|
Zero Gravitas posted:Man, you should have watched the original leveson inquiry testimony. "I do not/can not recall (exactly)" was said so many times the participants might as well have had it on a tape recorder in their pocket so they didnt wear their vocal cords out. It's going to be an amazing trial if they stick to that tactic, the prosecution will eat them for lunch. For anyone who needs a catch up, here's Reuters on today's events.
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 12:33 |
|
|
Anyone got a link to the original threads on this forum from when the whole thing blew up in 2011?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
Zero Gravitas posted:Man, you should have watched the original leveson inquiry testimony. Oh I did watch it, my point is that this is now the sharp end and such denials aren't going to work in front of a jury. The prosecution went to pains to explain to the jury what the crime of conspiracy is. To stay out of jail, the defence has to refute the evidence of conspiracy. I simply can't see how. Saying "no I didn't" won't do it. Any attempt at some kind of major distraction from the point of the evidence is just going to annoy the judge (insert Chewbacca defence jokes here). All I can see the defence achieving is mitigation, not acquittal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
Yeah: "I do not recall" isn't much use when you're facing a clever barrister who's up to speed on every detail of the case, has several days in which to question you and you're not in a position to say: "Ok, this interview's over!" but have to sit there and endure every question. They build their case gradually and forensically: stonewalling is a completely inadequate defensive tactic.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
Umiapik posted:Yeah: "I do not recall" isn't much use when you're facing a clever barrister who's up to speed on every detail of the case, has several days in which to question you and you're not in a position to say: "Ok, this interview's over!" but have to sit there and endure every question. They build their case gradually and forensically: stonewalling is a completely inadequate defensive tactic. Such a shame this won't be televised...I'd pay to see some of this testimony on the big screen, it's going to be glorious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
Defendants don't have to give evidence. They'll probably just put the prosecution to proof on every thing they say and attack any prosecution witnesses - it's hard to imagine a cross-examination going well for any of them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 01:42
|
|
|
HTJ posted:Defendants don't have to give evidence. They'll probably just put the prosecution to proof on every thing they say and attack any prosecution witnesses - it's hard to imagine a cross-examination going well for any of them. How will we get our "A few good men" imitation if none of them get cross examined?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 05:59
|
|
|
how long is the trial expected to last?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 06:07
|
|
|
HTJ posted:Defendants don't have to give evidence. They'll probably just put the prosecution to proof on every thing they say and attack any prosecution witnesses - it's hard to imagine a cross-examination going well for any of them. Due to contempt laws I'm not sure..... [edit] actually, I won't say that. Brown Moses fucked around with this message at 08:49 on Oct 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 08:47
|
|
|
The prosecution resumes their opening statement at 10am (in 90 minutes). I thought it was over, but there's more!
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 09:31
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Due to contempt laws I'm not sure..... [edit] actually, I won't say that. Since youre now pretty internet-famous, have any of your critics brought up something youve posted on SA as ammunition?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 09:59
|
|
|
Little_wh0re posted:how long is the trial expected to last? It has been give a 5-6 month window. The opening statement has been pretty damning already but I thought the same in the Oscar presaurious (sorry, can't remember how to spell his name) case, then the defence got up a pointed out all the holes in the argument. I thought that we'd have the same here except for the whole destroying evidence thing which is not going to end well for them! In the words of Dr Krieger 'I penis can only get so hard'. On a completely different aside I do like seeing justice in action, been meaning to drag myself down to the old bailey to watch a case or two.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 10:11
|
|
|
Zero Gravitas posted:Since youre now pretty internet-famous, have any of your critics brought up something youve posted on SA as ammunition? Just the Syria Is hosed post, which I think is valid, although not my usual style of writing. The worst they'll probably find is I played way too much WoW and Dwarf Fortress 5 years ago. I'm actually working on securing funding for a new website, basically the sort of thing I subjects, but with more contributors covering a wider range of subjects, and a section dedicated to examining and teaching investigations processes and tools.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 10:41
|
|
|
So Nick Cohen has been grumbling at length about the trials and the overarching scandal. There's a lot I don't like about it (apart from the fact that it's by Nick Cohen), but I'm having a tough time articulating it. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 10:58
|
|
|
Things are starting again, you can follow the Tweets from the court here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 11:22
|
|
|
quote:Jim Old I feel this might be a bit of a sticking point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 11:25
|
|
|
Darth Walrus posted:So Nick Cohen has been grumbling at length about the trials and the overarching scandal. There's a lot I don't like about it (apart from the fact that it's by Nick Cohen), but I'm having a tough time articulating it. Thoughts? I've read the second link and he doesn't seem to be actually making arguments in places but rather listing a few facts and then hoping you'll come to the conclusion he wants. Take the first 5 paragraphs - Cohen lists the attempted sale of a sex-story and the journalists arrest but never actually states that the journalist was arrested because of the prior story. He just lets you connect the dots yourself. Then there's the bullshit surprise about this being the most expensive investigation in the police's history - instead of catching murders or other explicitly bad guys, the police have been investing all their time and cash into this lark. He doesn't acknowledge that this investigation (note: not a specific operation and thereby giving himself loads of wiggle room) does include the police investigating inappropriate payments to police (Operation Elveden), which is necessarily going to be a huge operation to organise effectively.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 11:29
|
|
|
It's annoying because I like Cohen sometimes and his book is great but on this I couldn't disagree with him more. He goes on about the illegal side and how the police should have acted and the law used. Which is fine. But then he forgets that Leveson was also about morals and ethics as well, which clearly does need changing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 11:39
|
|
|
The prosecution is going through emails, Mulcaire's notes, and recordings that present some pretty compelling evidencequote:Edis picks up on the management structure of NotW. #hackingtrial He emphasises two dates: the first Mulcaire tasking 8th January 2001
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 11:53
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, BM, will you be able to disclose the information you're privy to after the trial, even if it doesn't come out, or is it a kind of eternal embargo?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 12:27
|
|
|
Basically, I want to know if what Gawker said is true, and if so, will it ever be allowed to be told in the UK or will utterance of said event which may or may not have happened be forever verboten? Shameful I know, but I like to hear gossip regarding our glorious rulers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 12:31
|
|
|
thehustler posted:It's annoying because I like Cohen sometimes and his book is great but on this I couldn't disagree with him more. He goes on about the illegal side and how the police should have acted and the law used. Which is fine. But then he forgets that Leveson was also about morals and ethics as well, which clearly does need changing. So how do you draw a line between the crackdown againstt the Guardian and the one against News International? I figure there has to be a way, but I'm having a tough time putting my finger on it (the moral difference is obvious, but if you have your doubts about the government's capacity to act in a moral manner and concerns about its willingness to use moral panic to its own, less savoury ends, the relevance can be questionable). The Hackgate stuff seems to have more to do with individual right to privacy, I guess, and then there's the question of how many teeth these new reforms actually have, but I don't really have a coherent argument here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 12:33
|
|
|
Igiari posted:Out of curiosity, BM, will you be able to disclose the information you're privy to after the trial, even if it doesn't come out, or is it a kind of eternal embargo? Once all the trials are out of the way I think it'll be okay, it's just a lot of stuff that would be pre-judicial to the trials. There's a lot of stuff that's been going on for the past months that you would only know if you were looking for it specifically and did a lot of reading between the lines, but are covered by reporting restrictions. It's nothing mega-dramatic, like Raisa the horse murdering Milly Dowler, but interesting to anyone following everything closely. A bit nail-biting too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 12:38
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Raisa the horse murdered Milly Dowler Smoking-gun right here. Brown Moses has now contempted the hell out of court.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 13:37
|
|
|
The News of the World staff clearly didn't think much of Mulcaire if his nickname was "Trigger".
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 13:40
|
|
|
"Mr Edis says Stuart Kuttner signed of 221 payments to Mulcaire worth £413,527." Straight from the twitter page BM linked above. gently caress me, 400k for sitting and dialiing a few phone numbers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 14:40
|
|
|
happyhippy posted:"Mr Edis says Stuart Kuttner signed of 221 payments to Mulcaire worth £413,527." Can money "earned", or pubs bought, for instance, be seized as the proceeds of crime?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 14:47
|
|
|
"Brooks and Coulson had six year affair, claim prosecution." - Nick Davies @Bynickdavies
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 15:22
|
|
|
Itshappening.gif Will they have the balls to mention any of the other 'allegations'?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 15:24
|
|
|
Plavski posted:"Brooks and Coulson had six year affair, claim prosecution." - Nick Davies @Bynickdavies I can't remember, is that relevant to anything or just something fun?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
The horse must be devastated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
Plavski posted:"Brooks and Coulson had six year affair, claim prosecution." - Nick Davies @Bynickdavies That sound you hear coming out of Westminster is the the collective Tory party Spin department making GBS threads itself. There is always more, and it is always worse 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
Mr. Squishy posted:I can't remember, is that relevant to anything or just something fun? Remember they're charged with conspiracy -- it's quite important to establish how close they were, what level of trust there was between them, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 15:37
|
|
|
gently caress, finally, I've known about Brooks and Coulson with 100% certainty from a very good source for months. [edit] Here's the lunch time update. Brown Moses fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Oct 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 15:41
|
|
|
Sex Vicar posted:That sound you hear coming out of Westminster is the the collective Tory party Spin department making GBS threads itself. It's annoying the BBC seem to have stopped mentioning his Cameron connection. Oh well, it's well enough known I think.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
So I guess the RBAC.jpg thing was a hint after all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
I can scarecely believe that, back when Horsegate and poo poo was just emerging, all this stuff was a hopeful joke. That its possibly coming true is 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 15:59
|
|
|
"Edis has just read out letter said to have been written by Rebekah Brooks as Andy Coulson was reportedly breaking off relationship..." "RB letter to AC: 'you are my very best friend...I confide in you, I love you..we laugh and cry together...I'm frightened to be without you'"
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 16:00
|
|
|
Sex Vicar posted:There is always more, and it is always worse
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 16:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 12:33 |
|
|
Im pretty sure we speculated on a brooks/coulson affair in the original thread. Does anyone remember who called it? EDIT: My mistake, I called a Brooks - Cameron affair. Heres hoping 
Plasmafountain fucked around with this message at 16:06 on Oct 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2013 16:03
|
|