Rebekah Brooks Trial

[FrankelInFoal]

I'm no fan of Rebekah Brooks but having watched the news reporting from court today I'm finding myself feeling incredibly sorry for her.

Apparently today she was questioned about her fertility issues. I mean what the hell does that have to do with phone hacking? According to the report I watched she was asked about her problems conceiving with Ross Kemp which prompted her to ask for a break in proceedings and she left the room in tears. Later she was questioned about the surrogacy that she and her current husband had gone through to get their daughter.

Seriously, how is that relevant/appropriate?! If she was a man I sincerely doubt she'd have been asked about such a private matter.

[nauticant]

I don't hold with conspiracy theories regarding the verdict decided on by the jury, but as far as Brooks having friends in high places having an impact, that's clearly the case because, as has been widely reported:

1. Only one of the six defendants received legal aid, with News International picking up the estimated £50?million cost of providing top defence barristers (for example in the Telegraph).
   
   
2. The outspending by the defence over the prosecution (I've seen reports that it was less than £1 million compared to over £50 million) had a significant bearing on the outcome.

[Onesleeptillwembley]

They could mean a million things, nancy. Witnesses not coming forward, or not telling what they know. Barristers not pursuing, or pursuing things that could hinder/help her. Anything and everything.

[Nancy66]

what do people mean when they say that? That the jury was nobbled?

[Greenrememberedhills]

Well she has friends in high places, so I'm not surprised.

[nauticant]

What stretches my credibility is that when it comes to acts that were not part of the trial, she was in the loop and was aware that the payments were going to the Police but when it comes to an act that was in the trial, she was kept out of the loop and didn't know where the payments were going. This is especially surprising when the payments she authorised to that source totalled £100K.

But anyway, the final word on this is the jury's and that's the only one that counts.

[Nancy66]

She admitted paying officials on a handful of occasions when she considered it in the public interest - that came out in the trial.

But the case focused on one particular person who'd received over £100k , a MOD employee , whose payments she'd signed off. she argued that she just knew it was a 'source' but not a pubic official.

[nauticant]

I thought her position in the trial was that she did not know that payments were going to public officials. And that the Parliamentary Committee evidence was that she was aware that she paid public officials, ie the Police. These don't seem like very consistent positions to me.

But I'm happy to be corrected if I've got this wrong.

[Nancy66]

the select committee evidence is irrelevant really.

She was asked again at the trial if she had paid those in public office and she said that she had.

[hackmum]

"Nor were [the jury] shown Brooks’s famous evidence to that committee in March 2003 when she said that her journalists had paid police for information in the past. Select committee evidence is not admissible in court because of rules around parliamentary privilege."

And isn't that absolutely astonishing? That we have her on record admitting to a crime, and then when she pleads not guilty in court to that crime, the jury can't be shown the evidence? What an insane system.

[ProfessorDent]

It seems we've got a new Louise Woodward.

[ParsingFlatly]

Ah, thanks for explaining that, nauticant. I too have been wondering how the select committee evidence didn't sink her (assumed I'd just missed it).

Agree completely with this, too:
"There was clearly a orchestrated effort to get up to some mischief at a critical time during the course of which potentially interesting materials and information went missing but without an indication of what disappeared, I can imagine the jury erring on the side of doubt."

[nauticant]

I wasn't surprised by the not guilty verdict on the phone hacking. It was an interesting circumstantial case but that's not enough. I wasn't surprised by the not guilty verdict on the perverting the course of justice. There was clearly a orchestrated effort to get up to some mischief at a critical time during the course of which potentially interesting materials and information went missing but without an indication of what disappeared, I can imagine the jury erring on the side of doubt.

I was though gobsmacked that she was found not guilty of the misconduct in a public office (paying public officials). Especially since there's a video recording of her admitting paying the police for information in front of a Parliamentary Committee. But then I read the article linked to above and it becomes clear:

Nor were [the jury] shown Brooks’s famous evidence to that committee in March 2003 when she said that her journalists had paid police for information in the past. Select committee evidence is not admissible in court because of rules around parliamentary privilege.

I have my own views on the soundness of the misconduct in a public office verdict.

[Jux]

Drudge, the questions about her 'painful personal issue' were put to her by her own barrister. You can be absolutely 100% certain that they spent quite a lot of time rehearsing her answers. If she hadn't wanted it 'exposed' then it wouldn't have been as she could easily have instructed her legal team not to bring it up. As they did, she must have agreed to it. Why would she do that? Perhaps so that people will feel sorry for her, do you think? "I'm just a terribly tragic figure who was unable to keep track of anything in the office because of my terribly painful personal difficulties and I was having a hard time and when this is over I can be terribly brave about it all too." Laugh. Bank.

[drudgetrudy]

Her karma isn't to be infertile, no, it is to have a painful personal issue exposed in public.
Actually think this line of questioning is very inappropriate but find it difficult to feel sorry for her.

[Chippednailvarnish]

As long as she doesn't start releasing "intimate" family photos, featuring her and the baby in soft focus...

[ParsingFlatly]

She can get a job on the front page with a quality [sadface] like that.

What do you reckon: "My editorship hell" for a few bucks to the Daily Wail, in case Rupes doesn't call?

[ParsingFlatly]

Hahahaha!

Rebekah Brooks does [sadface]

[PetiteRaleuse]

This is an interesting article about the affair:

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/25/-sp-phone-hacking-trial-rebekah-brooks-rupert-murdoch

[Saganoren]

I agree, take back my earlier remarks about juries, though I am still a bit baffled as to how destroying laptops etc doesn't count as perverting the course of justice. Anyone with any knowledge of a a newsroom is just a bit sceptical about the innocent daffy editor knowing nothing about his/her reporters' methods

[PetiteRaleuse]

nancy you are a tease :o

[Nancy66]

That's a well rounded piece BOFster. Bottom line is it doesn't matter what you think or believe, it has to be absolutely proved.

I know what I think (and know come to that) but if I was on that jury I would probably have to acquit

[FunLovinBunster]

I am BEYOND AMAZED that she was cleared.
So she, as the boss, knew nada about what her employees were up to, in their desperate quest to get scoops?!
It's brown comes out of a horse's arse and smells of.....

[BOFster]

Some of the clearest and most unbiased daily coverage of the trial came from James Doleman at The Drum. This is his explanation of why Rebekah Brookes was found Not Guilty.

[IthoughtATMwasacashpoint]

Anyone else read that the head od her legal team is David Cameron's brother?

[ParsingFlatly]

My italicised bit at 14:36:43 was from the then BBC article "Judge rebukes Cameron for comments on Coulson conviction", BTW, which has been edited since I C&P'd.