Tuesday, 31 May 2016


UPDATE 03:06.16  

Can the anonymous author of the below posts, please please contact me at Rosalindhutton@aol,com. I promise absolute discretion and anonymity.  I had intended to devote a blog to them, but my embarrassing technical skills led me to put the matter aside.  Thankfully, the astute Teddy picked up on them, so apologies from me and many thanks to Teddy. 

Meanwhile:  highly recommended reading: 


UPDATE 01.06.16

WARNING:  Do not read if you are of a sensitive disposition or Hinge and Brackett.

There are dire warnings on the pass the smelling salts site of JATKY2.  Apparently the text below is VERY DANGEROUS INDEED and the police have been informed!  I am inciting readers to risk their lives apparently. It is presumed that readers of my blog are incapable of understanding that the scientific experiment described is very dangerous and was carried out by 'scientific individuals' in 'scientific circumstances'.  It is academic research and I hope it will be of great value to one of those 'good cops' or 'good investigative journalists', so the truth can be discovered and Brenda's good name cleared. 

To those reaching for the Valium or stretched out on the chaise longue, please learn to censor only yourselves, you will be a lot happier, trust me.  Meanwhile just because you can't handle 'icky' topics, doesn't mean you can rule them off limits for others.  We are discussing the suspicious death of a child and the suspicious death of an innocent woman.  And bear in mind, if the naming and shaming of Brenda Leyland had been a success, all the rest of us, were next!

Whilst I appreciate they are sensitive souls, and in constant need of supervision on JATKY2, the rest of us are rarely, if ever, sent into a frenzy by something we read.   We don't need or want Parental Guidance.  Just as the maker of a popular song or film is not responsible for that one 60 million who goes on to commit suicide or a killing rampage after listening to their music or watching their film.  A 'moment of madness' is usually an accumulation of a lifetime of anger and resentment and there is no way of predicting what can trigger it.  It can be anything from The Evil Dead to Catcher in the Rye to Jane Austen (or is that just me?).  The idea of protecting the public by censoring texts and art is ridiculous. 

I am not inciting anyone to try out the experiment, I am merely publishing the result of an experiment that has been undertaken by a responsible contributor to my blog.  Nowhere am I, or the author, encouraging anyone to try this themselves.  And given the amount of hassle involved and the equipment needed, not to mention the expense, who the heck would want to? Again, another red flag, would a woman of 63 really go to all that trouble?  I know I, and many women of my generation avoid technology like the plague.


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 inquests 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, and 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 metres 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. Let’s do the math:

1. 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.

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 its 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.

**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
one’s 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 signalling 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 lifelong 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 nonstarter, 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.



  1. this was posted on your very own blog http://cristobell.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/rip-brenda-leyland-sweepyface.html?showComment=1461055139536#c5228516400695537427

    before - why are you dedicating a blog to it now when Debbie Butler has drawn your attention to it?

    1. 19:43

      To give you another shot at understanding its implications perhaps (larger text - easier to read).

    2. Actually, it was Teddy who drew my attention to it, and quite rightly. It is very valuable research and I am grateful that the author has kindly published it here.

      I hope it will be of use to the police or indeed anyone who is investigating the death of Brenda Leyland.

      Of all the wicked crimes that have been committed in Madeleine's name, the treatment of Brenda Leyland is among the most shameful.

      Their objective in making an example of Brenda was to name and shame her, put her up for public ridicule and effectively destroy her life.

      That's pretty chilling, especially when you consider that Brenda was an innocent woman who's only crime was to disbelieve the McCanns ridiculous abduction story. That they were assisted in this 'public execution' by Sky News and vile commentators such as Carole Malone, shocked the public to the core.

      The Inquest verdict doesn't sit comfortably with me, especially in light of the above research. I didn't know Brenda, but I empathise with her, because we have much in common.

      I'm going to do a bit more research into the stats on suicide among middle aged women. In my life experience it is not something I have ever come across. Older women, mums especially, have suffered enough trauma in life, to keep 'disasters' in perspective. As nurturers they calm the fears of others and rarely, if ever, cry for attention themselves. They have the life experience to know that things are rarely, if ever, as bad as they seem.

      But the above is generic, I don't know enough about Brenda to understand what was going through her mind at that time. But one thing I just can't shake off, is her 'if anything happens to me' warnings on twitter.

      I find it strange that Brenda was able to accumulate all the unusual paraphernalia she needed to perform such a premeditated and pre-planned suicide, in such a short space of time and while highly distraught. Have they got receipts for this equipment? Have they got video evidence of her buying it?


    3. I am also eager to know what Brenda said in her interview with Martin Brunt. The only footage released is of Brenda outside her house, and the ridiculous 'I'm entitled' quote to make her appear nasty and belligerent. (Bastards!)

      However, Brenda clearly says, 'come in Martin'. So what was said in her home? Was the footage shown at the Inquest? If not, why not? In fact, why has it never been released? I do hope, the family at least, have seen it.

      What I fear is that she may have received threats that left her with no other option but to end her life. My suspicion is, the threats were towards her family.

      There is something truly evil at the heart of everything that happened to Brenda and I hope it is uncovered. Brenda and her family deserve front page apologies at the very least. It is wrong that her memory has been tarnished with accusations of 'trolling' (whatever that might be). All we really leave behind in this world, is our good name. Sadly for Brenda and her family, they are still seeing Brenda's good name dragged through the mud to protect a wicked crime.

    4. "The Inquest verdict doesn't sit comfortably with me"

      Nor should it.

      Suicide is a crime. As I understand it no evidence, actual or photographic, was produced in support of the police claims with respect to what was found, physically or circumstantially, in that hotel room. Was the hotel worker (who must actually have discovered the body) called to confirm their assessment?

      Hence we merely have two police sergeants' comparison of 'the scene' to a 'helium site' seen on a (dormant) lap-top computer, an ambivalent toxicology report, and mention that Helium 'in large doses' can cause death, when Helium (an inert gas) is not even toxic.

      What is far more worrying than people not asking questions is their being denied the opportunity to do so. This shambles is but one remove from the suspension of an inquest altogether (a situation Dr David Halpin is all too familiar with).

    5. Absolutely 10:59, and I would be very suspicious of those demanding the discussion be shut down. Member of the public should not be at risk of being dragged off to a hotel bedroom to be bumped off by dark forces intent on bringing to an end Freedom of Speech on the internet. It should always be remembered that Brenda was the first on a very long list. Hundreds were lined up to be named and shamed.

      I urge my readers to re-tweet and share this information with as many people as possible. There are very serious and pertinent questions surrounding Brenda's death that need to be investigated, and public pressure is the only tool we have.

  2. " 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 signalling 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!!!!"

    You should remove this blog post immediately.

    1. Why? Because you, Dave Bottomley, have decided that I and my readers are not intelligent or responsible enough to read this kind of information?

      This is an intelligent blog with intelligent readers, we don't need the texts we read to be censored by the authorities, or indeed by you Dave Bottomley, because you presume we are all stupid enough to try this out.

      Why don't you go play where they have a full contingent of playground supervisors to watch over you, you are clearly out of your depth here.

    2. 21:17

      Why? As the results confirm one thing the author is NOT DOING is describing a suicide attempt!

      Which rather begs the question they set out to address doesn't it? Or is that what's disturbing you?

    3. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton31 May 2016 at 21:48

      These comments that you have copied and pasted were made on you very own blog, starting on 19/04/16. Why have they suddenly become important today?

      Your insulting playground comments are being ignored (for now) - mix with nutters on twitter and you will live to regret it - just like your meeting and drink with bennett.

  3. You are connected to too many idiots on twitter and you should get out before something serious goes wrong.

    This is not a threat - it is advice.

  4. I agree. Ros is on a slippery slope. IMO.

  5. Brenda was another victim of the McCann scam and it saddens me to say that she won't be the last. I for one never truly believed that it was suicide but as with all things McCann I doubt that the truth will ever emerge. Maybe in a few hundred years time the truth will out & justice will prevail for Madeleine. Until then I salute all truthseekers you have tried hard for so long to get truth and justice for Madeleine. RIP Brenda. Madeleine you will never be forgotten. NO I am not a troll nor am I on twitter I am a silent observer but I do have insight into the evil side of this sorry sad affair and I ask that all you truthseekers look after one another and have each other's backs. Respect and thanks to you all. ( NO respect or thanks to 'team' McCann shame on you all )

    1. From a few of the ominous comments I have received on this particular blog, I reserve the right to go to the top of the endangered species! I have the uncomfortable feeling I am being watched and the roasting spit is being prepared.

      Just to be absolutely clear, like Brenda, if I am ever found dead in mysterious circumstances, I would want questions to be asked. I may come across as a miserable, lonely old bat with no life, but I'm really not! My home priorities are lots laughter, warm welcomes, good grub and good company - and I am rich in all those. Age and wisdom has brought with it, contentment and tranquillity, not much ruffles my feathers these days. I don't have any skeletons lurking in the closet (that I'm aware of), and I probably wouldn't give two hoots if I had.

      When you are coping with manic depression, you learn ways and means in which to avoid and/or cope with known triggers. Intense research does it for me, I have to switch my over active mind to rational/ logical mode, before all my dark thoughts overwhelm me. I have also learned not to catastrophize. That is, not to go automatically to 'the worst that might happen'. I have always had a tendency to be a drama queen, but I am fortunate to have sons with a great understanding of human nature, and they have been able to explain it to me, as if I were a 4 year old, lol. Trust me, it was needed. Other than that, they were looking for a third signature on the committal form, and the dog's paw print didn't count.

      Fortunately for Brenda, there are a lot of good people asking those questions. And I would hope that there is someone out there with the means and ability to open a full investigation into Brenda Leyland's mysterious death There is too much that is murky around the Madeleine McCann case to allow the cause of Brenda Leyland's death to go unchallenged.

  6. Can people under 18 read this blog?

    1. @ Anonymous1 June 2016 at 11:09

      yes - anyone can read it - even the real life friends and family of Brenda Leyland.

    2. It can be read by anyone who wants to read it 11:09, I refer you to the title 'Cristobell UNBOUND'. I'm not going to introduce Parental Controls because the wusses on the pro McCann sites come over all unnecessary when they read grown up stuff! As if! lol

    3. 11:09 And why shouldn't the family be able to read it? They might well have a few questions of their own!

      Sadly, anyone who has lost a loved one in traumatic circumstances will always be confronted with reminders, or even, as in this case, people testing theories and discussing the results. It is not something they cannot be protected from. Nor should they be, reading it or not reading it,is THEIR choice. Protecting is the same as denying access to. Who are you to say they are too sensitive to be exposed to this information? Isn't that up to them to decide?

      Just to spell it out. If the police found out ANYTHING about Ben's disappearance, should it be kept from Kerry Needham in order to spare her feelings? And should you be allowed to deny her the option?

    4. 2.2 The invisibility of female suicide

      By direct contrast to the studies on male only suicide, a specific focus on issues related to women’s suicide is almost absent from the recent literature. It appears that the topic is been hampered by issues of visibility. As an example, it should be noted that between 1999 and 2012 the percentage rise in the suicide rate among women in Northern Ireland was slightly higher than that experienced among men (Tomlinson 2013), yet their deaths received very little attention. This is consistent with other countries as research suggests that male suicide remains proportionately over-represented in the media even when the higher male suicide rate for men is taken into account (Weinmann and Fishman 1995, Michel et al. 1995).

      As female suicides are rarely encountered in the media, it encourages the view that only men are at risk and die from suicide. More worryingly women also tend to be overlooked in policies on suicide prevention (Rugkhla 2011)


    5. Interesting stuff 14:08, I will look into it, thank you :)

  7. "Cristobell Author ‏@RosalindaHu 1m

    too many questions unanswered."

    Have you or anyone else bothered to contact the relatives of Brenda Leyland to find out if they are unhappy with the inquest verdict?

    1. No, because I would not intrude on them. I am here if they want to speak to me, but that decision is entirely theirs.

      As for the discussion, the public were outraged by the way in which Brenda was set up and literally hounded to death. That outrage won't go away - mostly because it was presented as something that was going to be a regular occurrence if the McCanns had got the result they wanted. We were, and are, still all at risk.

      I don't have the power to stop the discussion, nor do I have the authority to speak on the family's behalf. It will continue whatever I, or they, do. Meanwhile, I respect Brenda's memory and the feelings of those who loved her and a great deal of thought goes into my words. I strive always to write honesty and integrity, I have no wish whatsoever to add to their pain, and if I thought for one moment that I was, I would stop immediately.

      I have no idea if friends or family of Brenda's read my blog, but if they do, they can be assured I am happy to speak to them. Their wishes, are of course my priority.

    2. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton1 June 2016 at 14:01

      Oh Ros - what a bennett like response. You will post what you want and if someone wants to complain they can contact you!

      What a ridiculous attitude to take.

    3. 17:27 There is nothing Bennett like about it. I am not libelling or harassing the family nor am I accusing them of lying or being involved in a heinous crime. There is a BIG difference.

  8. A little off-topic, but I was reading Stephen Birch's Facebook page which has new photos of Murat's house. In a couple of them, it says Murat's mum indicated to Birch's 'undercover agent' the spot where Madeleine is buried under the driveway. People don't know what to believe about this case anymore.

  9. Completely off topic 13:49, but a good opportunity to point out that Stephen Birch is a bigger and more obvious shyster than Bennett and Hall.

    Like Bennett and Hall, has discarded the evidence of the dogs and the findings of the original Portuguese investigation to get an 'I personally solved the McCann Case' front page.

    He is a self publicist. One who goes a tad further than most, but a SP nevertheless. I don't anything about his freaky background, nor do I want to, the man's an idiot.

    My best advice to anyone looking for THE TRUTH behind Madeleine's disappearance is to stop reading if they discard the dogs and make up imaginary scenarios that accuse the witnesses of lying. Remember those hours wasted are hours you will never get back, there is far more interesting and logical reading elsewhere. A good start is Goncalo's book and the McCann files, avoid the nutters!

  10. Well Ros this gets stranger and stranger. Some anonymous person makes 3 posts on an ancient (Sunday, 5 October 2014) blog of yours on 19/04/16 and 02/05/16 (x2). As these were anonymous posts they would need your approval before being published - so you had seen them but at the time made no comment.

    Suddenly weeks later, Teddy decided to draw your attention to the posts that are on your own blog and have been approved by you and they become a hot subject that deserves it's own blog!

    Now you have decided "that the scientific experiment described is very dangerous and was carried out by 'scientific individuals' in 'scientific circumstances'. It is academic research...".

    It most certainly isn't scientific research undertaken by scientific individuals. It is also not academic research. It was a stupid experiment carried out by someone in a bedroom (not controlled laboratory conditions) who attended the inquest helped by a friend who was not even in the room!

    I presume that you have verified the authenticity of this story and maybe even seen the resulting footage from the webcam that was used.

    This is posted under your rules that allow people to have alternative theories and challenge your views.

    1. "I presume that you have verified the authenticity of this story"

      Rather than pontificate about how someone manages their own blog site, shouldn't you perhaps be more concerned about the 'authenticity' of the story advanced during the inquest itself?

      A story told by one member of Leicestershire Constabulary and 'verified' by another, with no evidence produced as to its veracity - no canisters or photographs of canisters, no delivery mechanism or photographs of said mechanism, no explicit identification of the web page said to have been 'imitated' by the deceased, and so on and so on.

      None of that seems to have crossed your mind, yet you consider it important to quibble about how someone describes an attempt at replicating the circumstances said to have led to Brenda Leyland's death.

      Your 'nit-picking' about science and academia is reminiscent of McCann's BS that sniffer dogs are unreliable 'if they are tested scientifically'(which, by the way, is untrue).

      So someone attempts something vaguely dangerous in the privacy of their own home and calls it an experiment. Big deal. The important point is that whoever it was lived to tell the tale, whereas Brenda Leyland, apparently, did not.

      Unfortunately for all concerned the Coroner did not discharge her duty sufficiently for us to 'fill in the blanks' and see for ourselves how Brenda seemingly got it so tragically right.

      What gives rise to such concern on the part of so many is that it was well within her gift to be thorough, yet the proceedings were blatantly not so. Why not?

      But don't let me detract from the importance of good 'blog' management, eh.

    2. @ Anonymous1 June 2016 at 18:12

      my post at 16.55 was for Ros and I await her reply.

      I am not really bothered at all what you think or what your opinions are.

    3. 16:55 Yeh, this is a blog you eejit, I don't have the facilities to verify a scientific experiment.

      If you dispute the way in which the experiment was conducted and the conclusions reached, why don't address them directly? If you have greater knowledge, let's hear it.

      On this occasion I am merely a conduit, and the way in which I run my blog is neither here nor there.

      The above experiment demonstrates that Brenda could not have died in the manner described at the Inquest. That is the issue you should be focusing on.

    4. It demonstrates no such thing. This 'scientist' by their own admission has no specific details of the suicide and therefore is in no position to replicate it.

      I find it impossible to believe that anyone is stupid enough to attempt to enact a suicide and even more incredulous as to the number of people giving it any credence.

      The whole sorry saga is distasteful to say the least and a disgraceful denigration of not only Ms Leyland 's memory but of her family too.

      Obviously this explosive information needs jumping on by a journo unafraid to go where others fear to tread. Now if only we knew one....

    5. Selecting Brenda Leyland as a victim was distasteful. Plastering her name and face all over Sky News and the tabloids with accusations of trolling was distasteful. Everything that forced that poor lady to take her life was distasteful.

      I'm not denigrating Ms Leyland's and her family, I am following Brenda's specific request that we ask questions if she dies in mysterious circumstances.

      Methinks those pretending to protect Brenda and her family, are in fact desperately trying to protect themselves.

    6. Anonymous @21:49

      "I am not really bothered at all what you think or what your opinions are."

      Still, you seem to have grasped the real issue at last:


      "This 'scientist' by their own admission has no specific details of the suicide and therefore is in no position to replicate it."

      The point is that, besides the 'scientist', NO ONE has those specific details - including those present at the inquest.

      THAT is the major failing here, not copycat experimentation or reports thereof.

  11. Tony Bennett has "ignored the dogs"??? You need to get a grip. You used to be someone to be laughed at, but now you have exposed yourself as being a very dangerous person.

  12. Yes Tony Bennett ignoring the dogs! The dogs did not alert to anything related to Robert Murat, yet Bennett is intent on dragging him into it.

    And dangerous in what way? And to whom? I'm curious?

    1. I knew he'd gone to the dogs, but I didn't know he was ignoring them.

  13. So Ros - if Brenda Leyland's death was not suicide, what are you (and others) suggesting happened to her?

    1. Richard D. Hall2 June 2016 at 16:30


    2. I couldn't possibly say, there isn't nearly enough information.

      Where are the receipts for all this specialized paraphernalia she acquired? Where is video footage of her buying it? Where is video footage of her entering the hotel? Every shop has CCTV these days, and so too does every street.

      I am a huge fan of Tru Crime TV, and these days virtually all crimes are solved and prosecuted with video footage.

      I find it impossible to believe that Brenda, who went on twitter and social media to get the Madeleine truth out there, would take her life without leaving a suicide note. The lack of a suicide note becomes more bizarre, when you consider she was an articulate woman and a mother.

      What do I think happened? To be honest, it comes across more like a sinister 'hit', like the special agent who was found in his rucksack.

      It is as though the 'staging' has gone completely over the top so there would be no doubt as to suicide. The ipad conveniently left on the 'how to asphyxiate yourself' page and all the required apparatus readily to hand. It was an open and shut case. It's just a little too perfect.

  14. "I am a huge fan of Tru Crime TV, and these days virtually all crimes are solved and prosecuted with video footage."

    And there lies your problem. Tru Crime TV.

    1. I see no problem - please clarify?

      You think I would get more insight into REAL crime, by reading dusty law books and academic papers? I study body language, micro expressions, forensic linguistics, what better source than actual interviews with actual criminals?

      I do despise snooty, patronising, pretendy academics who limit their education to only that which is approved by recognised academies. Anyone who truly wishes to be enlightened will look for 'sources' all around them.

      My interest in history began with the 'Carry On' films, and my sons have extensive knowledge of Greek Mythology courtesy of the cartoon 'Hercules'. There is no reason why the search for enlightenment should not be fun.

    2. 'Extensive knowledge of Greek mythology' Wow! Via,a kids cartoon. Marvellous.

  15. I find this development very strange. The person who posted their experiment sounds credible, but I have no knowledge of such matters, so cannot judge. What I do fid curious is how concerned some individuals are suddenly about the apparent danger of someone reading this blog and 'trying it at home'? Do they have the same concerns when they read newspaper reports about crimes committed, or dramatisations of Agatha Christie novels? It comes across as terribly disingenuous and I wonder why I should concern anybody that much. On the other hand, I cannot understand why anyone would want to murder Brenda Leyland as her suicide effectively spiked the guns of the weird McCann groupies who had compiled this hitlist, and left all of them - and a great many primed troll-hunting journos - with egg all over their faces. Brenda's death ended the troll hunt as quickly as it had started, so why would anyone deliberately kill her?

    1. I'm struggling with 'motive' too 00:00, the stunt backfired completely BEFORE Brenda took the decision to end her life. Although creatures like Carole Malone were gleefully putting the boot in, the general public were appalled at what Sky did to Brenda. From what I saw online, Brenda was only being attacked by those already attached to Madeleine's case, and sadly that included antis as well as pros. Besides which, she does not appear to have gone online after the 29th - she was found on the 5th.

      I am just speculating here, but just as the media can turn an ordinary woman like Brenda into villain, it could just as easily turn her into a hero and a celebrity - look what they did with Gerry and Kate. Any rival news agency, could have given Brenda a front page and centre spread to tell her side of the story and the story of thousands of others online just like her. And Brenda's story would have exposed the McCanns murky 9 year online campaign of threatening and intimidating their critics on social media. The Stop the Myths Wiki Hate List was removed after Brenda's death, so too all their fiendish plans to target the rest of us.

      Chilling, but it could also be that those who targeted her were twisted enough to believe that the general public would agree with them that Brenda 'got what she deserved' and let that be a lesson to others. Unfortunately for them, the majority of us are not spiteful psychos and the hate they espouse has never taken hold.
      Team McCann wanted to silence their critics online once and for all. Paying Carter Ruck to patrol social media 24/7 is a costly business and not sustainable. For years their Wiki Hate List kept the majority of their critics at bay. A mention on that List meant your employer, family, friends and neighbours would be informed of 'how you behaved online' - you would be shamed and exposed. Brenda was the enactment of everything STMs have been threatening for years. So bad would the 'shaming' be, you would have no option but to kill yourself, followed by 'told you so'.

      It is obvious from the 'Cankles' interview, that Kate and Gerry expected to be overwhelmed with public sympathy for their plight. They had suffered years of online abuse and this was payback. The expected result was a round of applause and a call from the public for a clampdown on trolls.

      Having so drastically misread public feeling on the subject of online trolls, there was a real danger that Brenda could have gone from 'hated troll' to 'people's heroine' within days. She was saying, quite eloquently, what the rest of the public were thinking. I hate to say it, but Brenda's early demise, may have been damage limitation.

    2. Roz
      ''It comes across as a sinister hit''

      ''I'm struggling with motive''

      Make your mind up.

    3. Any danger you might enlighten us as to who 'we' are who, now showing faux concern for Brenda's family after we went to so much trouble to 'destroy' her?

      Does this crap just flow Roz or do you have to think long and hard about it?

  16. "Leyand’s younger son, Ben, who was not present, said in a statement she was a loving mother, a proud and stubborn woman, and “could not bear to think she could be disliked by those in her community”. He said she suffered from extreme bouts of depression and anxiety and was on medication.

    Before the Sky News approach, she had been upset by a “fractious” dispute with a neighbour over an issue concerning a wall.

    He had “no doubt” from the panic in his mother’s voice when she telephoned to tell him of the Sky News incident that “this was the final straw that pushed her then to do what she did”.

    He said his mother was “completely destroyed” by what had occurred. He was trying to organise legal advice for her, he said. In her last email to him, she said she felt “cheerier”.

    When later he could not reach her, he and his brother and father thought she had gone somewhere to “lie low” as she had asked a neighbour to look after her cat for a few days."


    whereas Ros says "What do I think happened? To be honest, it comes across more like a sinister 'hit', like the special agent who was found in his rucksack. "

    1. I will ignore your attempt to mock, I'm fully aware of what I said.

      I'm intrigued that Brenda asked her neighbour to look after her CAT? I thought she had a little dog, which of course would take a lot more looking after than a cat.

      The letter from Ben puts forward a compelling case for suicide, and obviously it cannot be ignored. But, with respect to Ben, I still cannot discard her warning on twitter and the bizarre circumstances in which she was found.

      My family don't approve of my involvement in this case, and they know very little about it themselves. It is on the list of forbidden topics of conversation in our house, along with the Hadron Collider and Hobbits. Trying to explain, even to your own family and friends, that your interest in the Madeleine case is not weird or obsessive is difficult for most of us. It's just too darn complicated, so we keep it to ourselves. I fully understand Brenda's attitude, and the attitude of her sons'.

      However, those of us who are still here, know more than they do. We know just how deep and sinister this rabbit hole is and we know (almost) the full extent of what is being covered up. My conscience tells me it is right to be asking questions.

    2. "My conscience tells me it is right to be asking questions."

      And if it were your mother, and you knew that she had taken her own life, how would you feel about other people who hardly knew her, jumping to conclusions that suit their agendas?

    3. If it were my mother, 21:34, I would be touched that there are people out there who cared enough 'not to accept the first' version, on my mother's behalf.

      No-one is being vindictive towards Brenda or her family. We won't let this matter rest because Brenda deserves to have her good name cleared. 'There, but for the grace of God', could have been any one of us. We too have been labelled evil trolls and action is still being taken to shame and ostracise us. All because we don't believe the McCanns' abduction story!

  17. "My conscience tells me it is right to be asking questions."

    About Brenda's death? I think you'd feel differently if it was a member of your own family. It's perfectly right to ask questions about what Sky News did that week, but the circumstances of Brenda's death was and still is her family's business and theirs alone.

  18. Ros says:

    "Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton3 June 2016 at 10:26

    I will ignore your attempt to mock, I'm fully aware of what I said.

    I'm intrigued that Brenda asked her neighbour to look after her CAT? I thought she had a little dog, which of course would take a lot more looking after than a cat.

    The letter from Ben puts forward a compelling case for suicide, and obviously it cannot be ignored. But, with respect to Ben, I still cannot discard her warning on twitter and the bizarre circumstances in which she was found."

    1. it was not an attempt to mock- I just quoted what you said.

    2. you are the only person in the world that invented Brenda's dog - a long time ago I asked you to name the dog - you didn't do so.

    3. you discard what her son says - but you had no contact with Brenda before she died and you know better than her son who she spoke to.

    Do you see your problem here Ros?

    You have believed and posted an unproven, amateur, unregulated, rubbish experience by someone who attended the inquest (we all know who it is) as if it is relevant!

    You should now consider yourself the biggest poster of bullshit ever in the Mccann case.

    Congratulations for being fooled.

    1. I find it increasingly bizarre that you critics are now so concerned about Brenda and her family. Especially as you went to so much trouble to destroy her and have shown no remorse for the outcome.

      Your first attacks on this particular blog began with the ridiculous notion that I was encouraging people to try this at home. As you got nowhere with that, you are now showing faux concern for Brenda's family. There were no apologies to the family from Gerry, Kate or Jim Gamble, so you will see why your pleas come across as disingenuous.

      I am not claiming to know better than Brenda's son, I am saying that further questions need to be asked. By anyone's standards this case calls for a full investigation, Brenda has the same rights as a UK citizen, as Madeleine. That Brenda's death is so intricately intertwined with the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance should be cause enough for the police to investigate further.

      But returning to your comment. If the tests carried out by my contributor are so amateur and irrelevant, why do they trouble you so much?

      There is a photograph of Brenda with her DOG. I presume its' name is Sweepyface?

      Like it or not, I am one of the more honest contributors to the Madeleine debate. I don't have an outlandish theory to flog, I don't embellish the facts, and I research EVERY side of the argument.

      I'm not here to win friends and influence people, I'm here to discover the TRUTH and I won't be fobbed off with anything less.

    2. "I find it increasingly bizarre that you critics are now so concerned about Brenda and her family. Especially as you went to so much trouble to destroy her and have shown no remorse for the outcome."

      You have no concern for her family. If you did, you would have accepted what they believe and, instead, kept yourself busy by searching for yet another angle to attack the McCanns.

    3. Accepting what other people believe has never really been my thing 21:41. I was the annoying child who kept saying 'but why', and I've never grown out of it.

      Whilst I respect the feelings of the family, I just can't shake off the feelings of Brenda. 'Don't accept the first version'.

      And who said I am accusing the McCanns? I don't believe they are at the very top of this particular food chain. There are others who wield way more power than they do and who have just as much, if not more, to lose.

  19. Colin, I am not the one who splashed Brenda's face and life all over Sky News and the tabloids. Those actions were instigated by the McCanns, Jim Gamble and Sky News.

    Nor do I have control over online discussion of Brenda's mysterious death, the actions of the McCanns, Jim Gamble and Sky News disgusted and outraged the general public, and quite rightly in my opinion. There is something very wicked and sinister about using the media to select a member of the public to destroy on behalf of these so called victims.

    As a member of the public on the same Hate List as Brenda, for my own protection and for the protection of others on that list, it is not only in our interests to have Brenda's death investigated, it is a necessity. Many of us know we could be next.

    Much as I feel for Brenda's family, this must never happen again.

    1. 'As a member of the public on the same Hate List as Brenda, for my own protection and for the protection of others on that list,it is,not only in our interests to have Brenda's death investigated, it is a necessity. Many of us know we could be next'

      Talk about an inflated sense of self importance.

      This is a missing child case not the beginnings of a new cold war.

      Brenda should not have become rolling news, most of us accept that. It can be seen as adding to her fragile mental state. It is indeed very sad but to state, as you did earlier that many were lined up for the same treatment, suicide by shame, job done, is really taking this beyond fantasy.

      BTW, I'd like to know how you know there were a 100 pages dedicated to you in the 'death dossier'? Have you seen it? Are you privy to police evidence?

      I suggest you are equating the dossier with pages on pro sites who find you an object of amusement. Again you have no evidence that the 'dossier' is one and the same.

      Cut the drama out. You are making yourself and your cohorts objects of ridicule.

    2. I'm with you 16.57. I was about to say the same thing. Brenda had zero connection to the case, same as all of us.
      Interest and connection are entirely different.

      Too many self proclaimed scholars, psychologists, artists, crime investigators on here trying to convince everyone that the dark arts are at work.

      Personally it comes across more like self promotion.

  20. for you information Ros- I will post a very short extract without a link:

    "Rational suicide (including helium)

    Helium has been the most popular method of choice for those considering rational suicide."

    I am not going to post anymore from the site.

    Get your head in gear Ros - do some research and shut up about this subject.

    You are so wrong and being led by fools it is embarrassing to you.

    Listen to your sons FGS!

    1. I have actually looked up suicide by helium statistics (purely for research, I'm not looking to try it out)and suicide by helium is extremely rare, your stating it has been THE MOST popular method of 'rational suicide' choice is a complete lie.

      It is actually a very complicated method requiring specialist equipment and a level head to put it all together and carry it out. Most significantly, in order to work, it requires a hood or a plastic bag, neither of which were found at the scene.

      So you see 19:17, doing the research only leads to further questions.

  21. Ros says: "UPDATE 03:06.16

    Can the anonymous author of the below posts, please contact me at......"

    Do you think that all the posts made by anonymous on here are by the same poster?

    If so, you and the "astute Teddy" are idiots. Cos I can assure you that not all the anonymous posts are mine.

    Maybe the astute Teddy should post here himself instead of though you.

  22. So can anybody believe that this is Ros's blog - or is it a conduit for the disgusting vile photo producer "Teddy"? As it has become a conduit for some nutter who does stupid amateur experiments that Ros describes as scientific and academic!!!

    1. Not an art lover then 22:08? I don't happen to find Teddy's artworks 'disgusting' - they are hilarious and provocative in the same way as political cartoons have amused and tantalised the masses for centuries. Not much of a politics or history lover either, by the looks of it. Look up political cartoons through the ages, you might just learn something.

      I see you are also opposed to scientific experiments and the discussion of academic thesis. Again, my sympathy, but you do not have the power to stop other people from following their interests. Most of the greatest inventions and discoveries have begun in the kitchens and workshops of enthusiastic amateurs. Imagine someone telling Marie Curie she was not allowed to play with fire and hot molten metals in case she burned herself.

      Whilst I agree some of Teddy's images are outrageous and shocking, I happen to think that's what art should be all about. If it doesn't make you think, what's the point?

      Teddy is using his talent to draw attention to the injustices in this world, and that's OK by me.

    2. Thanks Ros

      In reply to your dear self, not your troll Who, as far as I'm concerned, can fuck off and die.

      Would that be vile, as in killing your kid and lying to the world about it?

      Its all in the first featured paragraph.

      .....But Pike's actions were bizarre, and thus, this satiric "Photoshop Justice" (as BoingBoing writer Xeni Jardin dubs it) seems to better capture the moment, and the moral outrage the viewer feels, than the photo itself. Great satire does just this: it turns reality on its head, making us laugh while, at the same time, revealing some sort of ugly truth that we can't confront without laughing.

      Cop Art: The Rise of the Citizen Satirist


      Martin Rowson

      Little Lord Cameron and A brief History of British Satirical Cartooning

      British Political Cartoons - Martin Rowson


  23. OMG......really can't get over the stupidity of some......oh well, takes all sorts i s'pos

  24. I'd be interested to know how Teddy came across it. Does he usually search blogs from 2 years ago or did he know it has been posted by other means? Has he explained any of this to you?

    The suicide is strange. The whole story of Brenda is strange. "Predicting" her own demise, the unknown dossier, McCann calling for an example to made, Brunt's door stepping, the reaction of the media and finally the suicide itself. Why go to a hotel?

    The circumstances surrounding all this make it very suspicious. Suicide seems highly unlikely, but murder is even more unlikely.

    People needs to consider how this story was presented and who presented it to us. Before Brunt's door stepping Brenda was a faceless account on twitter. Her prediction of her own death alone should make you and your readers question the twitter account. You knew Sweepyface but you did not know Brenda until Brunt / the msm got involved.

    1. I can't remember exactly how I came across the article, possibly in the comments, where Brenda's death and inquest were discussed at length.

      No doubt there are other salient links within.



  25. I attended the inquest and even now, it's quite a sensitive subject for me. I was in tears typing the comments that I sent to Leanne Baulch at FB's Justice For Madeleine, basically because I knew what I was witnessing - it certainly wasn't justice.

    I decided last year to accept the simplest solution to how poor Brenda died, and told myself that that was what the coroner adjudged it to be. But that's clearly wrong, there's no way that the verdict was the simplest explanation of what happened (and there have been plenty of unsafe coroners verdicts in the UK), and the situation was exacerbated by the fact that we were presented with zero evidence, and heard nothing from those who were actually in attendance after the time Brunt's crew left, up to the time she tragically died (I'll say more on that fact below).

    Probably the most perturbing testimony we heard, for me anyway, which I don't like saying at all and have struggled with since I heard it, was Ben's statement - it's hugely disappointing and I apologise for saying so, but his words to the inquest couldn't have been better scripted by Sky themselves, as they looked to wash their hands entirely of this innocent woman's death. This was on a day when Brunt stated that events had been 'a farce'!

    1. You certainly recovered quickly - you don't look at all tearful in the photo with Sonia and others after the inquest!

    2. It matters not what you believe, when was the photo taken, and how many hours was that after what I'd heard in the inquest?

      And what point are you making exactly, or is it empty words you utter?

    3. I fear you may have a 'photo studier' on your tail James, gawd 'elp you, lol

    4. Lol, I know - "Hold off all Special Branch operations, until we investigate thoroughly how Brenda Leyland's inquest was infiltrated by undercover terrorists"!!

  26. What we actually heard was a son who lives across the Atlantic (without coming to the inquest) describing his mother's 'ill' mental health who had previously attempted suicide after having mentioned it to him and Martin Brunt, with no-one making the decision to pull the broadcast at any time despite this; for which we were then given 'supporting hearsay evidence' from a psychiatrist who hadn't seen Brenda for years (possibly decades, ICR)!! From the moment I heard his statement I entered into a dark psychological torment, and struggled to keep hold of my emotions, I have no problem telling folk here. I can only say that if Sky had sat down with Ben to prepare his statement, then literally not a single word would even raise a question about their hounding of Brenda, let alone condemn it!

    As for the other eye witnesses (some who live/lived in Burton Overy) who we know for certain spoke with Brenda after the door stepping, and most crucially before she died, I'm personally disgusted that no-one else was called to the inquest. Who supposedly sold the helium canisters (why 2 of them?) to Brenda, and what about Brenda's neighbour who we saw on film whom she was getting into the car with? Are we to imagine that no further conversation took place between them; conversation which no doubt would have given greater understanding of Brenda's mental disposition at the time, who may even have been able to detect that something awful could be about to happen? What the inquest left us with, was that 'no-one could possibly have known that Brenda would commit suicide' - well, certainly not those you chose to invite, apparently.

    Then there's also the hotel staff, with the most critical being the one who actually found her body. No photos whatsoever, no paraphernalia such as receipts or phone logs (I can't remember if she reserved a room at The Marriott, and why even go there?). Therefore, the only person from Leicester who offers material testimony as to the events after she was door stepped by Brunt was a dodgy copper who gave his testimony in answer to the coroner's leading question: "What conclusions did you draw?", starting with the comment, "I'll be honest with you..."! (As Teddy Shepherd said to me, 'that's an emphatic "No"').

    So in reality, what we provably know of Brenda's last few days on this Earth is negligible, and it's that which grossly sickens me, she's worth far more than that, even as Madeleine herself is.

    It's hugely problematic, but until we get all the facts from those who undoubtedly encountered Brenda in those last few days, as well the provable facts about her funeral, and possibly the autopsy (none of which is known), I've got no idea where this takes us; and finally I'll make one more point regarding material facts:-

    We can be pretty certain that Brenda had a CRN with The Met, as she herself stated. This means that either a potential crime had been committed against her, or that she was privy to information which proved to be criminal in nature. There simply couldn't be a police investigation if this wasn't so. Police clearly have to put this onto the record, which surely is relevant? What was the alleged crime and how did it relate to Brenda, had it been committed against her, or had she proof of something criminal within the remit of Op Grange (I think the communication she had shared was with them). Again I will emphasise that an individual cannot have a CRN without a genuine allegation of a crime being investigated, and we certainly know how Gerry McCann wanted to 'make an example of' Brenda.

  27. I have read the interviews (in the msm) with neighbours and friends and something isn't right. The landlord saying "there should be laws against" what Brenda did !!! How very convenient.

    And how many people attended this inquest? Every man and his dog by the sounds of it.

    I'm sorry, but the twitter account Sweepyface is very suspicious. Predicting her own demise? And pro-McCanns also saying to her "expect a knock at your door"?

    I don't question whether it was suicide or murder, I question the entire set up. It's all too neat and tidy to say the very least.

    I didn't know Brenda or her son and I highly doubt anyone else here did. This is simply my opinion on a very suspicious news story involving very suspicious characters.

    1. I have no clue what you're trying to suggest, 'Suspicious Minds' - I can't help but wonder why you use the plural. Is it because you purport to being a group of individuals discussing Ms Leyland's death, or is it perhaps that you have more than 1 mind? ;)

      Where you question who attended the inquest, I will say that my name is James Haydon, and it's a matter of public record that I attended, as Anne-Kristine, Alan Taylor-Shearer, Leanne Baulch, Lee Taylor Ryan, Sonia Poulton and even Rebecca Sherlock have verified, the latter whom I was stunned to see after her direct involvement of the harassment which Brenda suffered. I have a number of my own photos taken on the day (including one of Brunt in the same hotel as us), and a few have been published on social media, because we're the sort of people who put our money where our mouth is and go beyond trashy tabloid sensationalism. There were others there who for their own reasons wish not to be named, which I'm more than happy to honour.

      Aside from the press corp, those called for testimony and the court officials, I'd say there was around 12-14 people in the public gallery, where we sat to witness proceedings. It's a day which will last very long in my memory, and not for good reasons.

  28. My father committed suicide. The last thing that I would have wanted would be an ignorant bunch of busybodies sticking their noses into my family's business because they decided that they wanted to believe that his death had been caused by something else. Brenda's family knew her and loved her better than anyone else.

    It's difficult to believe your arrogance.

    1. Was your father linked to a crime in Portugal and a cover up by the British Government and media?

      Nobody is sticking their nose into Brenda's family's business - they are not under suspicion. What we are concerned with is the circumstances of Brenda's death, starting with the very public attack by Sky News through to the complete lack of detail provided at the Inquest.

      I am sorry to hear of your father's suicide, but Brenda's life and death were made public by those who wished her harm, not me.

    2. What's 'difficult to believe', @ 16:07, is that you really give two hoots about Brenda's death, or that you have any knowledge whatever of what was 'beloved' to her. To which family do you refer in your comment, do you even know any of the facts about her family members, her son and her ex-husband? It certainly doesn't look like it.

      Had the sensational headlines about poor Brenda passed you by perchance?

      Sky News repeatedly declared to the whole world how all this was so much in the 'public interest', only when faced with the consequences of their cowardice and harassment of an innocent and thoroughly decent senior citizen, they suddenly became voiceless and do everything to mitigate against their guilt. They are brazenly unconscionable and contemptible, all because they wanted to sell a McCann story.

      Yet you save your criticism for a handful of commentators whose only desire is for justice to be done. If you don't like what you're reading here, keep away from it is my advice.

    3. "the complete lack of detail provided at the Inquest"

      Have you been through an inquest process yourself? Whether Brenda's family were in the court or not the inquest is public and neither coroner nor witnesses have any desire to tell the court/public every last detail. An inquest is not a public examination of the person who has died. There is rightly privacy after death.

      You may be genuine but others are not and they have no shame about exploiting Brenda's death.

  29. How on earth was her death linked to the crime in Portugal? What evidence did she have that would have made her ripe for assassination? She sent hundreds of tweets of accusation but had no evidence to back up those tweets.

    For someone who prides themselves on being a specialist in the field of psychiatry, I'm surprised that you do not recognise the obsessive and depressive nature of Brenda Leyland that could send her into such a troubled state of mind that caused her to take her own life.

    1. STOP NOW.

    2. You sound quite perturbed 17:54. Can you tell me why via private email, or comment that I won't publish?

  30. Actually the evidence she had was quite substantial. She was an educated, articulate woman, non threatening member of the public and representative of the majority of people who don't believe the McCanns.

    Had she given her side of the story, there was a good chance hundreds, if not thousands, would also have taken up the Justice for Madeleine cause.

    Brenda Leyland was the evidence. She was evidence that the people online questioning the McCanns, were far from the 'haters' portrayed by Gamble, Summers and Swan, they were ordinary people just like Brenda

  31. Ah Justice for Brenda Leyland blog now - great - what on earth you and your mates hope to achieve Ros is difficult to guess.

  32. @ JNH4 June 2016 at 13:00
    "I decided last year to accept the simplest solution to how poor Brenda died, and told myself that that was what the coroner adjudged it to be. But that's clearly wrong, there's no way that the verdict was the simplest explanation of what happened..."

    So what is your explanation of what happened to Brenda?

    1. I'm going to take this as a separate comment to the one below, @ 18:41, as it definitely appears to be from a different person.

      As I tried to show above, I've gone over this many times, and I'm genuinely at a complete loss to what I believe happened. I mentioned in my comments that we are simply too unaware of many provable facts regarding Brenda and what lead up to her tragic death. Until such time as those facts will come out (or rather, if they come out), then I believe there simply is no explanation.

      It's a travesty (IMO) that the verdict is nothing more than an assumption, and that what we were told is that the coroner 'knows the existence of more evidence', which we were not given. Why have a public inquest when you have no intention of releasing the evidence to the public, especially one which so critically implicates members of a media organisation? Coroners are public servants paid by the taxpayer, who have rightful claim to a transparent and thorough judicial process. This most certainly wasn't that.

    2. I did too James. Accept the simplest solution that is. To go any further is frankly, mindblowing. However the same could be said of this entire saga, as George Galloway said, if what we suspect is true, then this is the mother of all crimes.

      I still find it amazing that this case drags on and that the police keep up the pretence that they don't suspect the parents. In the cases of Lisa Irwin, Isabelle Cellis and Sabrina Aisenberg, the police have no qualms is saying they are looking for other suspects. These cases btw, illustrate how difficult it is for police to get a prosecution in these cases.

      I had expected this case to be solved years ago, possibly in the same way as before, ie. the police could go no further because witnesses stopped co-operating.

      However, it is the pretence of a search that troubles me. In the cases above, the police forces didn't bother. Why are so many people going to so much trouble to keep the abduction myth alive? Though not so much these days, it must be said.I still find it hard to unbelievable that the tabloids continue to act as Clarence Mitchell's bitches, by sticking to his rules.

      I have to say I have watched this whole sorry saga with what I can only describe as wonderment, Gerry gets a standing ovation from the police, Kate is made Ambassador for missing children. It's as though everything I ever believed in was completely phoney. The UK suddenly became the Twilight Zone!

    3. Oh Ros, these nine sorry years (and it looks likely to go on at least to ten, if at long last there will be a conviction [oh most pitiful and forlorn hope ever to exist]), have indeed brought about the most ridiculous and venomous interventions possible!

      It's not that science and reason have been so present that we have no remedy to these ridiculous games, but that Confusion, once she was sent into perform (i.e. very early) her machinations have confounded far too many people, and I personally despise the darkness she has created. Let the Light shine, lol.

  33. JNH4 June 2016 at 17:32
    "Yet you save your criticism for a handful of commentators whose only desire is for justice to be done. If you don't like what you're reading here, keep away from it is my advice."

    I see your answer to people commenting on your posts is to tell them to go away.

    Are you running this blog now?

    Don't you know that Ros invites questions and alternative views?

    1. My answer would be the same as James, why do you continue to read something that obviously upsets you?

      James isn't telling me to drop this subject or make any changes to my blog, that's coming from the critics!

    2. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton4 June 2016 at 18:50

      well why don't you have a little closed blog with your mates then?

      If you don't like comments or alternative views just tell me and I will leave you to your cosy corner of the internet.

    3. Thanks Ros, of course I wasn't telling you how 'to run your blog' or telling them to 'go away', only that if they don't like reading the blog and the comments here, then to avaunt might be a choice they could take! Especially so when associated with the distress of losing your father to suicide, which is surely the only reason for the individual mentioning that.

      The anonymous person said this: "The last thing that I would have wanted would be an ignorant bunch of busybodies sticking their noses into my family's business because they decided that they wanted to believe that his death had been caused by something else..." and yet, here they are, making ignorant claims about Brenda's family, contributing to the discussion! Some of these folk don't do irony, it seems.

    4. I refer you to the title of this blog 19:23, 'Cristobell UNBOUND'. Why should I censor my blog because you dislike its' content? The choice to read it is entirely yours.

      You are quite welcome to comment 19:23, but I don't have to take your advice. I have a blog because it gives me the freedom to write whatever I like. I am passionately opposed to censorship, in fact it is one of the driving forces behind my own 'Madeleine' campaign. I see the threat of these so called child predators as a backdoor way in which to police the internet.

  34. JNH - You have no clue what I'm trying to suggest. Okay. With regards to what?

    I think I made my thoughts on the Brenda Leyland story very clear in the two posts that sandwiched your own. Do I need to explain further or are still without a clue regarding my thoughts on the story?

    With regards to the inquest. If you or anyone else want to attend an inquest for someone you don't know then that's your business. I just found it odd that on twitter people say they attended and here, in the post following on from my own (yours) someone else said it. I don't come on here much so perhaps by coincidence it seemed to me everywhere I turned someone attended.

    Does that clear things up for you? Oh and I called myself suspicious minds because ever since Ros posted this information that's what I see. It seemed apt

    1. SM. Thanks for replying, I'm sorry for being antagonistic in reference to your name here, it's wholly unnecessary.

      I just can't see what it is that you're saying exactly? Indeed, suspicion abounds in Brenda's tragedy, which is no doubt one of the fundamental reasons for Rosalinda's blog discussing it.

      I genuinely have no idea of which way this whole story will turn, but if anyone can come up with some real answers, then I believe it's worth discussing, as challenging as that may be.

  35. JNH4 June 2016 at 19:26
    "It's a travesty (IMO) that the verdict is nothing more than an assumption, and that what we were told is that the coroner 'knows the existence of more evidence', which we were not given"

    So how do you know that the coroner did not have photos of the scene, photos of the cannisters and equipment used, details of where and when the were purchased etc etc?

    Becuae this information was not revealed to you, does not mean it does not exist.

    1. Nowhere have I said that the evidence does not exist, as it's an impossible claim to make!

      Why wouldn't Ms Mason simply release it, in a public inquest which is one of the fundamental reasons that they exist?!!

      In such a judicial process, wherein guilty corporate liars have much to hide and their backs benevolently scratched by public officials, the presentation of the 'whole truth and nothing but the truth' would be a responsible and democratic way of clearing up all the days and hours leading up to Brenda's tragedy.

      Once more in the UK, the public receives a mere semblance of democratic justice, and a threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

    2. Exactly James. If the evidence exists why not just release it and end the speculation?

    3. That's not the coroner's job, JNH.

      Brenda's family, or person representing them, could have examined the witnesses. Sounds like that didn't happen in this inquest, but you can't blame the coroner for that.

    4. Precisely Ros, that's what inquests are actually for!

    5. It was already verified.

  36. JNH - Apology accepted. Personally, I am not here to wind anybody up or to offend people, but with a sensitive subject such as this, it is surely inevitable.

    Before these experiments were brought to our attention I already had my doubts about the whole Brenda Leyland story. The reported experiments did not change my view at all, but they do seem to have altered everyone else's.

    Sweepyface was an anonymous account on twitter. Unlike Ros, Anne, and many others the person who ran the account did not reveal their identity. That is a fact.

    The account holder "predicted" their own demise. That is also a fact.

    Now, I do not believe in psychics. And to think the contents of that twitter account warranted the threat of death is preposterous.

    The story: Gerry McCann wanted an example made. A dossier that nobody has seen is talked about. Then, somehow, Martin Brunt and Sky News locate and decide to surprise a woman in her 60s who we've never seen before. We are told this woman ran the anonymous twitter account Sweepyface.

    Already this is way over the top for a twitter account. All those online abusers using profanity or worse NEVER get this treatment or even close. Yet Brenda Leyland gets the full force of the media and then some.

    I was already beginning to question it.

    Then, this woman, who none of knew until Sky introduced her to us, kills herself in very suspicious circumstances. The "prediction" of Sweepyface comes true. The only account on twitter that asks us that should anything happen we are to question it.

    What is surprising to me, is after all of that it is only now, after these reported experiments, that the validity of what we are presented is being questioned.

    I don't believe any of it.

    It's a news story spun by Murdoch and his cronies which involves the McCanns. Need I say more?

    That is my opinion on the matter.

    The landlord saying "there should be laws against" people like Brenda says it all. That is the reason behind it.

  37. "Sergeant Kevin Taylor, who now works at Loughborough police station, but was based at Braunstone at the time, was the first officer on the scene and found Ms Leyland's body.

    He told the inquest that on the iPad found in the room with Ms Leyland, a website was open, which detailed how somebody could take their life using helium.

    Coroner Catherine Mason asked Sgt Taylor whether the scene in the bedroom "mirrored the instructions that could be seen on the iPad screen" to which Sgt Taylor replied: "Yes"."

    1. Kev and Cath? Cool!

    2. @ Anonymous5 June 2016 at 18:02

      Kev and Cath? Cool!

      I am sure your comment is incredibly funny and causes much hilarity on the forum you are from.

      Unfortunately I have no idea what your cryptic reply means.

    3. It means you have a choice to be kind, and to thank your lucky stars it wasn't murder.

  38. The truth is not told by Sgt Kevin Taylor or by the Coroner Catherine Mason.

    If you believe they are being truthful then you must also believe that anonymous Twitter accounts can predict the future.

    They cannot.

    And if you think it's a coincidence that Sweepyface said - if anything happens we must question it - and now 2 years down the line you are questioning it... then you need to wake up.

    The entire Sweepyface / Brenda Leyland story was planned.

    It is the ONLY logical explanation.

    Scroll up to read my other posts for a further explanation. If you don't agree with me then that is your choice.

    1. If it was planned Suspicious Minds, then it was the worst plan since Hitler decided to invade Russia. Everything went horribly wrong and it will probably cost them their entire campaign.

      I believe it was planned in as much as Gerry and Jim expected the public to be up in arms at the treatment the Gerry and Kate were receiving on social media. They were appealing again for public sympathy and they believed their plight would touch hearts and wallets.

      I can almost imagine the gleeful dialogue in the Team McCann War Rooms, exposing Brenda was to be their moment of glory. They assumed (wrongly) that the public would be appalled at the behaviour of Brenda and others like her, and would demand that the government clamp down on the internet 'trolls'. They wanted to show that 'haters' are disguised as ordinary people hiding within our midst, reds under the bed and all that.

      The problem with megalomaniacs is that they believe everyone thinks as they do, or can be made to. Gerry and Kate see themselves as victims, they have spent the last 9 years seething and apoplectic with rage at all the injustices they have endured. Gerry and Kate are eternal victims (it is the way they were raised), they always blame other people for the situations they find themselves in. If only Amaral would give them the money, if only the media would give them the opportunity to explain themselves in a Clarence approved feature, and if only the government would pass a Law that will stop people criticising them forever more. Then, and only then, will they be happy again. That's only a sample of the 'if only' list btw, I imagine it runs to volumes.

      Of all the thousands front pages over the years, the majority show Kate and Gerry blaming someone else for their suffering. The pair are so focused on their own suffering, that they blind to everything else and they cannot understand why the general public don't always show them the sympathy they deserve.

      Outing Brenda was supposed to change all that. Once the public were aware of the suffering the McCanns endured online, the critics could be silenced once and for all.

      There is no doubt about their intentions Suspicious Minds, they were absolutely clear. Gerry wanted an example made, and Jim Gamble wanted people like Brenda 'in the dock'.

    2. If you think the plan was to silence critics of McCanns then it was the worst plan ever. But that was NOT the reason.

      The story was about TROLLS.

      The McCanns were simply being used to highlight this. Again people think the McCanns are in charge here !!! They aren't. They are props.

      What word do we remember from the Sweepyface / Brenda Leyland story?

      That's what it's about.

    3. That's all very well but it doesn't explain why Brenda Leyland, only one of all the hundreds that have criticised Kate and Gerry?

      From what you've said about the years you've been studying and commenting on the case, surely you would be a better target to use an an example to the rest? Not an anonymous sweepyface.

    4. Anonymity is the key word here 12:53. They were targeting those hiding behind anonymity to criticise the McCanns.

      I have never hidden my entity and there is nothing 'hater like' in my tweets or blogs, nothing they could turn into a sensational headline. They have nothing to threaten me with, I've got nothing left to lose! It would be like asking Joan of Arc to 'just sign here' or they would turn up the heat.

      They wanted someone disguised as a 'normal' person 12:53, to illustrate the danger that lurks unbeknown in our midst. Think of wartime propaganda and 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' - that unheimlich moment. They want us to fear our neighbours.

    5. If this is a controlled story to highlight and label people as trolls (which I believe it is) then you need to control all of the story.

      This means that the anonymous Sweepyface was a controlled account. The very fact the account predicts this outcome (us questioning what happened) proves this.

      Unless of course you believe in prophesy and psychics. Which I most certainly do not.

    6. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton6 June 2016 at 14:24

      Why would they want an anonymous sacrifice, a real life named target would have much more impact than a sweepyface or any other twitter name. I don't quite understand what you mean by saying you've nothing left to lose just because you write using your real name. Anyhow, if you follow that line of thinking, the anonymous sweepyface tweeter was named wasn't she? Brenda Layland?

      I'm with Suspicious Minds, I've always thought the whole thing was a hoax. If there was a Brenda Leyland that ended her own life, I don't believe it was anything to do with this dossier.

      Has anyone ever seen the troll dossier? I've only seen tweets said to be from sweepyface, nothing to suggest someone was signed out of the many as an example to anti McCann trolls. trolls.

    7. I think the "discovery" of these alleged experiments has backfired.

      We are no longer questioning the suicide we are questioning the whole story.

      Has Teddy explained himself yet? Was he simply trawling through an old blog or did he know those posts would be there? Maybe he is another Sweepyface - an agent provocateur - if that's the right name for it. I don't want to accuse, but I don't know Teddy and it was Teddy who drew our attention to this.

      His discovery of these alleged experiments caused the questioning and the questioning fulfills the "prophecy"

      If Sweepyface was a controlled account, which in my opinion it clearly was, then there was no Brenda Leyland. You can't have one without the other.

    8. It wasn't Teddy who spotted it

      Anonymous Martin Roberts said...
      Re: Brenda Leyland

      The very last series of comments is worth reading:


      3 May 2016 at 23:26

    9. @ anon 21.25

      Ros said:

      Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton1 June 2016 at 08:48

      Actually, it was Teddy who drew my attention to it"


      As has been said before - the posts about the "experiment" were made on Ros's blog a while ago and they must have been approved by Ros as they were made by Anonymous.

    10. I thought Ros said it was Teddy that brought the posts to her attention. No matter. If I am mistaken then my apologies to Teddy,

      The last few posts on that thread are interesting. Especially the last one as that is something I hadn't considered.

      I have saved that thread and this one in another format. Too much good information to risk losing.

      I think it is fair to say that between both threads the entire story has been torn to pieces.

      After reading all of this information and talking it through with others I believe there can be no doubt that the ENTIRE Sweepyface / Brenda Leyland story is a lie.

    11. Sorry I should have made it clearer, Dr Roberts brought it to the attention of Teddy and Teddy brought it to the attention of Roz.

    12. So what are Dr Roberts views on all this? Does he have a view or is he just pointing things out? Opinions matter. Discussions like this matter.

      If the wool is being pulled re. Sweepyface / Brenda Leyland then what else is there?

      If a story seems odd & its exposure is way over the top (which this was) then you can be sure something else is going on - a "hidden" agenda is being pushed.

    13. Hi SM, I have much respect for Dr Roberts and his analysis of this whole McCann case. If you click in on the link below and pick up the thread from round about the 3 May.


  39. "The iPad was open on the bed, Sarg T tapped/touched the screen, it came on, and 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?

    1. Whatever Brenda Leyland's shortcomings she was not an idiot.

      Why did she need the I-pad if she'd already been researching suicide by helium at home?

      Instructions for use (i.e. balloon filling) should have been on the canisters themselves.

      Substituting one's lips for the neck of a balloon, as in: 'Insert spout in mouth and squeeze valve' hardly needs a page from Wikipedia to accomplish.

      Unless there were more to it than that (which of course there is in deliberate attempts at suicide in this fashion)

      Which means that more apparatus than just the two canisters should have been reported as found at the scene.

      The complexity of those i-pad instructions would not have 'mirrored' the simplicity of the equipment.

  40. Suspicious Minds6 June 2016 at 01:06

    The truth is not told by Sgt Kevin Taylor or by the Coroner Catherine Mason."


    That is a very serious allegation and you have no evidence to support it - just your opinion.

    1. Correct. That is my opinion. If I believe they are being truthful then that means people can predict the future. I don't believe that so I don't believe them.

  41. Mason and the Bury slops are on the road to nowhere.

  42. Perceptions and emotions aside, I would like to thank Kate for her contributions to the songs, especially "I Hope" it made me cry, more than once. Simply beautiful.

    1. How is that relevant to this blog? It's about Sweepyface / Brenda Leyland.

      Shall we all have a go?

      Ignoring this thread entirely I'd just like to thank Rick Astley for his contribution to a song that has absolutely nothing to do with this blog. Simply beautiful Rick. Thanks.

  43. Suspicious Minds6 June 2016 at 23:40


    "I think it is fair to say that between both threads the entire story has been torn to pieces.

    After reading all of this information and talking it through with others I believe there can be no doubt that the ENTIRE Sweepyface / Brenda Leyland story is a lie."


    I don't think there is any evidence or information contained in the two blogs that make any difference to the official verdict of the inquest. You should not confuse people's opinion with evidence.

    You state that the ENTIRE Sweepyface / Brenda Leyland story is a lie.

    So are you saying that there was no person called Brenda Leyland tweeting about the Mccanns - it was a lie?

    Are you saying that Brunt did not visit Brenda and interview her - it was a lie?

    Are you saying that her son did not discuss matters with Brenda - it was a lie?

    Are you saying that Brenda did not go to a hotel and was not discovered dead - it was a lie?

    You have already said that The truth is not told by Sgt Kevin Taylor or by the Coroner Catherine Mason - it was a lie.

    I won't ask you what you think really happened because you say the whole serious of events was a lie!

    1. Glad to see you've been keeping up. Thank you for reminding everyone.

      The official sources lied about Hillsborough. Did that make it the truth? NO !!!

      So in answer to your post this is what I think...

      "You should not confuse people's opinions with evidence"

      I have stated the whole way through that this is what I THINK. That my posts are MY OPINION. Personally I don't trust the "evidence". That is MY CHOICE.

      "Are you saying there was no person called Brenda Leyland tweeting about the McCanns - it was a lie?"

      There was an anonymous account called Sweepyface tweeting about the McCanns. That is a fact. Was a woman called Brebda Leyland behind it? No. I THINK that was a lie.

      "Are you saying Brunt didn't visit Brenda Leyland and interviewed her - it was a lie"

      Brunt interviewed a woman we were told was called Brenda Leyland. Do I THINK it was a set up? Yes.
      MY OPINION is it was not genuine.

      "Are you saying her son did not discuss matters with Brenda - it was a lie?"

      Yes, that is MY OPINION.

      "Are you saying Brenda did not go to a hotel room and did not die - it was a lie?"

      Yes, in MY OPINION that is all a lie.

      "I won't ask you what you think"

      What I think has been explained in at least 8 posts which you have obviously read. So you have no need to ask me.

      The FACT that the account Sweepyface predicts the future tells me that it is all a lie. I don't believe in prophecy or psychic ability.

      Now, that is MY OPINION. It is also an opinion that is shared by others.

      I understand that many will not share the same opinion and that is THEIR CHOICE.

      Hope that's cleared it up for you. Whatever it was you were trying to say.

    2. Given the concern for 'evidence'...

      "Suicide notes and personal letters will only be read out at the inquest if the coroner decides it is important to do so....Photographs of the deceased and of the scene of death may also form part of the evidence presented at the inquest."

      (taken from


      There was no suicide note by all accounts, but what about photographs of the 'scene of death'? Why was the coroner seemingly dependent upon the graphic portrayal put forward by Sgt. Taylor?

      No SOCO (Scene of Crime Officer) was called to give evidence, and I would question whether one was even despatched to the Hotel to record the situation.

      Such disregard for procedure would be suspicious in itself.

    3. "Such disregard for procedure would be suspicious in itself"

      Yet another reason to be suspicious of the official narrative. Is there any part of this story that isn't questionable?

  44. Ros you have now got an answer to the question:


    to summarise -

    Brenda Leyland was not sweepyface - it was a lie.

    Brunt did not interview a woman called Brenda Leyland - it was a setup.

    Brenda Leyland's son did not discuss matters with her - it was a lie.

    Brenda Leyland did not go to a hotel and did not die - it is a lie.

    The person we were told was Brenda Leyland is therefore not dead.

    Of course this is only one person's opinion based on your two blogs and discussing it with people (who share the same opinion).

    It's all been a scam.

    1. NOT just one persons opinion.

      MANY people think this.

      If you had been paying attention to this thread alone somebody else said they had thought this for a while.

      This OPINION has been around a lot longer than this thread. Obviously you have never heard it before.

      If the POLICE and the MEDIA can collude and tell despicable lies about the victims of Hillsborough (which they did) they can do anything. And compared to Hillsborough this is nothing.

      You omit from your summary all the reasons given for this opinion, but fortunately, if anyone wants to understand the thoughts behind them, they are all written in the posts above AND in others blogs besides this one.

      Thank you yet again for drawing attention to this OPINION on the subject.

    2. I know one thing for sure, whoever masterminded this charade certainly pulled it off to perfection. After all this time fhe fooled are still being fooled by this ficticious story of an anonymous woman, who suddenly and miraculously was identified as a woman living alone in close proximity to Kate and Gerry McCann, with mental health issues, a history of suicide attempts, estranged family. In a very short space of time singled out, hounded, door-stepped by none other than Sky News, popular mouthpiece for the McCanns and more incredible than anything, takes her own life because she was, according to the video clip, saying what she was entitled to say?

      Before any of this kicked off, the sweepyface was happily tweeting away day after day but out of the blue she stopped and the rest as they say is history. Sweepyface predicted her own fate by those words tweeted one day for no apparent reason and now there are one or two or more fools jumping on the bandwagon by predicting their own fate to follow in her footsteps. How utterly foolish, why would anyone in their right mind even think of such a thing.

  45. Just to clarify things Suspicious Minds - whose body did they find in the hotel and perform the post mortem on?

    1. What part of its all a lie don't you understood?

  46. There is also this article in the Daily Mail, where some tweets are shown and it says "Some identities have been withheld for legal reasons" and they've blanked out the Twitter IDs of three people but not the one for @sweepyface, so presumably @sweepyface had given permission for their Twitter identity to be published.


    1. According to the Daily Mail !!!!!!
      If the anonymous Sweepyface was a controlled account as part of a controlled story (which I think it clearly was) then no permission was required.


    2. Can I just say, it's a little hard to figure out who is who when so many here are just called Anonymous. Your post could be supportive or against as its a little ambiguous.

  47. I tweeted with Sweepyface occasionally & the tweet about questioning her death if something was to happen was basically validating her right to ask questions about Madeleine's disappearance

    The tweet about men in dark coats? was after a blog had claimed (not exact quote) men in dark coats had asked them to stop

    Matthew Wright

    1. The face is Sweepyface did tweet - if anything happens question it - and that's exactly what happened. Nobody else tweeted that until after. Future predicted.

      Not sure I'm aware of the "men in dark coats" thing you're referring to.

    2. Can I just add, I also tweeted Sweepyface myself. That does not mean the anonymous account was "real". The account blended in with the others - that was the intention.

  48. Yep, I can see that the Sweepyface thing could easily have been a set up and a complete hoax to make people think twice about criticising the saintly duo ..... 'Don't question the official McCann mantra, or you too could end up dead.'

    Lying signs and wonders.

    1. I've said it before but I don't think the "hoax" was about making people think twice about questioning the McCanns.

      The story was about highlighting anonymous "abusers" and labelling them as trolls.

      The McCanns ROLE is as figureheads and spokespeople in the fight against such persons - Leveson, Social media and Libel trials. The McCanns are USEFUL.

      In light of this it's entirely possible that the McCanns themselves have been engineered for this role.

      Regardless, the Sweepyface story was about anonymous trolls and painting such folk in a bad light > manic depressive, suicidal, hate filled, deluded etc etc.

    2. In fact, if we consider the possibility that the McCanns have been engineered for this role then the Sweepyface / Brenda Leyland story is perfect. It adds fuel to the fire.

      The McCanns become even more disliked and even more questions are asked. The "trolling" increases and Brenda Leyland is another name is add to the list of McCann victims !!!

      So those of you who think this story is meant to scare off questions, if anything, the story was designed for the complete opposite, to increase the questions.

    3. @Suspicious Minds

      So where do you think Jim Gamble fits into all this?

      And Summers and Swan?

      They were all involved in the pursuit of Brenda Leyland and the exposure of McCann "trolls". How do they fit into your theory about it being unconnected to the McCanns themselves, but about the general fight against internet "trolls"?

    4. I never said it wasn't connected to the McCanns. Of course it's connected to them. Gerry spoke out. Sweepyface was an anti McCann.

      However, the word that comes out of the story is TROLL. That's what we remember about it. The over-use of that word.

      You say it yourself - the exposure of trolls.

      In this case the subject is Sweepyface / Brenda Leyland. A subject who speaks against the McCanns. So you need defenders of McCann to call for action. Gamble and SS do that.

      But then you also have others in the story, like the local landlord, who say things like "there should be laws against people" who do what Brenda did. That quote is more general and that quote was in the msm.

    5. Ask the general public who Gamble and Summers & Swan are and they haven't a clue. Even Brenda Leyland they'd struggle with but say "that woman who everyone called a troll who killed herself" and the answer will probably be "oh yes, I remember her. Did she kill herself?"

      Harsh, but true. General public don't really give a stuff. They remember her being a troll though.