- Joined
- Oct 22, 2010
- Messages
- 62,851
Maybe the rest of the evidence is down there too.£10m down the drain...
Maybe the rest of the evidence is down there too.£10m down the drain...
Stop taking cases to court with a lack of evidence.What's the alternative? Let people get away with it?
Nah, in very public cases like this involving a strong moral element, you don't make the decision to prosecute based solely on a weak case. If it was a no hoper it wouldn't have been run. From what I've seen it wasn't especially strong, but I suspect they felt public opinion would carry them to a guilty verdict.Stop taking cases to court with a lack of evidence.
The reality is that the percentage of guilty verdicts at The Old Bailey is well into the nineties. You very rarely get found not-guilty there.
On this occasion, however, there was never any absolutely clear evidence that Brooks did anything - no direct e-mail conversations for example. She covered it up superbly, as opposed to Coulson, who didn't.
It's frustrating because I don't think a person in the world believes she didn't know what was going on.
It wasn't a no hoper but the only way they'd have got a guilty verdict was if the jury took the common sense approach and just did not believe her line about not knowing about it.Nah, in very public cases like this involving a strong moral element, you don't make the decision to prosecute based solely on a weak case. If it was a no hoper it wouldn't have been run. From what I've seen it wasn't especially strong, but I suspect they felt public opinion would carry them to a guilty verdict.
With friends like these...Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
She's got a great case to sue. She's basically been stopped from working for seven months and now she's been acquitted by unanimous verdict.Really?!? They couldn't find one scrap of evidence to prove she knew about this? That's mind boggling.
She'll probably sue now for all the distress this has caused her.
Laughable.
I doubt it. To sue for malicious prosecution she would have to demonstrate that she was prosecuted without probable cause, which given that Coulson was convicted (and they worked closely together as well as having an affair) is obviously false. I imagine she'll just want to stay out of the limelight for a little while.She's got a great case to sue. She's basically been stopped from working for seven months and now she's been acquitted by unanimous verdict.
You're right of course but there is an argument that the evidence for her case was really quite weak compared to Coulson and the prosecution were aware of this for quite a while before the case.I doubt it. To sue for malicious prosecution she would have to demonstrate that she was prosecuted without probable cause, which given that Coulson was convicted (and they worked closely together as well as having an affair) is obviously false. I imagine she'll just want to stay out of the limelight for a little while.
£10m down the drain. Minimum.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/25/-sp-phone-hacking-trial-rebekah-brooks-rupert-murdochBrooks and Coulson had squads of senior partners, junior solicitors and paralegals, as well as a highly efficient team monitoring all news and social media. The cost to Murdoch ran into millions. Against that, the Crown Prosecution Service had only one full-time solicitor attached to the trial and one admin assistant.
It's almost like once you reach a certain level and have the right friends the rules do not apply.Having stated that she knew absolutely nothing about phone hacking by people in her direct employment and at a cost of millions to the company because of her incompetence. Of course they take her back, I mean with credentials like that who wouldn't?