Brenda's Day

Half an hour after this post is published the inquest into Brenda Leyland's death is scheduled to start.

The blog has decided to repeat what was said in our “2014 Christmas Break” and “2015” posts about Brenda:


1. What we said in “2014 Christmas Break” (Dec 12 2014):

On the 18th [Dec 18 2014] there will be a Pre Review Inquest on Brenda Leyland’s death which is still to be ascertained. It will be to determine who can be witnesses and if anything illegal occurred. It will be like a court directions hearing and nothing much is expected to happen on that day.

It could go on for years and those thinking that it would be an opportunity to see Martin Brunt squirm in justifications may best stay home and save their trip expenses.

Death is, as said, to be determined. We wait for coroner’s report.

Pre Review may announce cause of death if results known but may still need to call witnesses if suicide is the outcome.

If death was natural causes, then we don't see what witnesses could say as it can't be proved that her death resulted from anything related to Sky News interview.

If it appears death was suspicious, then this would have to be investigated by police.

If the Inquest is complex, reports are not forthcoming, or it appears that the adjournment is continuing for too long, the Coroner will fix a date when all interested persons, including the family of the deceased and any legal representatives will be required to attend court for a formal hearing. This will be a public hearing.

At a Pre Inquest Review the Coroner will deal with any outstanding matters and will give such further directions as are necessary to prepare the case for a final hearing.

Usually the Coroner, in conjunction with the family and legal representatives will, at the Pre-Inquest review, decide upon the scope of the Inquest, the evidence to be heard and the witnesses to be called at the final hearing.

The date for the final hearing will usually be set at this Pre Inquest Review. All interested persons will receive written confirmation of the date and the date will be publicised on the website.

Any properly interested person who wishes to inspect or receive copies of any statement or document to be considered at the Inquest may apply to the Coroner. 

As we said, we don't know cause of death and can't speculate, but looks like it won't be resolved before New Year.

However there are many questions we wish we would have answered to but very unlikely to get any on the 18th.

Why wasn’t Brenda Leyland surprised with Brunt appearing at her home? She does seem surprised by what he has to say after he meets up with her but the way she walks towards him is if she was expecting him only not at that inconvenient time as she was about to go out with a friend.

Why did Martin Brunt and his crew wait for Brenda to return? He has filmed his “ambush” got the surprised reaction of the victim who was filmed leaving the scene in a car with a friend:

So why not pack things up and leave?

Brenda is filmed inviting him inside her house. Meaning it was after she returned (this is not filmed or is said if she decided to cancel outing with friend because of report). She got out of the car, walked to her door and invited Brunt inside, politely but visibly angry:

Between this and the moment Brenda drove away what did Brunt do? If she did go out with her friend as it seems she did, why wait so long for Brenda on her doorstep?

Why was Martin Brunt holding copy of documentation allegedly under investigation? Someone provided a copy to Brunt and informed him that it was material under investigation. We understand that Mr Brunt has the right to protect his sources but by showing documentation under investigation – and hindering it by revealing through a printout that clearly identified a site that was supposed to be under police scrutiny – did he commit a crime? What does the British justice system intend to do about it?

Why hasn’t Martin Brunt or Sky News issued an official apology about their performance with regards to Brenda Leyland? This one we will answer ourselves to be fair to the man: probably advised not to as he could legally incriminate himself if he did apologise.

Who advised Brenda Leyland to seek refuge in a hotel so near home? If she felt unsafe for some reason being in her house after the Sky News exposure, why not flee far away instead of staying at an arm’s reach of the menacing press.

That hotel, near her home, would probably be one where reporters interested in the story would stay. It was like running away from wasps and hide in their nest.

But the most important question we would like answered is why is sweepyface Brenda Leyland? Or, to more specific, why, when and how was the pseudonym sweepyface linked to the individual Brenda Leyland?

We first noticed the oddity of this identification outing in this picture from the Daily Mail of 01OCT2014:

As a footnote to it it’s said “some identities have been held for legal reasons”.

Well, we have on that particular picture 3 @******** and 1 @sweepyface.

So it can be deduced that the only identity not held for legal reasons was @sweepyface.

But @sweepyface is not an identity. It’s a pseudonym, a pen name, a nom de plume, a literary double. Not and identity. Something adopted by a person to assure their anonymity.

The pseudonym @sweepyface provides the exact same kind identification as @sledgehammer, @pinkpanther, @marypoppins, @thick_ankles or even @anonymous. Usernames that we've just invented but most likely exist.

Usernames don't provide ANY personal identification. In fact, a username only identifies the use of a Twitter account. It may represent one person or it may represent many. Anyone who has the respective password.

People using pseudonyms wish to remain anonymous. It’s their right. Much like the right to remain as anonymous as the woman who appears in the video – by coincidence no longer available on youtube but can still be seen on this Sky News webpage – saying she was the one who collated the info that was put into the in the infamous tr*ll dossier.

Also, if the other pseudonyms were held for legal reasons, one can only assume that @sweepyface was authorised to be used by Brenda Leyland. When did this happen?

But note that Martin Brunt never identifies Brenda Leyland. This is the transcript of the video:

“Brenda Leyland on screen, filmed outside this lady’s home, as she approaches her car.

Martin Brunt: “This woman uses Twitter to attack the parents of Madeleine McCann. On the internet she’s anonymous – not anymore!”

A woman walks from her car and approaches Martin Brunt.

Woman: “Well I’m just about to go out”

Brunt: “No, we caught you! Can we talk to you about your Twitter… handle, and your attacks on the McCanns?”

Woman: “No!”

Brunt: “Why are you attacking them so regularly?”

Woman: “Look I’m just going out with a friend ok?”

The woman makes her way to a waiting car. Martin Brunt follows her.

Brunt: “But why are you using your Twitter Account to attack the McCanns?”

Woman: “I’m entitled to do that”

Brunt: “You know you have been reported to the police to Scotland Yard?  They are considering a whole file of Twitter accounts …”

Woman: “That is fair enough”

Brunt: “… of what supporters say is a campaign of abuse against the McCanns.”

Woman: “Okay then well I am going out now.” 

Brunt: “The Crown Prosecution Service is considering it.  Are you worried about that?”

Woman: “No.”

Woman gets in and leaves in a car driven by a friend.

Brunt: “On Twitter she uses the name ‘sweepyface’ and the profile picture of a pet.  She tweets many times a day, and mostly about the McCanns.  In one message she spread rumours about the couples marriage, in another she hoped Madeleine’s parents would suffer forever.

But sweepyface is not the worst.”

The woman is simply identified as sweepyface. Strangely for an experienced reporter to say “on the internet she’s anonymous – not anymore!” and then only reveal a pseudonym as an identity.

Brenda Leyland’s identity was revealed by her face. It was the internet that publicly linked her face to her name, not Sky News.

But, and that is the importance of our question, Mr Brunt to make that report knew that @sweepyface was Brenda Leyland and knew where she lived.

Unless Brenda Leyland identified herself clearly in one of her tweets, someone, somehow, somewhere, went to the trouble of identifying the pseudonym and passed this information to Martin Brunt. This implies to us, a crime of violation of privacy – for some reason Daily Mail held “identities” for legal reasons in the picture above.

Again we ask, what is the British justice system going to do about it?


2. What we said in “2015” (Jan 16 2015) :

We were wrong when we said that “nothing much is expected to happen on that day”.

And in our opinion, it did happen but unfortunately people concentrated on things that, for us, weren’t important at all, namely whether the Coroner said at the end of a sentence “this may change on the day of the inquest” [20MAR15].

What the Coroner may have or not said at the end of the sentence, for us it’s completely irrelevant whether she said them or not.

The Coroner determines if there is foul play in what caused the death. If the physical reason(s) why person has died is of criminal origin.

“An inquest is an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding a death. The purpose of the inquest is to find out who the person was and how, when and where they died, and to establish the details the Registrar of Deaths need to register the death.

An inquest is not a trial – it is not the role of the Coroner to decide any question of criminal or civil liability or to apportion guilt or attribute blame.”

The Coroner’s conclusions may, or may not, give reason(s) for there to be a prosecution. But a Coroner does not determine if there is to be one or any other sort of legal action.

According to BBC:

“A pre-inquest review was told it will hear evidence from a toxicology expert, police and the Sky News journalists.

The coroner said no criminal action was planned against any witnesses and adjourned the hearing until March.

(…)

“Leicester Coroner Catherine Mason said: "I understand from my officers that, of all the witnesses who I have said that I will call to give oral evidence, there is nobody to which there is any foreseeability of any criminal action being taken."”

The Leicester Mercury:

“Mrs Mason had opened an inquest into Ms Leyland’s death on October 8. That hearing was told that the cause of her death had not yet been determined. It was not revealed at today’s hearing.”

The Belfast Telegraph:

“Confirming details of a full inquest due to take place next year, Leicester Coroner Catherine Mason said she would hear evidence from Sky News Crime Correspondent Martin Brunt and Head of Newsgathering Jonathan Levy.

Two police officers, a toxicologist and a doctor are also due to give oral evidence at the one-day hearing on March 20.

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

When the Coroner says “there is nobody to which there is any foreseeability of any criminal action being taken” we think she’s saying something like “as far as can be seen up to now the cause of death is explainable and was not due to any criminal physical act on the victim but let’s wait until we have all the reports before coming to a definitive conclusion”.

One of the reports being written is the pathology report to be handed in at the March Inquest.

Only then will the Coroner determine what the cause of death was.

To say any decision has been taken is ridiculous. If there was one, then there would be no need for the March 20 Inquest.

This will take place because there still are things pending to allow a full decision by the Coroner, otherwise there would be no need to hold one.

If the decision is that there was foul play, then it’s up to the Coroner to put that in her conclusions but it’s up to the British justice system to determine how the prosecution will run its terms.

If the decision determines it was suicide, then, again, it’s only up to the British justice system, and not the Coroner, to decide if the case requires prosecution or not.

So if she said “this may change”, it’s only an opinion, with no legal value able to enforce any sort of action.

But what a Coroner can do however, in case cause of death is deemed suicide, is to help establish if it was in any way provoked by an external source.

If the victim was put in a situation in which death appeared to her as the only option to escape clearly provoked surrounding circumstances or if the victim decided to put an end to her life as the culmination of an individual ongoing internal process. If the suicide was unexpected and provoked or if it was just an individual tragedy.

But as the Coroner’s job is only to determine if it was or wasn’t suicide, any opinion given about causes of said suicide, are just that, opinions.

It will be only up to the British justice system to determine if those opinions should or shouldn’t result in prosecution.

To say that Mr Brunt will not be charged with anything related with Brenda Leyland’s death is as inappropriate as it is to say that he will.

By the list of those called for the March 20 inquest, it seems Coroner does wish to provide an opinion about reasons of suicide, if suicide is determined to be the cause of death:

“Dr West – pathologist (statement only)

Dr Smith – toxicologist (oral evidence)

Dr Zakrzewski – not Brenda’s GP, but had knowledge of her

Jonathan Levy – Sky (producer?)

Martin Brunt – Sky reporter

Ben Leyland – evidence only

Sgt Taylor – Leics Police

Det Sgt Hutchins – Leics Police”

Of these witnesses, clearly Jonathan Levy, Martin Brunt and Ben Leyland have nothing to say about the physical reasons that caused Brenda Leyland’s death.

We do think they can certainly contribute in helping ascertain the reasons for the suicide, if suicide is determined to have been the cause of death.

Only after all decisions are taken at this inquest can the British justice system determine what it will or won’t do next.

A verdict of unlawful killing, for example, we think would be followed by police action. Suicide verdict unlikely to result in any further action.

As the Coroner is part of that system, one thing is certain and irrelevant of there being a prosecution or not, Sky and Martin Brunt have been legally involved in the case of Brenda Leyland’s death.

We think some people are hoping the dossier compilers will be prosecuted.

We can’t see that happening as they were entitled to compile it and present it to the police, whatever we may think of their actions.

The fact something is amoral doesn’t mean it’s illegal.

If Martin Brunt lied to Brenda about a pending prosecution, we think he must have breached the code of practice for Sky and may also have breached the code in door-stepping her.

But unless Brenda wrote a note or spoke about her reaction to what Brunt said, it could only be surmised that it may have led to her death.

There was one particularly vile tweet directed towards her, which seemed to come from an individual and has been drawn to the Coroner's attention, we believe, by the Express newspaper. Whether it is enough to constitute an offence of a threat of violence, we don't know.

If it did, we presume a family member would need to make a complaint to the police. If threatening tweets are pursued by the police, it would be a separate matter from the coroner's court.


3. Today:

The Coroner only refers it to the police if suspicious circumstances result from post mortem.

It's a matter of how she died.

If anyone takes their own life or dies from other causes, coroner can recommend changes to procedures to prevent future risks

A recent example was a man who took his life because he owed money to the council. The coroner recommended changes in council procedures.

Maybe she will have something to say about whether Sky followed its own code of conduct and whether that code is adequate.

So it doesn't happen again.

In Brenda’s case, the police haven't reported any suspicious circumstances to her otherwise, Coroner wouldn't proceed until those circumstances were investigated by police.

If it was an evidently assisted suicide, it would be a police matter.

If one leaves one’s partner and they subsequently take their own life and leave a note saying it was because of one’s actions, it's not the role of the Coroner to attribute one the blame.

There would be a finding of the reasons given by the deceased but no action taken against. One didn't do anything illegal. One may have been amoral but as we said, amorality is not illegality.

If Brunt didn't follow the code of conduct, it would be for his employers to act. The coroner might note that procedures were not followed and might then recommend something. But it's not her job to punish Brunt.

Relatives can, if they wish to do so and can afford it, take action against Sky for wrongdoing. But they can do it with or without Coroner finding procedures not although their position would be strengthened, but only that, if she did.

That's what our previous posts said originally. All the excitement that Martin Brunt could be sent to prison is, in our opinion, be a little over the top.

Action against him could be disciplinary action by his employers. But if he took legal advice from Sky lawyer beforehand, then unlikely. And even more unlikely if they would eventually share responsibility in the matter.

If he lied to Brenda Leyland about prosecution:

- Civil action by her family if he acted beyond Sky's Code of Conduct or lied to her. But we think he chose his words carefully. He only implied prosecution.

- By police, if he had interfered with the course of justice. But it seems there was no police investigation.

We were trying to calm expectations.

If he gets more stick than we anticipate, fine. We can be glad to be wrong. But we seek only justice done by the appropriate authorities not a burning at the stake.

We not only do not support any witch hunting as we clearly and vehemently condemn it.

Today is about Brenda Leyland and not Martin Brunt.

For us it’s sufficient that he has to sit and face us, via the Coroner, and be told to tell us what role he possibly played in the events that led to Brenda’s loss of life.

Today, we, like everyone else will be focused on Brenda Leyland today.

We, like everyone else will be waiting for updates and for the inquest verdict to be given.

We, like any other decent human being, wish no one be handicapped. But today we do make an exception: may Lady Justice be totally and hopelessly blind.