Brenda Leyland. Coroner's Court reconvenes on 20 March 2015.

[Mr Gray]

I would say she was selected as an easy target.

IMO of course.

The mccanns are an easy target

[Mr Gray]

So a legitimate target of revenge davel ?

Choose your words carefully., since you are condoning vigil[ censored word]m, which is undeniably breaking the law.

who mentioned revenge..you did not me

[Brietta]

As far as I can see, the coroner needed more time for the cause of death to be established; possibly needing toxicology reports etc; it will be up to her to decide whether or not a judicial inquiry into the death is necessary.

Since it has been reported that foul play is not involved … her involvement may cease when the actual cause of death is known. 

Whatever the coroner decides there will doubtless be a media scrum reporting on the inquiry, should there be one, as it happens … and should there be no inquiry there will be media coverage dissecting her on-line activities.

In either case, the big losers in all of this are her family.


A post-mortem examination on the body of a woman accused of "trolling" the family of Madeleine McCann's parents failed to find a cause of death, an inquest has heard.
Brenda Leyland, from Leicestershire, was found dead at a hotel days after Sky News confronted her over thousands of messages posted on Twitter.
An inquest into the 63-year-old's death was told there was no foul play.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-29541009

[stephen25000]

It seems you have that wrong as well...BHH mentioned the family

Trolls face longer jail terms for spreading misery



Kate McCann handed police a dossier of abusive posts (Adrian Sherratt)


THEY are the modern scourge: cowards who use the anonymity of the internet to viciously abuse people by issuing threats to rape, mutilate or murder.

 Chris Grayling, the justice secretary, better known for his tough stance on the European convention on human rights, has turned his fire on so-called trolls, people who use social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook to harass and intimidate victims.

 “People are being abused online in the most crude and degrading fashion,” Grayling said last night.

 “We must send out a clear message: if you troll, you risk being behind bars for two years.”

 Many of the victims of these trolls are women, among them the Labour MP Stella Creasy, the TV presenter Judy Finnigan and her daughter Chloe Madeley, and Kate McCann, the mother of missing Madeleine.

 Last month McCann and her husband Gerry handed police an 80-page dossier containing hundreds of tweets,


http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Tech/article1473136.ece

[Mr Gray]

Ar e you now going to acknowledge who gave the dossier to the police ?

well if the ST said it we can assume they are wrong

[faithlilly]

It seems they simply wanted him to stop defaming them - leaflets, books, the "foundation" etc.  Bringing a civil action was a way of doing so where they could exercise a measure of control over the proceedings.

They were not to know that he felt that standing by an undertaking to the High Court was optional.

Surely 'control' wasn't an issue, stopping the harassment was and involving the police was the best way of achieving this, and certainly a lot cheaper for the fund.

[Alice Purjorick]

As far as I can see, the coroner needed more time for the cause of death to be established; possibly needing toxicology reports etc; it will be up to her to decide whether or not a judicial inquiry into the death is necessary.

Since it has been reported that foul play is not involved … her involvement may cease when the actual cause of death is known. 

Whatever the coroner decides there will doubtless be a media scrum reporting on the inquiry, should there be one, as it happens … and should there be no inquiry there will be media coverage dissecting her on-line activities.

In either case, the big losers in all of this are her family.


A post-mortem examination on the body of a woman accused of "trolling" the family of Madeleine McCann's parents failed to find a cause of death, an inquest has heard.
Brenda Leyland, from Leicestershire, was found dead at a hotel days after Sky News confronted her over thousands of messages posted on Twitter.
An inquest into the 63-year-old's death was told there was no foul play.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-29541009

The coroner adjourned the inquest because the police were still investigating and the pathologist had not given a cause of death. The coroner will remain "interested" until her report is completed. A coroner has the power to investigate the circumstances leading to a sudden or unexpected death, ask the police to perform specific investigations on her behalf and to questions properly interested parties. This one may or may not have a lot of legs left in it; I wouldn't lay my purse on either option.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCwQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcoroners.leicester.gov.uk%2FEasysiteWeb%2Fgetresource.axd%3FAssetID%3D63613%26type%3Dfull%26servicetype%3DAttachment&ei=YNtTVLKoKuea7gbioICoCw&usg=AFQjCNGPrTXU_m3wHSOqPf0rzgYe2efHGw&bvm=bv.78677474,d.ZGU

[Brietta]

The coroner adjourned the inquest because the police were still investigating and the pathologist had not given a cause of death. The coroner will remain "interested" until her report is completed. A coroner has the power to investigate the circumstances leading to a sudden or unexpected death, ask the police to perform specific investigations on her behalf and to questions properly interested parties. This one may or may not have a lot of legs left in it; I wouldn't lay my purse on either option.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCwQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcoroners.leicester.gov.uk%2FEasysiteWeb%2Fgetresource.axd%3FAssetID%3D63613%26type%3Dfull%26servicetype%3DAttachment&ei=YNtTVLKoKuea7gbioICoCw&usg=AFQjCNGPrTXU_m3wHSOqPf0rzgYe2efHGw&bvm=bv.78677474,d.ZGU

It all depends on the coroner. 

I think under normal circumstances she would choose to close everything as discretely as possible to spare the family; I think she will be aware that in this particular case the last thing that will be taken into consideration are the sensibilities of the family, so she may decide that since it is going to happen anyway (I am sure the papers are just waiting for the verdict so they can run with it), it will be carried out by her court.

[stephen25000]

well if the ST said it we can assume they are wrong

No dave.

[Alice Purjorick]

It all depends on the coroner. 

I think under normal circumstances she would choose to close everything as discretely as possible to spare the family; I think she will be aware that in this particular case the last thing that will be taken into consideration are the sensibilities of the family, so she may decide that since it is going to happen anyway (I am sure the papers are just waiting for the verdict so they can run with it), it will be carried out by her court.

The coroner is duty bound to investigate circumstances surrounding the death and give a verdict and report. A coroners inquest is carried out in the public interest. The real point I was driving at is whether or not that investigation into the circumstances will be a) as minimal as some would have or b) as far reaching as others would have. My view is that the coroner will do what she is obliged to do under the law and I would not bet on how far it will go because I don't have the information she will have so second guessing whilst the oxygen of life for a forum like this is in real terms a somewhat fruitless exercise. IMHO of course.

[Alfred R Jones]

As the dossier compilers have done absolutely nothing wrong they will certainly not be required to give an account of themselves at the inquest.  And that really is all you need to know.

[stephen25000]

As the dossier compilers have done absolutely nothing wrong they will certainly not be required to give an account of themselves at the inquest.  And that really is all you need to know.

Oh yes they have.

They took the laws into their own hands.

Nasty little pieces of work , who have tried to hide behind the cloak of anonymity.

Unfortunately, for them not quite as anonymous as they thought.

[Alice Purjorick]

Poor old Alf clearly has no idea how a coroners inquest works.
It ain't adversarial and does not take into account wrong and right whatever they may be. The objective is to determine the circumstances surrounding an unexpected death.
Anyone who knows anything or who the coroner thinks may know something maybe summoned to the presence to assist the coroner in determining the circumstance leading to the death. What happens after that ...who knows?

[stephen25000]

Poor old Alf clearly has no idea how a coroners inquest works.
It ain't adversarial and does not take into account wrong and right whatever they may be. The objective is to determine the circumstances surrounding an unexpected death.
Anyone who knows anything or who the coroner thinks may know something maybe summoned to the presence to assist the coroner in determining the circumstance leading to the death. What happens after that ...who knows?

Excellent points, but as we know alfred is tied to cause mccann.

[Mr Gray]

Oh yes they have.

They took the laws into their own hands.

Nasty little pieces of work , who have tried to hide behind the clock of anonymity.

Unfortunately, for them not quite as anonymous as they thought.

The compilers reported a suspected crime to the police...that's not taking the law into their own hands...It was Brenda who was  a nasty piece of work...IMO