|
And with some final comments about the process of hacking and dumping phones, the examination is done for the day. It will resume tomorrow.
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 08:44 |
|
|
Shelf Adventure posted:That's the key here. Andy Coulson was either implicit or incompetent (neither of which reflect well on Cameron's choice to hire him.) Reminder that Cameron magically hired Coulson with less background checking than was standard for the post, even though he had access to material that required a higher security clearance, and then lied about it. For, oh, probably no reason
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
Goddamn, this QC is brutal. No amount of money would exchange my place with Dan Evans right now. News Int. know how to throw their cash around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 13:39
|
|
|
Plavski posted:Goddamn, this QC is brutal. No amount of money would exchange my place with Dan Evans right now. News Int. know how to throw their cash around. edit: the shittiness of being cross-examined seems like a big problem with a court system like ours that's based on trial by combat* *not an exaggeration, we've just replaced the swords with words.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
Most of today's examination has involved going into the minutiae of the Daniel Craig/Sienna Miller call. Pinpointing the exact time and date, who heard, what was played. Coulson's QC, Timothy Langdale, is laying into him constantly:quote:Jim Old @SkyFixerJim 19m quote:Peter Jukes @peterjukes 32m quote:lisa o'carroll @lisaocarroll 19m quote:Robin Brant @robindbrant 19m quote:Peter Jukes @peterjukes 16m quote:Peter Jukes @peterjukes 2m quote:Peter Jukes @peterjukes 2m loving  . How Hollywood.The Big British Castle have a summary up of the days events so far: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25963637 Plavski fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Jan 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 13:58
|
|
|
Langdale Lobs Law Bomb:quote:lisa o'carroll @lisaocarroll 4m quote:Robin Brant @robindbrant 3m quote:Robin Brant @robindbrant 2m quote:Peter Jukes @peterjukes 1m quote:Peter Jukes @peterjukes 1m quote:Jim Old @SkyFixerJim 57s DRAMA quote:Peter Jukes @peterjukes 2m quote:Fiona Hamilton @Fhamiltontimes 1m Plavski fucked around with this message at 15:24 on Jan 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 15:20
|
|
|
Plavski posted:Most of today's examination has involved going into the minutiae of the Daniel Craig/Sienna Miller call. Pinpointing the exact time and date, who heard, what was played. Coulson's QC, Timothy Langdale, is laying into him constantly: I thought Evans was warned not to get combative with QC. I'm glad they're giving him more leeway. I love this kind of back and forth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
Thems big words mr bigshot lawyer, you'd better be able to back 'em up *click* Sure, the best form of defence is attack, but why would someone incriminate themselves with a fairy story. Defense is trying to muddy the waters here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
Is expecting people to remember every detail of a conversation that happened half a decade ago (would you say it was a half moon, or a gibbous moon? Were you wearing a tie clip? I have surveillance camera footage proving that you weren't!) actually a valid legal strategy? I mean I presume the idea is to cast doubt on testimony, but to me all this proves so far is that people don't have eidetic memories 
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
quote:Dominic Casciani @BBCDomC 16m quote:Dominic Casciani @BBCDomC 15m quote:Andy Davies @adavies4 2m quote:Peter Jukes @peterjukes 2m
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 15:42
|
|
|
Zephro posted:Is expecting people to remember every detail of a conversation that happened half a decade ago (would you say it was a half moon, or a gibbous moon? Were you wearing a tie clip? I have surveillance camera footage proving that you weren't!) actually a valid legal strategy? You prove they recalled something wrong and therefore they're a filthy liar. It's extremely effective, people assume any mistruth means you're untrustworthy. The jury system is utterly worthless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
Zephro posted:I mean I presume the idea is to cast doubt on testimony, but to me all this proves so far is that people don't have eidetic memories It's certainly not going to work when the end result is Mr Coulsen's good friends back his version of the story up and the jury goes say what? But the defence has nothing else to go on but cast doubt. They must trumpet show me the data at every turn, what else can they do. The biggest problem with it is that it stretches credulity to believe that management had no idea and was not involved. No amount of shouting about the particulars of a statement is going to erase the bigger picture which the jury depends upon to understand the case. Also don't forget that we're looking at a boss vs employee argument here, that's another difficult sell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
quote:Peter Jukes @peterjukes 4m quote:Peter Jukes @peterjukes 4m quote:Robin Brant @robindbrant 3m quote:Peter Jukes @peterjukes 3m quote:Dominic Casciani @BBCDomC 2m quote:Tom Symonds @tomsymonds 3m quote:Peter Jukes @peterjukes 2m quote:Peter Jukes @peterjukes 2m quote:Peter Jukes @peterjukes 1m quote:Dominic Casciani @BBCDomC 1m
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
Are we surprised that a drug addicted liar who has been given immunity from prosecution for ratting on the main culprit is being exposed as anything other than the charlatan that is so evidently is? (Satire)
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2014 18:51
|
|
|
Is the defence going to leave Evans up there for as long as possible?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 13:49
|
|
|
notaspy posted:Is the defence going to leave Evans up there for as long as possible? Cross-examination just ended. Court QC is now going over a few matters. I think Evans' time in the box will be over soon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 13:53
|
|
|
Plavski posted:Cross-examination just ended. Court QC is now going over a few matters. I think Evans' time in the box will be over soon. When all is said an done I'd love to find out if this cross examination had the desired effect
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 13:57
|
|
|
notaspy posted:When all is said an done I'd love to find out if this cross examination had the desired effect The point repeatedly hammered home is: "Dan Evans is a druggy and is making up all this stuff. He remembered meetings that didn't take place, he doesn't write about phone hacking anywhere and he is completely confused on every single element of his 'alleged' hack. There is nothing to corroborate his story and it's just his word against Coulson's. These mythical tapes will never appear because there were no tapes and there were no meetings." Dan Evans fought back the best he could, but it's easy to claim things didn't happen 9 years ago when hardly anyone involved remembers it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 14:00
|
|
|
Presumably the problem with that line of argument is that to make it accurate you'd have to modify it slightly to "Dan Evans is a masochistic druggy who made all this stuff up and got himself arrested because, um..."
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 14:02
|
|
|
Zephro posted:Presumably the problem with that line of argument is that to make it accurate you'd have to modify it slightly to "Dan Evans is a masochistic druggy who made all this stuff up and got himself arrested because, um..." As he himself said numerous times: "Why would I make it up? This isn't exactly enjoyable for me..."
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 14:03
|
|
|
Yeah well, you need to be mentally prepared for cross examination and even then it can go horribly wrong for you. Most people buckle under hostile questioning because they aren't trained to deal with it. Sometimes they become really defensive when they don't need to be, blubber alot and give their interrogator more rope than they need to hang them. Its still going to be weighed with the direct examination. You are doing well if you don't completely fall apart in cross. I'm at work so I'm missing the action. Did he completely fall apart?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
WanderingKid posted:Yeah well, you need to be mentally prepared for cross examination and even then it can go horribly wrong for you. Most people buckle under hostile questioning because they aren't trained to deal with it. Sometimes they become really defensive when they don't need to be, blubber alot and give their interrogator more rope than they need to hang them. Not really, no. There were a few moments where he got snippy with the really aggressive cross-examination techniques, but in general he held his cool and his nerve. It seemed a horribly unpleasant experience for him but in the end I think he did really quite well. As with all this stuff, the cross-examination was hunting for specific details of 9 year old events so I can only imagine how frustrating it must be to not remember every specific detail and have that used to show you were a drugged up lying fantasist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 14:58
|
|
|
Sienna Miller is giving evidence by link now and is corroborating the poo poo out of Dan Evans.quote:Dominic Casciani @BBCDomC 7m quote:Jim Old @SkyFixerJim 6m quote:lisa o'carroll @lisaocarroll 6m quote:Dominic Casciani @BBCDomC 7m Her evidence has concluded and Evans will be back at 10.30 on Monday (the poor bugger). The gist of Miller's evidence was that: "I told everyone I loved them and if you had overheard me saying that, you'd think it was more than it was. The article about it is complete crap, but the internal emails about my weight-loss and biting my fingernails is right. Also, I was crying most of the time and going through hell." Evans probably feels like a total poo poo. Plavski fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Jan 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
So are we likely to get the defence calling Miller a liar too? "You were never at that club Ms Miller, and I can prove it!!!! e- oh I guess she's done. I suppose calling attractive celebrity victims liars doesn't play so well with juries
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Last day for Dan Evans as the prosecution re-examines him. The end of the case for the prosecution is looming apparently.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
Plavski posted:Last day for Dan Evans as the prosecution re-examines him. The end of the case for the prosecution is looming apparently. What's the general thoughts on the matter? looking like a slam dunk case?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 10:50
|
|
|
Tithin Melias posted:What's the general thoughts on the matter? looking like a slam dunk case? Some papers are claiming the trial has been 'explosive', others are more muted. My own feeling is that we haven't had a smoking gun, just a hell of a lot of "it really really looks like they were hacking and knew about it guys. Seriously. It really looks that way." Whether they'll get them for phone hacking, I don't know. Certainly poo poo like destroying company e-mails and disposing of evidence will come to bite them hard, but it's pretty difficult to prove a conspiracy or anything like that considering how off the books and guarded the whole thing was at NotW. I'm sure the defense will put on quite a show portraying Coulson and Brooks as unwitting pawns in the evil machinations of drug-addicts and gossip-hounds. The poor darlings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 11:06
|
|
|
I could be mistaken here, or confusing US and UK law, but aren't there provisions in UK law where the attempted disposal of evidence is to be treated as though it were the absolute most damning thing to your case that it could be, and the juries are instructed to keep that in mind during their deliberations?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 11:17
|
|
|
Plavski posted:Some papers are claiming the trial has been 'explosive', others are more muted. My own feeling is that we haven't had a smoking gun, just a hell of a lot of "it really really looks like they were hacking and knew about it guys. Seriously. It really looks that way." I pretty much agree, with the destruction of the email record there is no hard link in the cases BUT I think this might be a problem of the way the tweets have been done. They are factual but lack a context, looking at how private eye does the reporting these guys are hosed with a capital hosed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 13:22
|
|
|
Tithin Melias posted:I could be mistaken here, or confusing US and UK law, but aren't there provisions in UK law where the attempted disposal of evidence is to be treated as though it were the absolute most damning thing to your case that it could be, and the juries are instructed to keep that in mind during their deliberations? I believe that's the general common law attitude to evidence that has been disposed of (that juries assume it was as damaging to the disposer's case as can reasonably be presumed) but I don't think that would be the case in situations where the disposal was attempted but the evidence was retrieved. It definitely looks very bad and is damaging to the case, far more so than the evidence being handed in willingly, but not as damning as it could be. It will depend on what exactly was on the laptops, etc. that was relevant and whether the prosecution can persuade the jury whether that indicates a general attempt to cover up activities at the paper from investigators.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 13:41
|
|
|
Was all the evidence recovered though? I seem to remember the BBC reporting that security footage showed the same people who took away the laptop and bag o' porn also removed large black bin bags a few days earlier. Will the defence argue that security specialists were necessary to dispose of multiple sacks filled with porn, each with a capacity of 30-40 litres?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
notaspy posted:They are factual but lack a context, looking at how private eye does the reporting these guys are hosed with a capital hosed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Verizian posted:Was all the evidence recovered though? I seem to remember the BBC reporting that security footage showed the same people who took away the laptop and bag o' porn also removed large black bin bags a few days earlier. Yeah, to get conspiracy theorist for a moment, you could say they disposed of the evidence and then brought it back specifically so this could be considered the full extent of what they had to hide. It's taken away and then 'recovered', conveniently in full view of a security camera, by 'bungling' professional security personnel. Cue an 'a-HA! What do we have here then' "ohnos it's a fair cop" discovery
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
Here's my latest ACAB post from my regular blog contributor - The Met - Upsetting The Apple Cart.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 12:47
|
|
|
I can't believe anyone significant at NOTW will actually go to jail or be punished in any meaningful way. That sort of thing is for the little people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2014 13:02
|
|
|
Guess which stud Wendy Deng is talking aboutquote:Oh, poo poo, oh, poo poo. Whatever why I’m so so missing Tony. Because he is so so charming and his clothes are so good. He has such good body and he has really really good legs Butt . . . And he is slim tall and good skin. Pierce blue eyes which I love. Love his eyes. Also I love his power on the stage . . . and what else and what else and what else . . .
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 10:44
|
|
|
Is it Tony Abbott?  
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 10:47
|
|
|
What in the gently caress... so those rumours were true? I'm so incredibly sceptical of this whole shebang, cos it's just too daytime soap opera.quote:But one day Mr. Blair arrived and Mrs. Murdoch was sort of being very flirtatious. She was charming him. He asked the staff, ‘When is Mr. Murdoch going to arrive?’ And when he was told, ‘Tomorrow night,’ Mr. Blair rolled his eyes and gave a panicked look.”
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 10:50
|
|
|
I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation for those events, the screenwriter just needs inspiration.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 08:44 |
|
|
So Michael Sheen will be seduced by Lucy Liu in the new Peter Morgan adaptation of this little drama?quote:@London_Calling_: Finding out that Murdoch's boat is called Morning Glory is distressing.
Plavski fucked around with this message at 11:57 on Feb 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2014 11:22
|
|