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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[Greenrememberedhills]

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

[Nancy66]

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

[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.

[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.