Mungler Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 It's all about context. What is it 'she got away with'? The heinous crime of listening to someone else's voicemail. Ooooooh no, it's too terrible to even think about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Prawn Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 I don't think with something like this it really matters who your connections are, so long as you have 'plausible deniability' it's very hard to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt as required by law - so long as you are kept in the dark from the gory details you can plead you didn't know where the information was obtained... Politicians do it all the time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88b Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 I prefer to stick with fact. She's ginger she's guilty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted June 25, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 (edited) Good article here. http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/06/25/phone-hacking-trial-why-was-rebekah-brooks-found-not-guilty-0 I'm still convinced she knew and she 'got away with it'? Having been on a jury, I can understand the jury's predicament though. Edited June 25, 2014 by aris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nial Posted June 25, 2014 Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 Not quite so simple. The hacker had inside info on how to bypass the voicemail codes even if they were changed by the owners. They did this calling customer service and using a codeword which remarkably allowed someone to do this over the phone! Do you have a reference for this? Nial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingo15 Posted June 26, 2014 Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 I had a feeling that from day one she would be found not guilty. As has been posted she knows too much im sure and has used her get out of jail free card and send the patsy down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted June 26, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 (edited) Do you have a reference for this? Nial BBC news a few days ago. They played a recording of the chap blagging the pin change with customer service. Edited June 26, 2014 by aris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catweazle Posted June 26, 2014 Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 Then I only hope that should you go to trial, you don't mention this to the jury. They were the ones that passed the not guilty verdict. Whilst I agree that much in court is about what people believe, ultimately it's the jury that makes the decision. Lawyers and salespeople are pretty much the same, we both try to convince people about our story..... The jury does lend a veneer of credibility, until you realize that someone could have asked the prosecution to present a less than robust case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lampwick Posted June 26, 2014 Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 (edited) I prefer to stick with fact. She's ginger she's guilty Quite right! ************************ Edited June 28, 2014 by Cranfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted June 26, 2014 Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 (edited) I prefer to stick with fact. She's ginger she's guilty Fair point *********** Edited June 28, 2014 by Cranfield Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mungler Posted June 26, 2014 Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 The jury does lend a veneer of credibility, until you realize that someone could have asked the prosecution to present a less than robust case. Eh? That makes no sense at all. If 'someone' was going to bother to ask the prosecution that, why not just ask the old bill to lose some evidence or for the charges to be dropped somewhere along the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuji Shooter Posted June 26, 2014 Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 Should have her snout back in the trough by Christmas then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted June 26, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 Eh? That makes no sense at all. If 'someone' was going to bother to ask the prosecution that, why not just ask the old bill to lose some evidence or for the charges to be dropped somewhere along the line. Perhaps someone wanted her to go through a trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catweazle Posted June 26, 2014 Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 Eh? That makes no sense at all. If 'someone' was going to bother to ask the prosecution that, why not just ask the old bill to lose some evidence or for the charges to be dropped somewhere along the line. Perhaps, given the relationship some politicians have with the police right now, and supposing that senior police officers might be trying to flex their muscles, "someone" might feel more comfortable having a cosy chat with the prosecution instead. Or maybe not. Who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisherman Mike Posted June 26, 2014 Report Share Posted June 26, 2014 Crikey you lot have a pretty high opinion of yourselves bunch of closet chauvinists.... Why on earth would you think a fine looking woman would want your infectious body parts anywhere near her. ? Personally I don't see she has got away with anything... other than acquittal by a jury of the finest and most equitable legal system in the world. Her Husband was right, it was nothing more than a witch hunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDog Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 Talk about Kangaroo Courts. I suppose that is what PW is famous for. Unless someone was in Court for the eight months of the trial, or they have read the whole transcript of the proceedings, how could they possibly pronounce that Rebeka Brooks was anything other than innocent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamster Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 Crikey you lot have a pretty high opinion of yourselves bunch of closet chauvinists.... Why on earth would you think a fine looking woman would want your infectious body parts anywhere near her. ? Personally I don't see she has got away with anything... other than acquittal by a jury of the finest and most equitable legal system in the world. Her Husband was right, it was nothing more than a witch hunt. Sensible post, quite why anyone would even bring up the subject of whether you would or not is bizarre to say the least. She and her husband were acquitted, why the conspiracy theories ? She may just have got away with it due to the technicality of not having done anything wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beardo Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted June 27, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 Sensible post, quite why anyone would even bring up the subject of whether you would or not is bizarre to say the least. She and her husband were acquitted, why the conspiracy theories ? She may just have got away with it due to the technicality of not having done anything wrong. I don't buy that. Turning a blind eye and not asking questions makes you just as culpable as the guy who did the deeds on your behalf. Not asking pertinent questions should not exonerate you. As editor she would have been very aware that publishing false information could bring down her newspaper. At the end of the day she is the one who says 'publish it' - and her neck was on the line if it was wrong. You would think she might ask how they knew this info was correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamster Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 Newspapers have and always will be full of incorrect information, much of it is deliberately deceitful. She's no saint, nobody gets to those sorts of heights by holding doors open for other people but she was found not guilty of what she had been accused of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimlet Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 Sensible post, quite why anyone would even bring up the subject of whether you would or not is bizarre to say the least. No it isn't. Its normal, its called banter. Get over yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 Is there a way of 'paying police' that's within the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aris Posted June 27, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 (edited) Is there a way of 'paying police' that's within the law? It depends on how politically well connected you are. Edited June 27, 2014 by aris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDog Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 I am afraid that Beardo's post no. 45 is twisting the thread. As far as I recall the charges which Brooks faced were in connection with phone tapping and not in relation to paying policemen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beardo Posted June 27, 2014 Report Share Posted June 27, 2014 sorry if it's done that, it's meant to illustrate the point that she's far from guiltless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts