Re: Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY

by **Nina** 24.06.14 22:26

I am so very sorry. I have not got the time to read all through this thread but has this been posted?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 24.06.14 22:38

Nina wrote:I am so very sorry. I have not got the time to read all through this thread but has this been posted?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Cristobell 24.06.14 22:40

I kinda like Rebeka! I don't know her, but she got to the top of a male dominated profession through hard work and determination and without a privileged start in life. She had a dream and she made it come true. She is just as ruthless as the men, so what? She wasn't there to make the tea. And if she used her womanly wiles, good luck to her, at least she didn't do it with silicon implants, fake tan and false eyelashes! As for the hacking? OK, it was wrong to hack the phones of the Dowlers, but that was a bad judgment call by someone, the rest of their tactics are all part and parcel of the newspaper trade. Journalism is a cut throat business, they are all fighting for the front page, and digging through celebrities dustbins and tapping their phones is not new - who remembers the intimate calls of Prince Charles and Princess Diana? Hacks dig the dirt and we buy it, supply and demand. If the demand were not there, the 'rags' would not exist. Even to the bitter end the NOTW was the best selling Sunday paper. Regulating the way in which news is gathered, over and above what we have now, isn't a logical or workable option, because among the dross sifted through by the unscrupulous hacks are sometimes to be found, snippets of information that are very useful to the public indeed. Those unscrupulous hacks are the jiminy crickets on the shoulders of those in power, so whilst we might not always like what they do, it would be much worse if they weren't there.

by **Tony Bennett** 24.06.14 23:06

Cristobell wrote:I kinda like Rebekah!

Personal comments aside about how she may have got to the top, Brooks was the CEO for a ruthless media mogul.

She and Murdoch printed dozens of absurd stories about Madeleine McCann just to make money, my personal favourite being the one about Wayne Hewlett burning the letter which contained the secret (so he said) of what really happened to Madeleine McCann. A close second would be the 6' 4" basketball-playing Angolan, Marcelinho Italiano, who had two of his teeth knocked out, allegedly after he found out that a bunch of paedophiles had taken Madeleine to the U.S. where they were still abusing her.

And she inflicted Operation Grange on the country, once again at least partly to make money for Murdoch's serialisation of Dr Kate Mccanns' book 'madeleine'.

She sought power - got it - and abused it.

One thing she has never stood for is truth.

by petunia 24.06.14 23:13

So the chipping Norton set have made the council estate kid the scapegoat ?? would be interesting to find out the name's of the Jurors ( i know were not allowed to know in Britain) Prime ministers question time should be interesting tomorrow.The Mccann review,the Hacking trial,the
leveson inquiry,Millions and millions spent courtesy of us "hovel dwellers" but hey ho money is no object when it's not yours.

by sar 24.06.14 23:30

Nick Davies has just been on telly, very interesting. Says prosecution case against RB was weak. That is why the jury came the decision they did.

by Bishop Brennan 24.06.14 23:49

It's the Coulson verdict that affects Cameron the most. He will be attacked for a shocking error of judgement as he had been warned that Coulson may have been guilty of phone hacking. This is similar to the same error in the McCann case where UK police and consulate memos warn that they may not be entirely innocent. And yet he ordered the review.

He is also guilty of stalling on the review of the care homes suspected of abuse. A third error of judgement. In that case, hundreds of kids were harmed - not just one.

He now cannot afford the McCann case to fizzle out as a £10m mistake. He needs closure or a patsy. The stakes just got a LOT higher.

by ShuBob 25.06.14 0:02

sar wrote:Nick Davies has just been on telly, very interesting. Says prosecution case against RB was weak. That is why the jury came the decision they did.

I watched him too and I'm glad he said what he did. He confirmed the point I made on the previous page.

by Cristobell 25.06.14 0:04

Tony Bennett wrote:
Cristobell wrote:I kinda like Rebekah!
Personal comments aside about how she may have got to the top, Brooks was the CEO for a ruthless media mogul.

Tut, tut Tony, you are surely not implying she only got where she did because of, hmmm, favours. Does the same thing apply to other high flying journalists, or only the female ones?

Rebeka got to her position because she was an extremely talented reporter with a nose for a hot story and the ambition and ability to take over as head of the former News International. Rupert Murdoch appointed her because she was the best, not because she was a woman.

It doesn't matter a jot what we think of Rebekah's morals or scruples, or even that of her employer Rupert Murdoch. They report the news, or at the least the news we want to read, and sadly these days popular newspapers are dominated with stories about celebrities and their private lives.

The answer to every question is money, and sex and scandal sells newsapers. Rupert Murdoch would have gone bust within a week if he staffed his newspapers with Amish preachers.

She and Murdoch printed dozens of absurd stories about Madeleine McCann just to make money, my personal favourite being the one about Wayne Hewlett burning the letter which contained the secret (so he said) of what really happened to Madeleine McCann. A close second would be the 6' 4" basketball-playing Angolan, Marcelinho Italiano, who had two of his teeth knocked out, allegedly after he found out that a bunch of paedophiles had taken Madeleine to the U.S. where they were still abusing her.

Again, Murdoch is in the business of selling newspapers, and a Madeleine headline boosts sales. I think this is what miffed Gerry, he mentioned at the Leveson Enquiry the profit the newspapers made everytime they used their [the mccanns] pictures - the 'Fund' wasn't getting a cut of it.

Yes its distasteful Tony, but it is as it is. Unless the level of education in this country rises considerably, the 'popular' media will continue to feed us drivel and we will continue to buy it. We cannot blame businessmen like Rupert Murdoch for doing what they do, nor even Rebeka Brooks - it is a case of supply and demand.

And she inflicted Operation Grange on the country, once again at least partly to make money for Murdoch's serialisation of Dr Kate Mccanns' book 'madeleine'.

She sought power - got it - and abused it.

Last Saturday afternoon I spent a wonderful 3 hours or so, watching the old Orson Welles movie, Citizen Kane. People often start out with good intentions, but power (and money) corrupts.

One thing she has never stood for is truth.

Do any of the newspaper editors Tony? I caught a clip on Sky News of a newspaper editor saying that newspapers are under huge restraint at the moment, terrified to print anything in this 'Hacking' climate. That's not good for anyone.

by juliet 25.06.14 0:06

Rebekah Brooks was promoted way beyond any ability she possessed. Her defence was that she hadn't got a clue what any of her staff were doing; hadn't got a clue how stories were found; was always on holidays or freebie schmooze-fests anyway. She infuriates me as a dumb token female whose only talent was to charm (hmmm) various powerful males to benefit Murdoch. She is a disgrace. However I didnt wish her in jail.

by juliet 25.06.14 0:12

Christobel: Brooks was never even a reporter, let alone a good one.She somehow got herself from lowly newspaper secretary to features editor in about a year...but there is no evidence of any talent apart from the ability to please and impress powerful men.

by Guest 25.06.14 6:55

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I mean.. come on!

This verdict is ridiculous.

by Liz Eagles 25.06.14 7:01

BlueBag wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I mean.. come on!

This verdict is ridiculous.

Reverse it....the weak prosecution is ridiculous.

by Guest 25.06.14 7:06

aquila wrote:
BlueBag wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I mean.. come on!

This verdict is ridiculous.
Reverse it....the weak prosecution is ridiculous.

I'll agree with that.

by fossey 25.06.14 7:10

BlueBag wrote:
aquila wrote:
BlueBag wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I mean.. come on!

This verdict is ridiculous.
Reverse it....the weak prosecution is ridiculous.

I'll agree with that.

He disposed of the laptop as it had some porn on it.

Yeah - I believe you mate. That's a good one.

by Liz Eagles 25.06.14 7:20

as a complete aside

@fossey, I think you could open up a 'racing tips' topic on the forum....you could call it 'fossey's fancies' or 'fossey's fillies'

The lesbian porn of Rebekah's horsey husband could also do with a headline on the forum....how about 'Charlie's Angels'?

ETA: NOTW would have come up with a headline such as 'Charlie's Angels' wouldn't they?

by fossey 25.06.14 7:35

aquila wrote:as a complete aside

@fossey, I think you could open up a 'racing tips' topic on the forum....you could call it 'fossey's fancies' or 'fossey's fillies'

The lesbian porn of Rebekah's horsey husband could also do with a headline on the forum....how about 'Charlie's Angels'?

ETA: NOTW would have come up with a headline such as 'Charlie's Angels' wouldn't they?

by Liz Eagles 25.06.14 7:43

fossey wrote:
aquila wrote:as a complete aside

@fossey, I think you could open up a 'racing tips' topic on the forum....you could call it 'fossey's fancies' or 'fossey's fillies'

The lesbian porn of Rebekah's horsey husband could also do with a headline on the forum....how about 'Charlie's Angels'?

ETA: NOTW would have come up with a headline such as 'Charlie's Angels' wouldn't they?

I think we should have a cyber whip-round for Rebekah and her husband. Buy them a stable of racehorses and have a 'name that gee gee' competition.

by Guest 25.06.14 8:11

I have a question for the legal bods here.

What are the safeguards against the someone in authority (ie Government) being able to ensure selection of a "helpful" jury?

by plebgate 25.06.14 8:55

Not surprised in the least.

Murdoch gave her 10 million when she left his employment.

How much will she get paid when she re-joins his staff?

Anyone who wants to get in with the "elites" of this country must be seriously barking. Short term gain, long term misery seems to be the norm. Barking alright.

by **Tony Bennett** 25.06.14 9:44

BlueBag wrote:I have a question for the legal bods here.

What are the safeguards against the someone in authority (ie Government) being able to ensure selection of a "helpful" jury?

Let me 'kill' that idea straightaway, also speaking as someone who was on jury service recently and took part in convicting a man of possessing an offensive weapon (a knife). It took rather too long to convince two jury members to agree with the 'guilty' verdict, but force of argument won them round in the end, so the jury was unanimous.

Anyway, jury members are selected at random from the electoral roll. A group of them is called to serve at a court. There is then a further process of elimination where the Court Clerk draws by lot the names of the 12 persons who will sit on a jury for the week, or, in the case of a long trial, those who will serve during that trial.

There is simply no possibility whatsoever of any government interfering with the selection of a jury.

What the government can do, for example, is:

* Appoint tame judges to lead public enquiries (Cullen, Chilcott)

* Appoint senior judges whom they prefer

* Lean on the Director of Public Prosecutions (to prosecute or not prosecute)

* Lean on the Head of the Met Police to open an investigation (Operation Grange)

* Use MI5, Special Branch or other branches of the security services to interfere with a prosecution

* Decide which offences should be tried by jury

* Set the rules for sentencing

...and so on.

Juries are the best guarantee we as individual citizens have against state oppression, despite a number of problems with juries:

1. Anyone can serve, from brilliant minds with 1st class degrees to thick unemployed layabouts

2. Bias; jury members may have all sorts of invalid reasons for reaching the decisions they do

3. Collapse of long jury trials where a jury member dies or becomes incapacitated

...and so on.

Also, please will everyone reading this post please stop by for 2 minutes to read this account of the trial of William Penn - and how he won the right for English juries to find people 'not guilty' of breaking bad laws: on such principles are our liberties preserved:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++

William Penn's blind determination to change religious attitudes led to a series of skirmishes with the law - and no-one was surprised when he was arrested for the umpteenth time and landed in the dock at the Old Bailey in 1670. What was unexpected, especially in an age when the business of justice was brisk and brutal, was the outcome of the case - an outcome so dramatic that a marble memorial was erected on the spot.

Charged with holding an 'unlawful, seditious and riotous assembly', Penn had in fact done nothing more than lead a service of prayer in the street. This had been his response after arriving at the Quaker meeting house he had set up in the city to find it locked against him by soldiers.

Hardly an anarchic move by today's standards, Penn's action was then taken as a serious challenge to the established church, which felt itself under threat from a number of non-conformist sects. When he came up for trial together with his friend William Mead, Penn would have expected no mercy.

Within moments of his appearance, though, Penn had staged a logical coup which changed the course of British legal history. Asked if he was guilty as charged, he replied tartly: 'The question is not whether I am guilty but whether the indictment is legal!' He then asserted that a law denying the God-given right of a man to obey his conscience was not valid.

Chaos followed and the furious judge, Sir Samuel Starling, who was also Lord Mayor of London, ordered the jury to return a guilty verdict. But Penn shouted all the louder: 'You are Englishmen. Mind your privilege. Don't give away your right!'

With astonishing courage, the jury actually did pronounce Penn and Mead not guilty. A spectacular battle of wills ensued with the judge first threatening the jurors and then incarcerating them for contempt of court.

Indeed, he sent them to the cells and ordered that they be fed only on bread and water. After the jury continued to insist on a ‘Not Guilty’ verdict throughout the day, he ordered them to be detained overnight. The second day, the jury - once again existing only on bread and water - kept on insisting that Penn was not guilty and were detained a second night. Only after this second night in the cells, and much controversy outside the court, was a review was ordered after the dissidents' supporters produced a writ of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. The Chief Justice, Vaughan, in a decision which was widely held to have ‘toppled the old order’, finally upheld the right of juries to give a verdict according to their convictions. Penn was acquitted.

A large marble plaque which commemorates the trial of Penn and Mead is preserved in the original entrance lobby of the Central Criminal Court. The building stands on the site of Newgate prison, which was adjacent to the Sessions House where the trial was held.
The entrance lobby of the Old Bailey is not open to the public [except during trials].

The full William Penn trial transcript is available on the URL below:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **Tony Bennett** 25.06.14 10:05

(Not to interrupt the thread, but just in case anyone would like to see a report of the remarkable trial of William Penn):

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The trial began on 1 September 1670, the trial against William Penn, gentleman, and William Mead, linen draper, began. The indictment was read. It charged the defendants and other unknown persons with assembling and congregating together ‘to the disturbance of the peace of the said Lord the King and recited that the defendant Penn abetted by Mead “did preach and speak, by reason whereof there followed a great concourse and tumult of people…” …”

“What say you, William Penn and William Mead, are you guilty…not guilty?”

Penn demanded a copy of the indictment - how could he remember it verbatim?

The Recorder, presiding, answered that he must first plead.

Penn, assured that no advantage would be taken of him, pleaded ‘not guilty’. We are indebted to an anonymous ‘observer’ for a lively account of the trial.

Penn and Mead conducted their own case, without lawyers. The trial was in the Elizabethan manner, each side criticizing and contradicting the other, and speaking out of turn. Meanwhile the packed audience was applauding Penn, so that it had to be cautioned by the crier to keep silence upon pain of imprisonment.

Witnesses for the prosecution estimated the ‘great concourse’ which the defendants had addressed at something between 300 and 500.

Penn refused to recant and briefly stated their case: “We decline even to vindicate the assembling of ourselves to preach, pray, or worship the Eternal, Holy, Just God …It was our indispensable duty to meet incessantly upon so good an account; nor shall all the powers upon Earth be able to divert us from reverencing and adoring our God who made us”.

Alderman Brown interrupted to point out that Penn was not on trial for worshipping God, but for breaking the law. Penn instantly affirmed that he had broken no law; and to the end that the bench, the jury, and himself, “with those that hear us,” might have a more direct understanding of the procedure, he desired to know by what law it was that he was prosecuted.
The Recorder, wary of a trap, answered ‘the Common Law’. Penn retorted that the answer was very short of his question; “If it be common, it should not be so hard to produce.”

THE RECORDER (losing his temper): You are a saucy fellow, speak to the Indictment.

PENN: You are many mouths and ears against me…I say again, unless you show me and the People the law you ground your indictment upon [Penn never forgot his audience], I shall take it for granted your proceedings are merely arbitrary.

THE RECORDER (feeling himself cornered): The question is whether you are guilty of this indictment.

PENN: The question is not whether I am guilty of this indictment but whether this indictment be legal. Where there is no law there is no transgression.

THE RECORDER (unable to answer this): You are an impertinent fellow. It’s lex non scripta [law that is not written], that which many have studied thirty or forty years to know, and would you have me tell you in a moment?

Penn quoted the Institutes of Lord Coke (15521634), that implacable adherent of common law, referred to the privileges in Magna Charta, and cited statutes.

THE RECORDER (now thoroughly confused): Sir, you are a troublesome fellow, and it is not for the honour of the Court to suffer you to go on.

PENN: I have asked but one question, and you have not answered me; [then, doubtless, turning to the jury] though the rights and privileges of every Englishman be concerned in it.

The Recorder, at the end of his tether, turned to the Mayor, crying: “Take him away. My Lord, if you take not some course with this pestilent fellow, to stop his mouth, we shall not be able to do anything tonight.”

The Mayor exclaimed, “Take him away, take him away, turn him into the bail-dock.” (The bail-dock was a small room partitioned off in the corner of the courtroom.) Then Penn let himself go in grandiloquent speech to the jury: Was this justice? Must he be taken away because he pleaded the fundamental law of England? He left it to the conscience of the jury (his sole judge) that if these fundamental laws, which relate to liberty and property, be not maintained, “our liberties are to be openly invaded, our wives ravished, our children slaved, our families ruined, our estates led away in triumph by every sturdy beggar and malicious informer as their trophies…The Lord of Heaven and Earth will be judge between us in this matter.”

The observer tells us that the jurors were commanded to agree upon their verdict, while the prisoners remained in a cell known as ‘the stinking hole’. After an hour and a half eight jurors came down, agreed on a verdict, and the court sent an officer to bring down the other four, who would not agree. They were Edward Bushell, John Hammond, Charles Milson, and John Baily. Edward Bushell was known to be their leader, and ‘the Bench [says the observer] used many unworthy threats on the four that dissented’. The Recorder told Bushell that he was the cause of this ‘disturbance’; and added, “I shall set a mark [a fine] upon you, Sir.”

Bushell answered that he would willingly have avoided jury service, but had not been able to. Alderman Bludworth retorted that when he saw Mr. Bushell he knew that he would never yield: “Mr. Bushell, we know what you are.” And the Mayor added: “Sirrah, you are an impudent fellow. I will put a mark upon you.” According to the observer, the court used much menacing language, and behaved themselves imperiously toward the jury - all this because the four had refused to find Penn and Mead guilty. The court sent the jurors out to reconsider the verdict.

After a considerable time the jury came back, stubborn as ever.

CLERK: Are you agreed in your verdict?

JURY: Yes.

CLERK: Who shall speak for you?

JURY: Our foreman.

CLERK: Look upon the prisoners at the Bar: Is William Penn guilty of the matter whereof he stands indicted, in manner and form, or not guilty?

THE FOREMAN [Thomas Veer]: Guilty of speaking in Gracechurch Street.

THE COURT: Is that all?

THE FOREMAN: That is all I had in commission.

THE RECORDER: You had as good say nothing.

MAYOR: Was it not an unnlawful assembly? You mean he was speaking to a tumult of people there?

FOREMAN (seeing the trap): My Lord, this is all I had in commission.

At this point, according to the observer, some of the jury seemed to ‘buckle’ under the questions of the court, but the others would allow no such words as ‘unlawful assembly’; and the Recorder, the Mayor, the prosecutor, and Alderman Bludworth vilified them ‘with most opprobrious language’. Finally the Mayor told them they had given no verdict, and that they should go and consider it again, so that an end might be made of this “troublesome business.”

The jury had won the first two rounds, and Bushell must have harangued them during the half hour they were out. Their third verdict, signed by all twelve, was as queer, and as little satisfactory to the court, as the first. They found that William Penn was guilty of speaking or preaching to an assembly met together in Gracechurch Street on the fourteenth of August last, 1670. Obviously this was no ‘’proper’ verdict.

The court, the prisoners, the jury, and particularly the people, knew what was at stake. The government was determined to stop forbidden religious assemblies, to break the spreading Quaker movement, and to use an instrument of the people, the jury, for such purposes. The Recorder said as much, frankly: “Gentlemen, you shall not be dismissed till we have a verdict that the Court will accept: and you shall be locked up without meat, drink, fire, or tobacco; you shall not think thus to abuse the court; we will have a verdict, by the help of God, or you shall starve for it.”

As he was dragged out, Penn again appealed to the jury: “You are Englishmen, mind your privilege, give not away Your rightl” The jurors were sent out to spend the night without meat, drink, fire, or any other accommodation; and “they had not even so much as a chamber pot, tho’ desired,” as the observer sympathetically notes. The court adjourned to the next day, the fourth of the month at seven in the morning, at which time the jury, as before, reported their finding—guilty of speaking in Gracechurch Street. Once more there were passages between jury and Mayor.

Penn to pour out his angry eloquence. It was intolerable, he protested, that his jury should be thus menaced. Were these men not his judges under the Great Charter of England [Magna Carta]? What hope was there of ever having proper justice done when verdicts were rejected and juries were threatened with fines, starvation, and ruin to make them reach decisions contrary to their consciences?

In answer the Mayor, obviously hot and frightened as the faces of the crowd pressed against him, his self-control gone, could only cry out: “Stop his mouth, jailor, bring fetters and stake him to the groundl”. The Recorder equally betrayed himself: “Till now I never understood the reason of the policy and prudence of the Spaniards, in suffering the Inquisition among them; and certainly it will never be well with us till something like the Spanish Inquisition be in England!”

This suggestion of the use of torture was no idle threat. Although torture was unknown in common law, it had been resorted to in England for several centuries as a means of obtaining evidence and for punishment. Torture could still be ordered by the Crown, the Privy Council, or by the Star Chamber, which was not bound by common law. Peine forte et dure might be used when the prisoner would not plead.

He was “to be stretched upon his back, to have hot iron laid upon him as much as he could bear, and more, and so to continue, fed upon bad bread and stagnant water through alternate days until he pleaded or died.” An instance of peine occurred as late as 1726, and was said to be common practice at the Old Bailey up to the eighteenth century.

The substance of this practice was doubtless known to Penn’s jury. Half starved but wholly obstinate, they had not yet been broken. Being required to meet again to find another verdict, the observer says, they steadily refused. The Recorder told the jury to draw up another verdict that they might “bring it in special.” The jury refused - they had set their hands to the verdict, they ought not to be returned to the hole. But the sheriffs were ordered to take the jury up again and sworn to keep them without any accommodation till they brought in their verdict; and the Recorder again threatened them: they should starve until a proper verdict was brought in; “I will have you carted about the city as in Edward the Third’s time.”

They returned once more from Newgate at seven the next morning, weak from such treatment but surely heartened by the angry murmuring of the spectators.

On this fourth and final return the jury did bring in a proper verdict: the two prisoners were simply not guilty. The court ordered the jury to be polled, and each man answered “not guilty,” to the great and doubtless noisy satisfaction of the onlookers. Again the Recorder yielded to the stupidity of his instincts, saying to the jury that he was sorry they had followed their own judgments and opinions rather than the good and wholesome advice which was given them; and for this contempt the court fined them forty marks a man, and ordered them imprisoned till they paid.

Eight of the jury, those who originally would have gone along with the Crown, paid their fines; but the four who had dissented, “phenatique jurymen” as they were dubbed, led by the “pertinaceous” Bushell, brought a writ of habeas corpus in the Court of Common Pleas. Twelve judges sat (showing that the government considered the case of great importance), and agreed without dissent that the jury, who had been made prisoners, should be discharged, “since there was not cause of fine or imprisonment”.

The opinion was delivered by Sir John Vaughan, Lord Chief Justice. He carefully examined the functions of judges and of juries. He asked; why should a juror be imprisoned for abiding by his own oath and integrity?

Among the several pamphlets about the trial, one, very brief, published in 1719, purported to be written by Penn and Mead. It was now established, the pamphlet pointed out, that “Judges, how great soever they may be, have no right to fine, imprison or punish a jury for not finding a verdict according to the direction of the Court.”

William Penn was freed in time to be present at his father’s death on September 16, 1670.

by Guest 25.06.14 10:11

Thanks Tony,

However...

"Anyway, jury members are selected at random from the electoral roll."

This is where the process could be nobbled.

Is that a public process?

by **Tony Bennett** 25.06.14 10:28

BlueBag wrote:Thanks Tony,

However...
"Anyway, jury members are selected at random from the electoral roll."

This is where the process could be nobbled.

Is that a public process?

There's more here:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

IMO the result in the trial of Rebekah Brooks was simply a matter of the jurors honestly deciding, after carefully listening to the evidence and deliberating it for days, that she could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty of the specific offence with which she was charged.

No more or no less than that. No conspiracy.

by Guest 25.06.14 10:30

I don't see where the doubt is about them being filmed removing the evidence.

by **Tony Bennett** 25.06.14 10:44

BlueBag wrote:I don't see where the doubt is about them being filmed removing the evidence.

I have not followed the trial in detail, but I believe it was only Charlie Brooks who was filmed disposing of computers etc., and did he not tell the court someething like this:

"My goodness, No, it was nothing to do with 'phone hacking - perish the thought! - it was just that I had some naked lesbian love scenes on my computer and was a bit worried in case the cops had a look on my computer and found them, it would have been soooo embarrassing"

by **PeterMac** 25.06.14 10:47

A jury is composed of twelve people who weren't intelligent enough to get out of jury duty.

by tiny 25.06.14 10:49

PeterMac wrote:A jury is composed of twelve people who weren't intelligent enough to get out of jury duty.

by Guest 25.06.14 11:12

PeterMac wrote:A jury is composed of twelve people who weren't intelligent enough to get out of jury duty.

You know, this is a valid point. I was on jury service once and was shocked by the 'lip service' some jurors paid to the proceedings. Some were drowsy (bored?) while evidence was being presented, some clearly hadn't bothered listening to the case. When we retired to discuss the verdict it was clear the jury was split into those who weren't bothered, those who were too thick to grasp the nuances, those who had made their mind up because 'he looked a wrong'un' and a few of us who'd taken it all on board and who could persuade the weaker jurors by either argument or prejudice.

What was worrying was that some of the stronger jurors bullied the weaker to their way of thinking by focusing on one piece of evidence whilst ignoring the conflicting argument. These were the people who had made their mind up regardless but could persuade others who hadn't followed all the proceedings meticulously.

Then there was the few who had listened to everything and could discuss each rationale, but because they were talking to those who hadn't listened and so hadn't heard the evidence for the argument you were presenting it all became a bit futile. What should have been a quick verdict took ages and eventually was passed by a majority.

In summary, the 12 good men comprise of the cleverer or dogmatic ones dominating the weak or apathetic ones. I bet most verdicts are reached by the influence of around 4 of the 12, as in the Penn example above.

by Guest 25.06.14 11:16

PeterMac wrote:A jury is composed of twelve people who weren't intelligent enough to get out of jury duty.

Phone Hacking Trial: Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson trial begins today:UPDATE BROOKS NOT GUILTY, COULSON GUILTY