish abuse, but I would like to know the thinking behind the McCanns' last lethal publicity stunt.

      Delete
    2. Brenda was not hounded. Brenda was clearly mentally unstable. Martin approached her in a civil manner, and she responded in a civil manner. There was no 'hounding'. Brenda was obviously sad and lonely and no doubt very depressed. She was an educated woman who sat in a room (sometimes from 7am to midnight) tweeting about the McCanns. What a tragic life! She should have had the insight to seek the services of a psychiatrist. Her mental illness and personality disorder led her to take her own life. It had nothing to do with the McCanns or Martin, who was simply doing his job. If Brenda was merely offering her opinion, in a manner that she believed was entirely fine and legal, she would have used her real name. You people need to get a life! Rosalinda - you too have more talent than to waste your time on this nonsense. Its obvious, by the spelling and grammar of most McCann doubters, that they are overwhelmingly ignorant, ill-educated types who don't understand how actual research works, or how facts are established in law. You (like Brenda) have no excuse to be a part of this ignorant lynch mob, but I bet that being part of it makes you feel superior. They praise you for your ability to write and sum up their own thoughts, which only shows how afraid you are about communicating with other literate individuals.

      Delete
    3. Is that a challenge? lol, happy to debate with any of you 00:31 who think you are my intellectual equal, ha ha. Bring it on.

      You have come on my blog diagnosing Brenda with a mental illness and personality disorder, yet you haven't even the courage to put your name! Apart from the fact you never even met the lady, no professional would ever diagnose someone's mental health based on a few media reports, and their own very biased assumptions. You are a Quack, of the worst sort.

      Brenda had nothing at all be ashamed of. She was a truthseeker, as am I and several thousand others. You have the same elitist manner as Carol Malone and Grace Dent, keep the internet riff raff free eh?

      No, your clumsy flattery didn't work.

      Delete
    4. Whatever the case, it's pretty clear that Brenda was not 'happy'.
      Why do you care so much about a 'quacks' opinion? Do you think it's normal for someone to tweet from 7am to midnight (at times) about people they've never met? And on the subject of anonymity, why do support Brenda Leyland who tweeted under a fake name anyway? You don't like the fact that Sky News 'outed' her, but you attack others for remaining anonymous here? Too many massive contradictions to believe anything you write is of any real value. I commend you for using an open ID, but you seem to be contradicting yourself a lot - If anonymous users on your site here are cowardly, then so was "SweepyFace" - who was clearly not the dog in the picture! I wouldn't use my real identity here, because I make an odd comment about something, and have a real and busy life that I would not want 'invaded' by obsessive others. That's fair enough. I'm not accusing anyone of covering up the death of a child!

      Delete
  25. Brenda Leyland did not take her own life she knew too much, complete set up,no police enquiry prior to her death left to Sky news to make it look like suicide, so so. sad.

    ReplyDelete
  26. It saddened me to hear of her death, but it is true- live by the sword die by the sword.

    I do believe we all had a part to play in her death. I found myself hating her based only on the way Sky News presented it. I haven't been through her tweets and don't know if she was really that bad. Either way all our combined hatred added up and she would have felt it. For this I am sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  27. shame on you all! the mccanns lost their daughter. I cant beleive the poison you peple are writting about them. May be a few more of you will be reaching for the asprin when we find out who you all are.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you are going to be busy hounding every one who doesn,t believe your lies .

      Delete
    2. You can start the hounding at the celtic f.c. fanzine Now if there is one place you would expect support for the McC,s it would be there as Gerry supports the team ,he worked for the club and who can forget uncle Phil handing out leaflets in front of 60,000 fans before a game one week after Maddie went missing.
      But no, to their eternal credit, the general view is that Kate and Gerry are a pair of martin brunts who are lying and should be dealt with accordingly.
      Now that,s what Gerry,s mother would call uplifting.

      R.I.P. Brenda

      Delete
  28. I wish I never heard of the Mccannstory.
    Or wanted to know what to believe.
    But ..
    The story was creepy and SO in the news then.
    Never left the news, really... keep popping up.
    I mean.. local crimes or missing persons never made this cover.
    How many people did get paid to keep this in the news?
    Need this story?

    The Uk Media is a disgrace.
    I agree on that.

    The most creepy story's are made/sold in the Uk.
    Mabye in Europe such things happen to.
    But the Uk press is good in 'reporting anything as long as it sells'
    The Mccann also knows..

    I never understand this posting awards and membership title in newspapers or forums.
    Traditions/rating to earn a certain respect?
    Really?

    This woman did spend a lot of time I read on this case.
    On daIly basis without paid.
    Sad?

    I also did read a lot pro and anti Mccann on this.
    Both are vile..

    But you know.. I never get this high profile.
    She was pretty, but not a beauty.
    And even if she was ugly, or retarted, so..then..
    Was it such news then?










    ReplyDelete
  29. RIP Brenda.
    I didn't read her tweets. She was entitled to her opinion. Many people share her disbelief in the Madeleine official story. If she broke the law, I'm sure the police could deal with it. Does hounding her help find out what happened on 3rd May? SY are getting nowhere at a snail's pace.
    Double standards disgust me: the Mccann team and supporters can offend and sue anyone but no one is allowed to offend them.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Sky News reported "No direct link between the incident and her death"

    Just as there appears to be no direct link between the McCann parents decision to leave their 3 very young children alone and completely without care (so they could go out to eat & drink) and the disappearance of the eldest (the then 3 year-old Madeleine).

    Whilst I am concerned that I may be considered as a "Troll" and could be door-stepped by viewer hungry news hounds I could not live with myself if I did not ask the question - "Can anyone, anywhere, give me a credible explanation why these ever-so caring parents were never once considered worthy of prosecution on charges of neglect?"

    If they were not Doctors at that time but a labourer and his check-out operator wife they surely would have been.

    Under no circumstances should such young children be left alone - and no truly caring parent would even consider doing so.

    Of course their fortunes have changed since that terrible night and I sincerely hope that all of the money from the appearances, interviews, law-suits etc. helps them to sleep at night - with proper provision made for the care and protection of their remaining children of course.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Being a labourer would have no impact on the DPP decision not to prosecute. That's why labourers and check out operators are not charged when it happens to them. I'm sure you have researched other cases where parents were not not investigated for a minor offence because they were victims of a much larger one. So you will know it is common practice.

      Delete
  31. I'd like to know where all of you people judging the McCann's are getting your information... What makes you all think you know so much more than anyone else regarding the case. Don't you think that they would've been arrested and prosecuted if anyone had proof of them harming their daughter? There's no proof of anything except bad parenting choices, period!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We get our inormation from the police files. I'm sorry if you see that as unfair. Do you not remember that the McCann's were aguidos and questioned?

      Delete
    2. Try looking at all the translated statements from the Portuguese investigation, and their archiving summary of the case. Look at the McCann Files, and Pat Brown's blog. See you back here in a fortnights time with a different opinion on the case.

      Delete
    3. I have read all of the police files. They don't constitute 'evidence'. They are merely a set of unproven theories, otherwise the McCanns would have gone to trial. You people are so profoundly stupid, you don't even realise this obvious fact. Repeat: There is no scientific evidence against the McCanns. If there was, they would have gone to trial. Dog lerts are not evidence. Amaral's theories are not evidence. There is no DNA evidence. Pat Brown is not a 'real' criminal profiler. She has never worked on a real crime and no one in law enforcement would take any notice of her ideas. Go and get an education. No wonder you poeople hate the McCanns.

      Delete
    4. If you'd read all the police files and Tapas group witness statements you would see all the discrepancies between them all and that what they say doesn't add up and they all contradict each other. Some times they have said things without even being prompted "hiding a tennis racquet in a bag" for instance. I doubt their "putting foot in mouth moments" haven't been overlooked by the police.

      There is more to this "crime" than a missing child, it goes wide and deep, a Fund was set up in record time when Madeleine could have turned up at any moment. If there was no abduction than the Fund is a fraud with many, many people involved in it and who have had their fingers in the pie to benefit nobody but themselves.

      re the dogs' alert, over the years people in the USA and the UK have been convicted of murder with no body found but the police dogs' evidence was taken into account for a conviction.

      For the McCanns' those pesky dogs just won't go away.

      Just because the McCanns haven't been proven of any crime so far it doesn't mean that they the police are not working working on a very complex crime and it may take some years to come to any concrete conclusion.

      Delete
    5. Quite agree. When are people going to separate opinion from hate trolling.

      I read some of those tweets about the McCanns they were totally unjustified and not opinions. They are threats.


      I'm sorry this lady died, if it was suicide, she couldn't face the consequences of her tweets could she. Brave enough to spout venom from behind a screen but when she had Brunt in front of her, when she had a world audience..... she said nothing.

      Delete
  32. Brenda's actions really had nothing to do with the McCanns. She was clearly mentally ill. So are most of the people (including the owner of this blog). It's obvious that you have an unhealthy obsession about this subject that has nothing to do with Madeleine McCann. Why don't you people write about all the 'other' missing children in the world? Answer: You don't care about 'children'. You have found each other in cyberspace due to your shared personality disorders. At least cristobell is prepared to use a real identity which means she is saner than most. But honestly people- don't you have other things to do with your time?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anonymous 00:23, you have posted with no purpose other than to upset people - that is the true definition of a troll and is itself indicative of a personality.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the last word is missing from my post. should read - 'is itself indicative of a personality disorder.'

      Delete
  34. Why did that MAN have to smugly mentioned Scotland Yard? And, why was Scotland Yard themselves not there. How dare they have ambushed her like that when thousands have spoken outrightly about the strangeness of the Maddie case? Now she's dead and not a word on Sky News. now THAT is despicable. No news that day Sky mmm?

    ReplyDelete
  35. 00.23 why don't you reveal your own identity then? Maybe it's because you assume we already know it Kate? With regards to "other missing children" They were not the victims of high-profile criminal case perpetrated by you and your other husband. We do care about children. That's why we're so sickened by what you and your husband have got away with because of the connections you have with people in high places.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's a good way to prove you are of sound and reasoning mind. Do you see the mccanns posting everywhere on the internet? what a very strange post, not doing your 'bizzare obsessive' labelling any favours. BTW im not Kate either.

      Delete
  36. yes i agree 00.23 is KM or is on her payroll and reading her script.we are not going away kate.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Cristobel for years now you have made outlandish claims like these

    I personally don't know how any decent civil human can cover up the death of a child and make money from it.

    Prove that statement please. Firstly prove the child is actually dead. Then her parents covered it up... and finally they have made money from it.

    You cant of course, yet you are quite happily taking part in libellous posts, almost daily. And I thought you considered yourself to be a fair minded intelligent person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "prove the child is actually dead".

      Do the names Eddie and Keela ring a bell?

      Delete
    2. 06.28 - you've gone very quiet after I mentioned Eddie and Keela. Have you anything to say on the "findings" of Eddie and Keela in the McCanns apartment and the McCanns' hire car or have you not read up on the PJ files and discussions on the internet regarding the dogs?

      Delete
    3. the same police dogs were used in the susanne pilley case in scotland.
      conviction secured.tick tock

      Delete
  38. Question for you all McCann haters.. Supposing Brenda Leyland did commit suicide.

    If Kate McCann were found dead in a hotel room after receiving hate filled tweets... would we even be debating this. No, of course is the answer to that.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Madeleine will be welcoming Brenda to the afterlife. That gives some comfort.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Kate, if I may refer to your post at your post at 6.28. Decent civil humans indeed do not cover up the death of their child and make money from it. To put it mildly, you and your husband or anything but decent and civil. With regards to not seeing you post on the internet, that is because you do exactly the same thing as I and others do - deploy a pseudonymn. It's not particularly cowardly, it's a tradition in correspondence whether it be a letter to a newspaper or a post on an internet forum. It's a bit ripe and hypocritical of you to label people who do not believe your abduction fairy-tale and comment with pseudonyms as "cowards"

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anonymous6 October 2014 08:05 4000 tweets? That's a drop in the ocean compared to the Mccann attack dogs tweeting. Pam Gurney regularly posts 100 plus tweets a day from her various twitter accounts and they're all solely aimed at anyone who has the audacity to disbelieve the abduction story.

    ReplyDelete
  42. 00.23 'At least cristobell is prepared to use a real identity which means she is saner than most.' Says she using the name 'Anonymous'!

    I think anyone who disbelieve the mccanns tale and posts anonymously is actually very astute. Obviously from reading your script based message you are well aware that the attack dog supporters of the parents love to find a name. This feeds their sadistic pleasures such as finding addresses to hand out online, family photos of the poster and their children to post online, employers to contact with a view to ruining careers and livelihoods and any other sick little schemes they can concoct.

    In Brenda'a sad case, the snitch dossier has backfired. The police didn't dance to your tunes so you got the media involved which ultimately signed poor Brenda'so death certificate.

    Well done, all of you. Great work. I hope you're patting yourselves on the back. Someone's much loved mother has committed suicide as a direct result of your jollies. You must be so proud to call yourselves human beings. Another tale to laugh at with your grand children over Christmas dinner.

    May Brenda Leyland invade all of your consciences until you realise the gravity of your actions and the value of life, even the lives of those who dare to disagree with you.

    This will bite you all on your backsides in the weeks and months to come when the truth is revealed about Brenda. You also have ruined things for the Mccann family too. Didn't you think for one second how Maddy'so brother and sister will feel when they Google? No of course you didn't. Retribution at all costs, that's the important thing. Bravo.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I can't believe the ignorance of people who "work" for the McCanns, whether paid or not. When push comes to shove the McCanns may have paid lackeys but the lackeys seem to have overlooked the fact that the McCanns never get their hands dirty and never have but expect other people to do their "work" for them, leaving the McCanns clean and untouched when the shit hits the fan. The McCanns will be in the clear but where does that leave their "lackeys".

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anonymous 9.15 I doubt very much if the McCanns have paid lackeys. Who would they pay? They dare not share the details of ,Madeleine's death with more than a very few powerful friends. It is Kate and Gerry who are doing the posting on here and elsewhere. Incidentally, if the dreadful duo want the names of people who don't believe theirs and their friends in the British Media abduction fairy-tale. they'll find thousands on Facebook. And Pat Brown has urged the non-duped by the British Media to reveal their names. A reasonable suggestion in the context of this tragic suicide. It pre-empts any accusations of "cowardice" Rest assured, the dreadful duo will never put their names to any posts on here or elsewhere..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The McCanns don't have to share the details of Madeleine's death, they only have to take on board anyone who shares the "abduction" story. The McCanns have got away with it for over 7 years by people not reading the PJ files and not being able to think for themselves. You only have to read the discussions on the Daily Mail website (which are allowed through) from people who feel sorry for the McCanns and their "abducted" child. Those comments which dispute the McCann "story" are thrown in the waste bin.

      Yes, I know the "dreadful duo" will never put their names to any posts, they have others to do it for them.

      That's why they also employ a "spokesperson" to speak on their behalf, if the shit hits the fan will the "spokesperson" be the fall guy and the McCanns can shout "we never said that, .......... said that on our behalf without our knowledge", we don't know anything that about what was said.

      The McCanns aren't daft, no doubt they've been lawyered up since 4th May 2007 and with PR people advising them from hour to hour, what to say, what to do, what to wear, where to go, how look glum, sad, angry in interviews, what photo opportunities they should take and how much for.

      That's been their whole life for the past 7+ years, but in all that time they only spent one hour themselves "searching" for Madeleine, if in fact that can be taken for the truth.

      Delete
    2. 11.43 In the context of this case, it does not really matter whether one believes if the pro-McCann posters are the McCanns themselves or paid sympathisers. I personally the believe the former. The McCanns have not got away it with for 7 years because people have not read the files. They have got away with it because the British Government sabotaged the investigation when they were made arguidos. They arranged for them to be flown out of Portugal within 48 hours. They have had high-level protection ever since and the British Media have attempted to brainwash the public over the last 7 years into believing the abduction myth. I don't believe Mitchell was employed as a potential fall guy. The McCanns may not be daft as you say - but neither is Mitchell. He would not allow himself to be a fall guy. Mitchell actually personifies the high-level protection the McCanns have. Even though there are more blatant examples.

      Delete
  45. How many people who think the mccanns are involved in their own daughters disappearence have been to Portugal to carry out an actual investigation. Interviewed witnesses, spoke to locals, the police etc, the usual way investigators and journalists do? How many have asked for the rights to publish amarals book in the UK? The book isn't banned, its just no publisher will publish it because of libel. If you are so certain, publish it and have your day in court.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Kate/Gerry/Philomena or whoever, you're 11.24 post is completely fatuous and misleading (of course misleading and lying is habitual for you). Most lay people have neither the time and certainly no remit to go to Portugal and investigate the case. That is for the police. And of course your post gives you away (again) as to who you are, You clearly HAVE been in Portugal and no doubt know first-hand all the "witnesses" With regards to the book, no Britsh publisher will touch it not because it is libellous, but because the outcome of your litigation against Mr Amaral is not yet concluded. You just can't stop spinning lies can you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What a bizzare answer, seeing the mccanns everywhere is a sure sign of a disturbed way of thinking. Sorry if that offends, but it is obvious to the casual observer. Journalists investigate things all the time, most are freelance and just turn up and do it. Of course they have learnt the best way to deconstruct, reason and form an investigation. The owner of this blog is a journalist, so im sure she will offer guidance. As for amarals book, you are wrong. Just contact his publisher and ask for UK publications rights. Print a few hundred, sell them and have your day in court. It's very simple, if you are right about the mccanns involvement, both options would seem sensible for people with such surety of the position.

      Delete
    2. why did kate tell bbc,s jane hill she never searched for maddie and then said otherwise in her book?

      Delete
  47. Kate/Gerry whoever what an inevitable an and boringly predictable answer that my outing you is "bizzare" as is your inference that I'm disturbed. I take it you have been to Portugal and interviewed the "witnesses" and can provide conclusive proof that child was abducted? If you have tell us who were the witnesses you interviewed. If you have not done your own investigation how can you have irrefutable proof there was an abduction? Also if you have not done your own investigation why are you telling the non-believers. to do one?. Rosalinda Hutton is a blogger not an investigator. I'm not a book publisher so I'm not contacting Amaral's publisher. You're lying (can you ever stop lying!) the book has not been ruled libellous. You had your injunction against the book overturned by the Portuguese Court . However, your litigation is ongoing and the outcome yet to be decided.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you believe everyone who disagrees with your claims is either a maccann or paid by the maccanns to do so? To continue to engage with someone with those beliefs would be cruel. Which I guess proves sky's treatment of sweetface was cruel and failed diligence tests.

      Delete
  48. Can someone please explain why, whenever anyone offers thoughts or opinions that are contrary to the majority on this blog, they are labelled either as Kate/Gerry or a paid 'lackey'?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you Lorraine Kelly?She who does not want to see.
      The reason i ask is that anyone who has English as a first language and not in care can see the McCann,s story is not credible.


      Delete
    2. Kate, Gerry, 'paid lackeys' and now Lorraine Kelly. Do you think that amongst us English speakers there might be others who believe that the McCann's story is credible, others who do not want to see what you see so clearly?

      Delete
    3. You really are a martin brunt.
      The truth will out.
      TICK TOCK.

      Delete
    4. Yes, I really do hope that the truth will out soon, and then you can go back under your stone and search for some other conspiracy to wallow in

      Delete
    5. Google gasper statement .thanks to the internet it,s all there .
      r.i.p. brenda leyland

      Delete
  49. 8.48 Whether one believes the pro-McCann posters are the McCanns themselves, paid lackeys, Lorraine Kelly or whoever is in the context of this case irrelevant. The truth (and the myriad lies told about) of this case the matters. Of course there are many "English speakers" unconnected to the McCanns who believe the McCanns "story" (a very apt choice of wording on your part) Most of them brainwashed by the British Media into believing the "story" It is inconceivable to me that any of them would even know about the blogs of Rosalinda, let alone comment on her posts. If there are, then the slur "have you nothing better to do" should be directed at themselves rather than those who post on here disputing "the story" We post because of what we believe to be an ongoing cover-up and protection of two criminals. If the British Media had reported both sides of "the story" for the last 7 years, there would have been no need for blogs such as this. And perhaps also the suicide of Brenda Leyland would never have occured.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I personally feel for Brenda's 20 year old son. Robbed of his mother by sky news in conjunction with a now defunct troll Hunter site. Brunt knows he has fecked up big time here. That's why he hasn't been seen anywhere since Brenda's death.

    Now it's alright saying why weren't the McCann's charged with neglect for leaving their kids alone in the apartment for someone to kidnap one of them, but that's assuming you believe the kidnap theory in its many guises (statements have been given, disproved, changed, contradicted and changed again). We will probably never know what happened to Maddie, but what we DO know for a fact is that there is not one iota of evidence to support the kidnap theory. In fact, there is way more scientific evidence that Maddie either died in that apartment or at least her corpse was in that apartment after her death. That's not to mention the partial AND full dna match in the car hired 5 weeks after she was reported missing (as reported at the time by Martin Brunt of all people)

    If you want to find out a lot more on why so many people don't believe the McCann's please go to YouTube and search for Richard D Hall. He has made an outstandingingly in depth documentary about the Maddie McCann case.

    ReplyDelete
  51. We must never forget Brenda and a site should be set up to honor her memory. She died because she had an opinion. She died fighting for the freedom to express that opinion. But they silenced her. They silenced her forever. Do we want to live in a world where opinions can't be expressed? Where they sit & wait and pound on your front door and harrass you in the streets because you've expressed an opinion? We must never forget that Brenda died for our civil liberties. Sleep tight Sweepyface, they can't get you now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brenda died because she couldn't cope with the outrage that resulted from the outing of her obsessive behaviour, not because she had an opinion. We all have opinions, and we discuss them - with family, friends, on forums etc. A tweet can even be used to express an opinion.

      Internet trolling is a form of bullying or harassment because the victim of the trolling cannot respond coherently to tweets, especially, as in Brenda's case, when these can number 50 a day and the troll chooses to remain anonymous.

      To say that Brenda died for our civil liberties is very strange. Forget the McCanns in this instance and ask yourself whether everyone should have the right not to be the subject of a diatribe of tweets, offensive or not?

      Delete
    2. You would love us to forget the McCann,s but it is not going to happen until
      justice is served for MBM .

      R.I.P. Brenda

      Delete
    3. You didn't answer me - should everyone should have the right not to be the subject of a diatribe of tweets, offensive or not?

      Delete
    4. You Team McCann don,t answer serious allegations that GM and his mate were talking lewd about a child.

      Delete
  52. Whatever you're theory on the circumstances of Brenda's death, it is but only that. A theory.

    What we can say for certain is that if sky news hadn't gotten into bed with a now dead troll Hunter website and confronted the woman she would still be alive and her son would still have a mother. That cannot be disputed. What also cannot be disputed is that Brenda didn't deserve to die for tweeting stuff, however distasteful one might find it.

    Its hard to see how she was guilty of bullying. K&G aren't on Twitter apparently so can't have seen anything she posted on there. How do you bully someone who isn't there to be bullied? Certainly the police had no intention of doing anything about it, as they confirmed.

    ReplyDelete
  53. So Brenda Leyland posted up to 50 tweets a day? One of the mcanns main supporters Pamela Gurney manages at least double that on just one of her many accounts. She attacks anyone and everyone who says they don't believe the abduction story, no matter how they say it. If the number of tweets makes someone a troll the supporters should stop being so righteous because they embarrass themselves every time they hit send. Anybody with half a brain who reads the supporters work wherever it is on the internet, will realise before long just who the real trolls are. As for the supporters using Sky News as their attack dogs because their 7 years of terrorising has failed to shut up people voicing their opinion, this has done them no good at all. I doubt people will shut up about Brenda Leyland until there's a public inquiry and scalps collected, The true extent of what happened to Sweepyface will be big news as it's a huge injustice. I for one will be watching and reading the media in the months to come and I'll thankful that Brenda will be vindicated (as experts are already agreeing on) and won't have died in vain. Channel4 news has already found out about the wikipedia that has since been deleted "so it won't prejudice any proceedings the police may bring about". It won't take them long to work out the rest. I have been reading all this since the beginning seven and a half years ago and watched as vicious supporters indiscriminately drag innocent people through the media. There are always gullible people waiting for someone to vilify and that's what they've aimed for every time. I also note that not a single one of them has been prosecuted, doubtlessly because they aren't the real trolls. The curse of the Mcanns has struck again. They have what they wanted, now they should retreat in shame before any further tragedies occur at their hands. Why the Mcanns aren't damning their actions I will never understand. Does this mean they approve? Gerry did state he wanted people to be made an example of so could this be happening with their blessing? I don't know. All I do know is we've seen the inner minds of the dregs of society over the last 7 1/2 years.

    ReplyDelete
  54. 05.28 It seems Brenda died not because of the "outrage" but because she was confronted by Sky News. Who exactly was outraged? The McCanns? Their supporters? Whoever was outraged were the police contacted? If yes, did the police instruct Martin Brunt to go pursuing an interview with her? If the police were not contacted ,why weren't they? I find it incomprehensible that a so-called "troll" is confronted not by the police, but by Martin Brunt. Oh I forgot , the McCanns despite being blatant child-neglect ors are the darlings of not only Sky News, but the rest of the British Media. The very same British Media who have "trolled" and vilified Mr Amaral, his colleagues and others who have not towed the "abduction" party-line. Their "tweeting" has been much more public than tweets by the late Brenda. It has been done though mass-circulation newspapers and television channels with very large audiences. It's OK by them for anybody to be "trolled" abused and vilified except when it happens to their darlings

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting that you should mention Mr Amaral. Is this the same man who has cancelled the hearing relating to the McCann's libel charges on 4 occasions, the last time to sack his whole legal team? Let's see how the Portuguese court rules on the judgement.

      Delete
  55. Oh my god...

    Some of the responses on this blog are genuinely troubling..

    I was only lurking, having been linked in here through casual passing interest in the Brenda Leyland story from a news feed...

    I can understand passion of subject, but some of the assertions I have read here, quite frankly, are bordering on the unhealthy and have put me off making a passing (and likely pertinent) contribution as devils advocate.

    I think I'll go back to the link that returns me to planet earth and the real world.

    Wow.....just wow.

    ReplyDelete
  56. 14.12 Are you responding to my 09.33 post? Assuming you are, I'm not really interested whether you find my post and other posts on here "disturbing" I am interested in a logical, rational explanation as to why if the late Brenda was a "troll" or behaving illegally, Martin Brunt and Sky News were at her house and not the police. What I find very disturbing is that two child-neglect ors are deified by the British Media . The same British Media who pour abuse and vitriol on the professional police officers who made them prime suspects in the disappearance of their daughter. As stated in my post, vitriol and abuse that has been much more public than alleged vitriol of the late Brenda. I also would like to go to planet earth and a real world. This would be a world where child-neglectors are not given Government spokesmen, not granted audiences with the Pope, not made ambassaders for missing people, not invited to be lead-speakers at CEOP conferences , not flown out of Portugal by the British Government when they are made arguidos in connection with a serious crime etc. etc. I also find you're phrase "lurking on here" very interesting. It is a clear indication as to who you are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you are so passionate about child neglect that led to a child disappearing then why not go to blogs about April Jones, Sarah Payne, Ben needham, Keith Bennett? they were alll out of sight of a parent.

      Delete
    2. 03.59 Firstly, three of those children to whom you refer were murdered and the respective investigations concluded. In the McCanns case, the investigation is ongoing and many people, myself included, agree with the conclusions of the original investigation. Namely, that it is the McCanns who are guilty for causing Madeleine's death. Secondly, only a McCanns defender like yourself would analogise the 'neglect' of the murdered children to whom you refer with a couple who left Madeleine and two other siblings nightly in a holiday apartment whilst they went out socialising. I'm surprised you did not add the mother of James Bulger to your list. Ben Needham is still missing. The complete contrast with the publicity and government assistance given to his parents and to the McCanns, illustrates just how well-connected they are. It also indicates why they will probably never be brought to justice. And that might answer your question. It makes me sick to the stomacht seeing the political protection they have . And also the British Media deifying them and "trolling" the police officers who made them arguidos. In contrast, I sympathise for the parents of the children to whom you refer.

      Delete
    3. @3.59 why would two professional doctors (the gaspars ) go to the polce with suspicions about the behavior of their friends and holiday companions?

      Delete
    4. so the difference is the type of drink the mothers were imbibing whilst the children were well out of their sight? Convictions, were made but the people convicted never pleaded guilty, or are the police only sometimes corrupt? If, as you say, the original investigation found that the parents were proved to be responsible for their child's death, why haven't they been charged and tried. This is why people like sweepyface ate so attracted to these cases, the void is never filled, it's endless years of macabre pseudo internet detectivism.

      Delete
    5. @3.59 why did KM wash cuddle cat ?

      Delete
  57. Fake ,why don,t you some research then give us your opinion as devil,s advocate,as if.

    ReplyDelete
  58. 12.13 The difference is not the drinks but the several successive night out for a few hours on end in the case of the McCanns With regards to the murderers of the children you originally referred too, are you suggesting they were wrongly convicted?The original investigation never conclusively proved their parents were responsible for the child's death. The British Government ensured they never got a chance to do so. How do you do you know Brenda's reasons for being attracted to "these" cases? I think it would been more apt saying "this" case as it is unique. Unique in the sense that the prime suspects are deified by the British Media and the investigators "trolled" and vilified by scribblers like Tony Parsons. Incidentally, I still eagerly await a logical, rational answer from you as to why it was Sky News at Brenda's house and not the police if she was behaving illegally.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And I still await an answer as to why theres a tiny number of internet fanatics obsessed with trying to cause as much distress to the parents and their reputations; of an abducted child by implying their involvement when the police have never charged them with anything.

      Keep filling the void, keep yourself entertained in your macabre quest.

      Delete
    2. The Smith family saw Gerry with the child.

      There was no abduction.

      Delete
    3. So with an eye witness, why have none of the police forces prosecuted gerrie maccann. Im really not interested in the titbits if evidence you believe you have, I want to know why they have never been charged.

      Is is reptiles, elite bloodlines and paedophile child sacrifices by the queen?

      Delete
    4. Cristobell you should take it as a huge compliment that Team McCann now feel the need to monitor and spam your blog 24/7.
      Brenda would have been proud of your work.

      Delete
    5. @9.24 have a look at twitter, there is a bit more than a tiny number of good people who are not buying it, to quote a phrase.

      Delete
    6. Again with the paranoid fantasy. The maccanns have found this blog and are out to what? It's nothing to do with the fact if you google 'sweepyface' this blog is in the top ten results. Ordinary people don't google news stories or follow links, it's all part of the grand plan, eh?

      Delete
    7. 10.46 the post of 9.24 was directed at me and you've answered for me.. Not only on Twitter but Facebook also. They not trying to distress a family who had their child abducted. Rather many are sickened by the political protection given to a couple of child-neglectors who were responsible for the death of one their three siblings. And there is the answer also has to why they have never been and probably never will be charged. They also have full support of the British Media who continue to perpetrate the abduction fairy-tale and "troll" the Portuguese Police . The support of the British Media probably also answers my question 9.24 is avoiding answering. "Why were Sky News at Brenda's House and not the police if Brenda was doing anything illegal?"

      Delete
    8. great post @11.39 in loving memory of MBM and Brenda Leyland R.I.P.

      La lucha sigue.

      Delete
    9. Sky news don't report on things because they are crimes, they do it because it's interesting. The tiny, tiny number if individuals who flood the internet with claims of the lmaccanns involvement in their own daughters disappearance, often in vulgar and offensive ways, is interesting. Sweepyface was one of these people. It's a legitimate story.

      So why hay the police never charged the maccanns dispite all the evidence the tiny number of people claim they have? Is it the elite blood drinking royal reptilian powerful who are stopping it?

      Delete
    10. Reductio ad absurdum, you have no argument, so you resort to the ridiculous.

      Conspiracies can and do happen - all the time! Conspiracy is NOT a dirty word, but it is used in a derogatory fashion to dismiss thousands of valid questions.

      Go research child abduction, and discover for yourself how many of them are real? Check out the statistics, the majority of children who are murdered, are murdered by their parents.

      You have shut off part of your brain because you don't want to think the unthinkable, unfortunately your head in the sand approach helps no-one, least of all the victim in this - the missing child.

      Delete
    11. 4.49 So Sky news report on things that are interesting? So given that they have never reported on McCanns supporters who have tweeted on the internet often in vulgar and offensive ways they find that of no interest? Mind you, given that Sky have often vilified those who have questioned the abduction myth in "vulgar and offensive" ways themselves it would perhaps be embarrassing and certainly hypocritical if they did. I have already answered as to why the McCanns have never been charged. The have very powerful friends in high places. So why despite there being not one shred of evidence to support the McCanns version of events, and clear evidence that they were callous child-neglectors do the British Media elevate them to celebrity status? Why are eminent British journalists like Tony Parsons, Lorraine Kelly, Fiona Philips, Richard Madeley etc. amongst the tiny.tiny, tiny, tiny. tiny, tiny, tiny number of people who believe their fairy-tale and support them?

      Delete
    12. I have shut off part of my brain, that part that allows me to see the obvious guilt if the mccanns? Only people with that part of the brain turned on can see this reality?

      So again, why are 3 police forces, 7 different governments, hundreds of journalist and millions of people convinced the mccanns have no charge to face? What does this GP and consultant have to give them such protection?

      Google how many parents are convicted of infanticide. They obviously didn't have the same protection. So what is it they have?

      You are alleging a massive conspiracy but nit providing a reason of motivation for it.

      Delete
    13. 07.14 Well you're wrong that there are three police forces convinced that the McCanns have or had no charge to face. As you know the original investigators concluded that an abduction was simulated and the head of the original investigation even wrote a book and made a Tv documentary. I have already stated that they are protected by government(s) Why? this is the 100 million dollar question and one no-one can answer. It is difficult to put a figure on how many believe the McCanns story. Given, that there has been a systematic brainwashing campaign by the Britsh Media supporting their version of events, It may well be that are many who believe it. There are also many who do not believe it. Figures do not matter anyway. The investigation is ongoing and yet to be concluded.

      Delete
    14. And what happened to that book? Oh yes, it is subject to libel charges. And the author has seen fit to delay proceedings on 4 occasions and, at the last, sack his whole legal team.

      If the Portuguese court deems that the book is libelous, will that change your minds about the allegations that you are making against the McCanns, or will that prove to you that the Portuguese courts are also involved in the conspiracy?

      Delete
    15. 1.37 You lie so habitually, you just cannot stop can you? The book is subject to libel charges because the McCanns themselves initiated libel proceedings which have yet to be concluded. So the book has not yet been ruled libellous which is what you are trying to infer. In fact the Portuguese Supreme Court lifted a previous injunction put on the book. If the book is deemed libellous, I will still believe the conclusions of Amaral and his colleges. I agree with Rosalinda Hutton that "conspiracy" is not a dirty word. Now can I ask you a question which I've asked Rosalinda: If as you say this Government and the previous Government, the police believe that Madeleine was abducted, what are you worried about? Why are you posting incessantly on here?

      Delete
    16. 07:14 I have given the reason many times, but you switched off. The powers that be want us to believe that our children are in constant danger of ONLINE predators. Therein is the first lie. Children are in constant danger in their homes and from people they know.

      Are you still with me? We have journalists such as Grace Dent describing the internet as lawless. Take a minute.

      In order to reinforce the idea that any one of our children could be stolen from their beds, they made Madeleine McCann the poster girl. They had to tweek the story here and there, but heck, she was far more photogenic and appealing than the usual belligerent, spotty faced adolescents that usually go missing.

      The Labour government in 2007 were trying to smoozche the population into having their children tagged at birth and and the setting up of DNA database for all. Not a popular idea, especially for those who have read George Orwell's 1984, so they had needed a new enemy, someone we could all universally despise and throw to the dogs.

      Forget reds under the beds and the muslims, the new threat to society became paedophiles. Mere mention of the word, makes the average adult apoplectic with rage and eager to hand over all their personal details and indeed blood, just to prove how innocent they are. Its the final taboo, a subject we all cringe away from, therefore the majority of us, politicians and voters especially, know very little, if anything about it.

      The one thing that can be counted on, is public support for anything that will rid our culture of these despicable creatures. The threat however does not come from sick, sad, wierdos and the computers, the clear and present danger to children is within their own homes! I cannot say this often enough. The only way women, and it is mostly women, can protect their children is through education. These mothers need to remove the romance goggles, and start looking at their choice of partners and listening to their children. Our approach to parenthood needs a complete overhaul. Kids who are surrounded with love, security and lots of information will never be threatened online. Kids learn survival techniques from their parents!

      But sorry to digress, I can see where I keep losing you. Some wanted CEOP to be separate entity - devoted to tracking online (paedophile) crime. However, the statistics have never justified this and in 2010 the present Home Secretary Theresa May, incorporated it into the National Crime Agency - best thing she has ever done imo.

      The McCann case is a direct threat to Freedom of Speech. It has been used, along with many other snidey tactics, to convince the public, that the internet should be policed because their children are in danger.

      The case of Madeleine McCann fell into their laps, imo, but the parents were more than willing to cooperate with schemes that would persuade people 'it could happen to anyone'. The sad result being, our children become more obese and the parents become more fearful. Tis a wicked plot indeed, and to be sure, no good has come of it.

      Delete
    17. "Go research child abduction, and discover for yourself how many of them are real? Check out the statistics, the majority of children who are murdered, are murdered by their parents."

      True - in the US about 60% of child murders (under the age of 5) are committed by parents. But these are committed usually by a step father or mother. Also, there have been very few cases whereby both parents are complicit.

      Delete
    18. Sorry - but that doesn't answer my question.

      If the Portuguese court deems that the book is libelous, will that change your minds about the allegations that you are making against the McCanns, or will that prove to you that the Portuguese courts are also involved in the conspiracy?

      Delete
    19. 04.48 Well I 'm sorry if the answer to your question is not satisfactory. But let's wait and see what the outcome of both the libel trial and the investigation is. My answer may not have been to your satisfaction - but at least I tried. But you have not even attempted to give an answer to my question, so let's try again. "If this government and the previous government and the police believe Madeleine McCann was abducted, what are you worried about and why are you posting incessantly on here?" We finally got an answer from you in regards to why Martin Brunt was at Brenda Leyland's house and not the police. Let's see what you come up with this time.

      Delete
    20. 03.22 How am I lying so habitually?

      1. The book is subject to libel charges.
      2. Libel charges are usually brought by the allegedly libeled.
      3. Amaral has delayed proceedings on 4 occasions
      4. Amaral sacked his legal team in June 2014

      "If the book is deemed libellous, I will still believe the conclusions of Amaral and his colleagues." - That says it all, really.

      Why have I posted (not incessantly, by the way)? Why do you ask? Don't you like hearing views that are contrary to yours?

      Delete
    21. 8.09 You're lying here again. Amaral has not been responsible for all of the delays. With regards to your comment about my beliefs should the McCanns win their legal action., I could equally ask -in addition you seemed determined to avoid answering - what will your reaction be if they lose their legal action? I could also ask what is your reaction to the fact the an injunction on the book has already been overturned by the Portuguese Supreme Court? I've no problems with anyone having a contrary opinion to my own. But I cannot understand someone who claims that the government(s) and the police believe that Madeleine was abducted should want to post on here. That's why I ask why do you bother posting - and incessantly, I'm responding yet again to another of your posts. If your assertions are true you have nothing to worry about as the McCanns will be fully and officially exonerated. In fact I find it odd that you asked what will my beliefs be if the libel trial concludes in the McCanns favour, but not what will I believe if the investigation exonerates them - which by definition given what you claim, you believe it will. So give, I've answered your questions answer mine.

      Delete
    22. 8.09 - I have responded on this thread because I thought that this was an open forum. If I'm wrong, and it is a forum open to only those who believe that that Madelaine's disappearance has been the subject of conspiracy by various governments and Scotland Yard, then I'm sorry.

      With regard to the book, you will recall that António Cabrita, Amaral's legal advisor, stated back in 2009 that the former PJ Inspector "does not defend the thesis" of Maddie's death nor the concealment of her cadaver by her parents. "In no excerpt or passage of the book does Gonçalo Amaral attribute to Kate or Gerry McCann, or to anyone else, the homicide and the concealment of the cadaver of their daughter Madeleine", nor "in any of the interviews given by him does he ever emphasize that Maddie's parents killed her or concealed her body". The lawyer also said that the thesis put forward in the book "does not affect the image or the good name of the McCanns, let alone treat them in a way that could be considered degrading, cruel or inhumane".

      Delete
    23. 00.57 Thank you for your response. Yes, it is an open forum but I still find it baffling as to why someone who by definition believes that the McCanns will be fully exonerated should want to post on here. But by all means, post if you wish. With regards to Antonia Cabrita, so what are you saying? In additon to the governments(s) and the police, Amaral also believes the abduction theory? If that is the case, then I cannot understand why the McCanns are taking legal action against him and want the book banning. I would have thought that they would be doing everything to get his book published in England, I would have thought they would be doing everything to have it serialised in a national newspaper as Kate's book was. I would have thought they would be doing everything to have Amaral's television documentary broadcast on Briitish television as they had one national television.

      Delete
    24. There are obviously other reasons why the McCanns are suing Amaral for libel. However, according to Amaral's legal counsel, Amaral does not believe that the McCanns were involved in the homicide and the concealment of the cadaver of their daughter Madeleine.

      So, as you stated in your earlier post, "I will still believe the conclusions of Amaral and his colleagues", then I presume that you believe that the McCanns were not involved in the homicide and the concealment of the cadaver of their daughter Madeleine - in which case, we are in agreement.

      Delete
    25. 06.09 The reason I would still the conclusions of Amaral and his colleagues is because your inference that they believe Madeleine was abducted is wrong. I will refrain from calling you a liar. Amaral has never said he believed in a homicide but said "it could have been a tragic accident". He and his colleagues believe an abduction was simulated. And you know that don't you? It is silly to try to infer and spin otherwise. Perhaps it is best to wait and see what the outcome of both the libel trail and the investigation will be,

      Delete
    26. 09.41 'Perhaps it is best to wait and see what the outcome of both the libel trail and the investigation will be.'

      I'm in total agreement with you on this.

      Delete
  59. How telling is it that the Mccanns friend Jim Gamble (ex ceop and now ineqe) has been blatantly siding and agreeing with the other supporters AND tweeted a fair amount with the owner of the troll wiki that the dossier was based on (enough that the wiki suddenly disappeared after Brenda Leyland was doorstepped) has now stated that he has "absolutely nothing" to do with the dossier?

    Has he suddenly realised that the supporters have finally gone too far?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Rosalinda I was just thinking if poster 7.14 believes that the police, this government and previous governments and the British Media all believe the McCanns abduction story, then the poster must be confident of the conclusion of the investigation. If this is the case ,it's puzzling to me as to why the poster wants to comment on this thread. Just wondering what your take on my point is.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 16:13 We should be grateful 7:14 for demonstrating a perfect example of the way in which the word 'conspiracy' makes people cover their ears, eyes and lips, a la the three wise monkeys. Its a bit like when you say the word 'sit' to a dog! ;)

      Delete
  61. I find it hard to believe that you really care about Brenda Leyland. What 'if' the McCann twins are vulnerable to what you write on the internet? They are children. Brenda was an educated adult who should have sought help from a mental health expert. She was clearly not well and would have found something else to obsess about if it hadn't been the McCanns. Brenda was not harassed. She was asked a few polite questions, to which she politely responded. She invited Martin Brunt into her house. Brenda was intelligent, and therefore knew that her obsession with the McCanns did not actually come from a concern about Madeleine. That is why she regretted her actions, and was not ultimately 'proud' of them. If the people who obsessively and continuously condemn the McCanns really cared about Madeleine, they would be doing more productive things to help vulnerable children in general. Even if the McCanns were guilty of knowledge about the disappearance of Madeleine (and there is no real evidence that they are), your actions would not be productive. The overwhelming majority of people find the constant bombardment of the McCanns grotesque in nature, simply because it is. There are millions of vulnerable children in the world. You believe that Madeleine McCann is dead, so why this obsession with her parents? Why not spend energy helping the millions of living, abused children the world over? The McCanns have, at the very least, done 'something' for missing children and people, other than Madeleine. There is nothing positive or enabling about devoting websites to speculation about a missing child, when you are not in possession of any more 'facts' than the average person on google. Having read the PJ Police files does not offer you access to 'facts' as purported. They are full of unproven theories, and that is all. There is no DNA evidence, the dog alerts are to be viewed as intelligence and not evidence. There is no proven, scientific evidence against the McCanns at all. The fact that there stories 'vary' is merely human nature, and it would be a lot more suspicious if the McCanns and their friends all had precise, accurate and matching memories of the events. Trauma can lead to all kinds of momentary malfunctions in memory. You claim to be a victim of trauma yourself, so perhaps you should exercise some restraint and possibly some compassion. This is why the majority of people cannot stomach the so called 'justice for Madeleine". It is devoid of compassion - and especially compassion for the McCanns living children, who Ms. Havern has posted on her website, in full view of their faces. How is this 'care' for any child? How do you justify this blatant abuse of the private lives of others?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 3.08 Make up your mind about Brenda. She was either intelligent or needed help from a mental health expert. Your latter smear about the late Brenda reveals what a low-life you are. As does your inference that we did not care about her, As for the vulnerability of the twins, perhaps the McCanns should have thought of that when they were out socialising every night. If the McCanns are innocent as you insist, then there's nothing to worry about them reading threads like this is there? I have no idea what questions Brunt asked Brenda Leyland or whether she regretted her actions. Ni ether do you - stop lying through your front teeth about a lady who has committed suicide. Oh I forgot, compulsive lying is an essential ingredient of being a member of Team McCann. The obsession with Madeleine's parents (if posting on blogs is to be deemed an obsession)it is because we perceive this case as a disgraceful injustice. This is where this case differs from the cases of other missing children. In addition to it being very high-profile and publicised. You also are equally obsessed with the parents - in your case defending them. All you say about the PJ Files, unproven theories etc.etc, can equally be said about the British Media who have elevated two disgusting child-neglectors into national celebrities. They have no conclusive proof whatsoever that Madeleiene McCann was abducted. To paraphrase your last sentence: How do they justify the blatant abuse of the Portugal Police who concluded that an abduction was simulated?

      Delete
    2. 03:08 Brenda looked perfectly well to me, bright, well groomed, articulate, so lets dismiss that.

      Brenda had a passion for justice that I, and thousands of others share - who knows what sets off the spark in particular cause, but it does, and studying the minutiae of high profile criminal cases is a public pastime that goes back through history. There is nothing sick about it, indeed it has an entire movie genre.

      In the majority of cases, the crime is solved and everyone goes away, but his case is very different. The crime was solved long, long ago, but 7 years on we are still awaiting the outcome. In addition Gerry and Kate chose to interact with the media, that it spiralled out of control was always a risk, and indeed, some might say they encouraged it.

      There was nothing at all wrong with Brenda's passion. She, an ordinary person like the rest of us, who had discovered the British media were not telling the truth, and it angered her. It angers all of us. It may be that you have never felt passionately about anything 03: (please peeps make up names!), even your reply above comes across as half arsed.

      As to the McCanns' children , I never name them btw, nor do most of the antis, Gerry may as well try to turn back the tide a la King Canute! He can't expect the entire world wide web to be cleaned up on his behalf! ALL kids have to be protected from what they see online, Gerry and Kate will have to do the same as the rest of us, prepare them for it. The best thing they could do is stop using the kids names in interviews!

      Why my obsession? I like to learn every single day 03, I have an unquenchable thirst for knowledge that is beyond my control, my psychiatrist however, said it is a good thing. When I began delving into the murky background to this case, I was horrified, as no doubt Brenda was, that the death of a small child could be used so callously.

      The McCanns no doubt, would like a law to protect their children - one that states no-one can talk negatively about their parents! Doesn't anyone ever give this pair a reality check? Such a law would not, and could not, relate specifically to the McCann family, much as that might appeal them. It would relate to every single person who has children! I have children! Did all those McCann supporters hurling abuse at me online, ever think of them? Will this Law make it Ok to abuse some people, but not others?

      They are surrounded by eejits or they are living in cuckoo land.

      As for helping others 03, I am but one person and I do what I can within my own sphere. As a humanitarian I use my compassion and indeed my time and talents, to help those who need it. I aspire to live up to my all time fav literary character; Uncle Dynamite (P.G. Wodehouse) - he of sweetness and light, lol.

      On a serious note, the best thing the McCanns can do for their children is to be truthful with them or the situation will become more intense. The McCanns also need to understand that as long as the McCanns stay in the spotlight (mostly through their own choice), they will be the subject of debate. Only a week or so ago, Gerry put himself out there demanding tougher laws on the media. He cannot expect that to go by without comment! He was calling on the media to make an example of those who criticise him and his wife. And what Gerry wants, Gerry gets.

      Delete
    3. Why is it the case that if you criticise the mccanns you're mentally ill but if you criticise the poor policeman who lucked out getting this case in Portugal you're considered a decent, intelligent person? Their arguments are fundamentally flawed.

      Delete
    4. One can be well groomed, articulate, passionate about a cause, and mentally ill all at the same time. One does not cancel out the other. Clearly Brenda had issues, or she wouldn't have killed herself. I worked 14 hours a day in a high corporate position while I was suicidal and no one knew. These things are not as clear cut and obvious as some people think. Clearly, I didn't kill myself, but I thought about it and planned it, and obsession was also part of my illness... Not about the McCanns, but other things... so, I'm just pointing out that Brenda was probably a lot of things, and like most of us, no doubt had a series of contradictory qualities in her nature.

      Delete
  62. Bell you and I go back a long way, dont know how your coping with all this stuff, I struggled to get through the 1st dozen or so posts never mind having to answer them, this is going to make you ill love and its not worth that, maybe one day we will find out what happened but for your own sanity give this a rest for a while, you and I have been on opposite sides of the fence almost from the beginning and we had a fair few run ins on the old AOL boards but this is beyond anything that i've seen before, irrespective of your opinions on this I have always believed you are a good person (maybe a bit nuts) but this sort of tenacity is going to wear you out girl and it worries me, take a break love x

    ReplyDelete
  63. Well, I'd rather be a mythological creature than a Martin Brunt. He Shall forever be labelled by the more savy as mr Vagina. Martin Vagina. Something like that but wittier and more vile.

    ReplyDelete
  64. An exploration of integrated data on the social dynamics of suicide among women

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9566.12399/abstract

    Abstract

    The gender-based nature of suicide-related behaviour is largely accepted. However, studies that report exclusively on female suicides are rare. Here we demonstrate how female suicide has effectively been ‘othered’ and appears incidental in studies which compare female and male behaviour. We highlight how recent studies of suicide have tended to be dominated by male-only approaches, which increasingly link issues of masculinity with male death by suicide. Drawing on data collected from the general practitioner and coroner's office, we then apply the sociological autopsy approach to a cohort of 78 deaths recorded as suicides in the UK between 2007 and 2009. By focusing on females in isolation from males, we demonstrate that, as in male-only suicide studies, it is similarly possible to draw out issues associated with the feminine identity, which can be linked to death by suicide. We find that bereavement, sexual violence and motherhood could all be linked to the lives and help-seeking of the females who died. In closing, we suggest that a reorientation towards sociological analytic approaches of female suicide may help to produce further reductions in the rate of female death by suicide.

    A Virtual Abstract of this paper can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0w9KKMFdIQ

    ReplyDelete
  65. Hi Ros.

    Before I commence I would just like to state that I did not know Mrs Leyland and never entered into any conversation with her on social media or elsewhere.

    In recent months I have been researching the inquest of Mrs Leyland.I have studied the findings of the inquest and I have questions to ask.Here's a brief summary.
    First the toxicology report.
    All drugs/meds were at therapeutic level except citalopram,I note one of the other drugs being amitryptyline,citalopram and amitryptyline are from the same category (anti depressants),(therapeutic duplication).Amitryptyline is a 1st gen anti depressant while citalopram is a SSRI.SSRI's are much safer in overdose than 1st gens.Why would one not opt for the more potent amitryptyline if taking an overdose?I would have expected the coroner(who is a qualified nurse) to ask the doctor if Mrs leyland was prescribed both of these drugs.Although not unheard of it is rare that these 2 drugs be prescribed together.These 2 drugs taken together can cause serotonin syndrome/coma/death.(Drugs.com gives a major warning to both consumer and professional re the interaction).

    Next the ipad.
    "The ipad was open on the bed,Sarg T tapped/touched the screen,it came on,the website mirrored the scene".
    From ipad user manual,"After 2 minutes non use the ipad falls into lock mode".Thereafter you will need to do more than tap the screen to get it back on?
    Which model ipad was this? A/one of the many versions or B/one which has not been invented yet.Staying with the ipad>>"The website mirrored the scene".I have looked at many of the self deliverance/ euthanasia sites and I fail to see the scene,>>A lady lay on her back on a bed and cradling a gas cylinder.Instead I note the general instruction is to sit upright in a chair/on a sofa with the cylinder away from you.The inquest does not mention any exit bag/hood or other paraphernalia.

    A look into the helium.
    The common party balloon helium cylinders (bright pinky/red ones)(colour was not mentioned at inquest) come in sizes of 0.25 cubic mtrs and 0.41 cubic mtrs.In court these cylinders were described as this big (holding hands apart) 10 or 12 inches tall,this would give me the idea that they were the smaller 0.25 cubic mtrs ,(the larger are 17 inches tall with a 38 inch circumference).The question is this>>Is there enough gas in the 0.25 cubic mtrs to kill?Answer,yes there is,but this depends on method used.If one was inhaling this gas direct from the nozzle of a high pressure cylinder there is a high risk of suffering Barotrauma,no mention of this at inquest.I am sure you will agree that if you are breathing out you are not breathing in,it takes just as long to exhale as it does to inhale so without using exit bag method half the gas is escaping into thin air.It is recommended the gas flow should be 15ltrs per minute,(did Mrs Leyland have a gas flow reg fitted to measure the prescribed flow?),it is said that after 12 seconds of inhaling helium you will pass out,it then takes a further 12 to 13 minutes to kill.Lets do the math.

    *cont*

    ReplyDelete
  66. *cont*

    0.25 cubic mtrs = 250ltrs.250 ltr cyl at 15 ltrs per min= 16.66 mins running time,without exit bag half is escaping,you are left with 8.33 mins running time.
    8.33 mins is not the required 12 to 13 mins.
    While researching I looked among the euthanasia/self deliverance forums and found some interesting reading.A number of people on these forums who are seeking self deliverance were saying that they had tried the helium method with exit bag and all the set up and failed.One such person said they had tried this more than 6 times and failed each time having woken up with bad taste on tongue and fingers and toes tingling.Another stated that they had connected three of these cylinders together and was unsuccessful.What was going wrong?From what I can gather since at least 2013 the common party balloon helium has been being contaminated with upto 20% O2 for the following reasons:-

    1/ Abundance issues.
    2/ To reduce the risk of harm to those who wish to talk like Donald Duck.

    I noticed on these forums that because of the unreliability of the helium that some were recommending the use of nitrogen (same effect) but it's not as readily available as helium (Argos,party shops don't sell it). One would most likely have to visit a stockist.

    I did a little research on a few of the selling sites and looked at customer reviews,here are a few:-

    1/ "Was supposed to inflate 50 balloons but mine only did 25".<<(could be the balloons were bigger than 9").
    2/ "Won't be buying anymore of this,it only filled 1 balloon".<<(sounds like under filled or leaking cylinder).
    3/ "It filled all my 15 balloons but they didn't seem to float for very long".<<(maybe due to the 02 content).
    Looking at these reviews it seems like hit and miss.
    There is much more to my research and testing of the helium and I would like to return and explain in more detail in the near future.

    Now on to the pathology report.
    The main issue being that the pathologist said that there is 'no test' for helium in UK ??
    Do you think if someone of notability from UK was found in these circumstances there would be no test?If lesser developed countries know how to carry out this test then so does UK.>>At autopsy remove lung and place in bucket of water,tip bucket upside down into another bucket,gas will escape from lung and will form in bubbles on sides of bucket,take sample using syringe.To Test>>chemical toxicological analysis using gas chromatography combined with mass spectrometry.

    I found the details of this test described in a Romanian medical journal.If they know how so does UK.

    It was interesting to note that no physical evidence was produced in court to support cause 1b.

    I will leave it at that for now.IMO something is not right,this inquest needs looking into.

    ReplyDelete

  67. Hi Ros.
    You will recall that in my previous comment I said that I would like to return and give you more information on my research into the helium and the testing of it so here goes.

    After reading the self deliverance sites and customer reviews of certain outlets I decided to purchase 2 helium cylinders and put them to the test, I had to employ the help of a very good friend of mine.Here's what we did.

    Firstly we got the map out and drew a 10 miles radius of Mrs Leyland's former abode,we wrote the numbers 1 to 12 on the circle (as if a clock face). We established 12 shops/outlets that sold helium evenly spread around the 'clock',the numbers 1 to 12 were put in a 'hat' and one was drawn at random,it was number 8. We went our separate ways and visited each shop,I visited numbers 7 to 12 and my friend visited 1 to 6.Some shops stocked both sizes 0.25 cu mtr and 0.41 cu mtr and some only stocked one or the other.In each shop we asked if it was possible to have a look at one of the cylinders and all obliged.The reason for this was to establish the colour of the cylinders and at all 12 shops they were the 'bright pinky/red ones'. I purchased a 0.41 cu mtr cylinder from shop number 8,(they didn't have the 0.25 cu mtr in stock).

    Now for my second purchase.
    During my research I came across a well known gas stockist who sold helium and I inquired to them as to the purity of it,I was informed that it was 100% helium.I purchased one of these online and it was delivered to me 2 days later.This cylinder has it's own registered name,it's called the 'GENIE' and is blue in colour,it has a digital gauge attached to it so you know how much is being used and a built in alarm to indicate when the gas is about to run out,wheels and a handle can be added for portability.It contains 45% more gas than the equivalent standard steel one.

    Cylinder number '8' is recyclable and the 'GENIE' is returnable.

    Next I made an appointment at a lab in Yorkshire to have both the cylinders I'd purchased analysed.I took both the cylinders there on the arranged date and was told to return one day later for the results,(a fee was paid for this service).

    The results.

    The GENIE was filled to stated capacity and had a content of 99.98% helium.

    The cylinder from shop no 8 was filled to stated capacity and had a content of 85.77% helium and 14.23% 02 (oxygen).


    Back home I inflated 2 x 9" latex balloons,one from each cylinder and allowed them to float to the ceiling,I used a sizing template to ensure both balloons were equal in size.The purpose of this exercise was to see how long it was before they started to drop.The 2 balloons were put in my spare bedroom where they remained for 2 weeks,I didn't check them again until the 2 weeks had lapsed.After this time period I rechecked and the balloon which was inflated from the GENIE was still touching the ceiling, the one from cylinder 8 had dropped about 4 inches and reduced in size slightly.At this stage both balloons were popped and disposed of.

    No further tests/experiments were carried out with the GENIE.A Further test was carried out with cylinder number 8 but before I get onto that I want to explain how these cylinders operate.They have 2 valves, TAP and TILT. The TAP is the main valve which you turn on then you press down on the TILT valve to release the gas.Now with the tap turned on I pressed down slightly on the tilt valve and gas was slowly released but a slight touch further and I got an absolute blast,(not much control),had I had the valve pointing in my mouth at this time I would most likely have done serious damage to my lungs (BAROTRAUMA). The TILT valve/balloon inflator can be removed but I needed the help of a spanner to slacken the nylon hex nut,I unscrewed it the rest of the way by hand.

    *cont*

    ReplyDelete
  68. *cont*

    **So the scenario is that I'm lay on a bed cradling the cylinder, TAP open,I'm pressing down on the TILT valve and inhaling the contents and after about 12 seconds I lose consciousness and due to losing consciousness I also lose bodily function and due to losing bodily function I'm no longer able to press down on the TILT valve so the flow of gas ceases.In my opinion the only way to ensure uninterrupted flow of gas without having to touch the TILT valve is to remove it or jam it open in some way.**

    Even if one was using the exit bag/hood method it is essential to get the gas flow rate right,too much pressure would result in the exit bag/hood blowing off ones head.Based on my research and testing it is my opinion that suicide by helium is not an easy method.

    The final experiment we carried out was as follows and I want to stress that NOBODY should do this EVER,I was willing to take the risk,(that risk was partially based on 1 and 2 below). I am physically fit,I don't drink alcohol, smoke or take drugs.The test was carried out in a room in my home with the assistance of my friend.The room size is 9ft w x 10ft l x 8ft h with one door (78"x30") and one window (5ftx5ft) both door and window were shut (there is no air conditioning). The TILT valve was removed from cylinder number eight and a flow regulator was fitted and set at 15 ltrs per min.Although the cylinder I was using was the larger one which is capable of some 27 minutes running time this test was carried out for approx 16.66 minutes as if it was the smaller 0.25 cubic mtr cylinder.We set a webcam up in the room pointing to the upper half of the bed,I lay on the bed cradling cylinder,the opening of the gas flow reg was about 7 or 8 inches from my face.The situation was that every 5 seconds I was to raise my left hand to the camera to signal that I was conscious,my friend was outside the bedroom door watching on a monitor,should I fail to raise my hand my friend would intervene.

    This experiment was completed and I felt no ill effects at all,I did wonder if I would feel some delayed symptoms the day after but again nothing.I will say that the only thing I did feel was a little aching of my left hand but I think this was due to the continual 5 second signaling to the camera,it was a long 16 minutes. I was a little edgy at the outset but knew that my friend was at the other side of the door and should I have failed the hand signal he would have terminated the test immediately.Again DO NOT TRY THIS!!!!

    I am aware that some would be of the opinion that the test we carried out could have proved dangerous.My life long friend who assisted me is from a medical background,means of resuscitation were in place.

    1)The first thing the helium wants to do when released from the cylinder is to rise rapidly into the atmosphere,it is much lighter than air,sound travels through helium 3 times faster than it does through air.

    2)In my opinion this method of self deliverance without the use of exit bag/hood is a non starter,the added 02 rather defeats the object.

    Given my research into the inquest of Mrs Leyland and the tests/experiments I carried out and the possibility of the added o2 (in the case of Mrs Leyland) I am not convinced of (cause 1b). Sorry to repeat myself here but NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE was produced in court (no photo,no description of colour) and NO TEST for helium was carried out at autopsy.

    An inquest is there to provide answers,this inquest raised more questions than it ever gave answers.
    IMO had the coroner called on a jury,given the lack of evidence to support cause 1b, they would have returned a verdict of 'open'.

    My research doesn't stop here.Both my friend and I have holidays coming up,when we return we are going to see if it is possible to fill some of the blanks from when we saw the doorstepping of Mrs Leyland to her being found deceased at the Marriot.Should we have any success I will return and share with you and your readers.

    I wish Mrs Leyland eternal peace.

    Thank you Ros.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps it would be good if you sent your findings to the police? Or, in case they will not pay any attention, perhaps expose this issue and your findings in a blog of your own with added data, webcam videos and documentation? A real name behind the anonymity would also help to establish the credibility of your allegations.

      Delete
    2. Many, many thanks for your amazing research, which I think is well deserving of a wider audience! Is it possible for you to send me all this in an email, so I can give a blog of its' own?
      My email is Rosalindhutton@aol.com :)

      Delete
    3. Thank you. Thank you. I was at the inquest. It amazed, horrified and shocked me. I left with more questions than answers. x

      Delete
  69. There has to be a very good reason why a London based media company drove past dozens of other potential candidates to doorstep a victim in Leicestershire. Brunt didnt simply fancy a day out.

    There are very close links between the McCann limited company, and the coroners office, IIRC one of the directors is an ex leistershire coroner. In my view, given the circumstances, thats a definate conflict of interest

    ReplyDelete
  70. Thanks for sharing, nice post! Post really provice useful information!

    Giaonhan247 chuyên dịch vụ mua vòng tay pandora từ dịch vụ order hàng mỹ hay nhận mua nước hoa pháp từ website nổi tiếng hàng đầu nước Mỹ mua hàng ebay ship về VN uy tín, giá rẻ.

    ReplyDelete