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

[slartibartfast]

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

I am very happy for anyone to report what they believe to be wrong doing to the police. I am not keen for anyone having reported something to the police to then pass the story, either at the same time or after the police have investigated the complaint, to the press. That way lies vigilanteism.

[Mr Gray]

I am very happy for anyone to report what they believe to be wrong doing to the police. I am not keen for anyone having reported something to the police to then pass the story, either at the same time or after the police have investigated the complaint, to the press. That way lies vigilanteism.

I see nothing wrong with reporting concerns to the press....that's why a free press is so important..

[stephen25000]

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

Brenda's postings were uncalled for.

So were the actions of people who took the law into their own hands.

Do they feel any regrets over her death ?

After all, if the dossier had not been passed to Sky News.............

[Brietta]

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.

I do not know if you have followed what I have been saying ... I do not think we are talking at cross purposes here.

[Mr Gray]

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.

Anyone who commits suicide is likely to have  a history of depression....perhaps this is something the coroner will look at.

[Mr Gray]

Brenda's postings were uncalled for.

So were the actions of people who took the law into their own hands.

Do they feel any regrets over her death ?

After all, if the dossier had not been passed to Sky News.............

who took the law into their own hands...

[slartibartfast]

I see nothing wrong with reporting concerns to the press....that's why a free press is so important..

But not just after reporting it to the police.

[DCI]

Anyone who commits suicide is likely to have  a history of depression....perhaps this is something the coroner will look at.

Exactly!
Where was Brenda for the 2 years she disappeared from Twitter?
She said her son was a libel attorney, why didn't she ask his advice?

[slartibartfast]

Exactly!
Where was Brenda for the 2 years she disappeared from Twitter?
She said her son was a libel attorney, why didn't she ask his advice?

People seem to disappear from social media and fora for various lengths of time, are you implying it means something bad?

[DCI]

People seem to disappear from social media and fora for various lengths of time, are you implying it means something bad?

NO! Did you not see the ??? marks.

[Alfred R Jones]

Whether or not you approve of people reporting crimes to the police and/or the press, the fact of the matter is that doing either or both, simultaneously or otherwise, is not against the law.  Sorry to burst some bubbles.

[Carew]

Brenda made herself a legitimate target..perhaps the others could not be identified

Oh right!..........

So the alleged "serious threateners" trotted out so regularly................those alleged waterboarders and kidnappers of twins perhaps could not be identified by the dossier sleuths ......

.............so target someone who is easier to trace instead because it is quite legal?

[faithlilly]

Oh right!..........

So the alleged "serious threateners" trotted out so regularly................those alleged waterboarders and kidnappers of twins perhaps could not be identified by the dossier sleuths ......

.............so target someone who is easier to trace instead because it is quite legal?

Brenda Leyland was targeted IMO solely because she lived close to the McCanns and her location gave the impression that the McCanns were in greater danger than they really were.

[Mr Gray]

Oh right!..........

So the alleged "serious threateners" trotted out so regularly................those alleged waterboarders and kidnappers of twins perhaps could not be identified by the dossier sleuths ......

.............so target someone who is easier to trace instead because it is quite legal?

Brenda was identified as someone who may have broken the law...that's it...I don't understand all the outpouring of sympathy...she is responsible for her own actions

[faithlilly]

Brenda was identified as someone who may have broken the law...that's it...I don't understand all the outpouring of sympathy...she is responsible for her own actions

If Brenda had broken the law then it was up to the police to investigate and charge her.

What if no charges had been brought, as seemed likely ? Would you still believe that what Sky did was justified ?