|
twoot posted:Charlie Brooks drank Fairy Liquid as a hangover cure, hacking trial hears "this man is a loving idiot, he could never accomplish a huge scheme to hide evidence" is probably not the best defence when you are accused of a failed scheme to hide evidence.
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 21:00 |
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:"this man is a loving idiot, he could never accomplish a huge scheme to hide evidence" is probably not the best defence when you are accused of a failed scheme to hide evidence. Didn't he employ some "security specialists" to do some "housecleaning" just prior to the raids/arrests?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Getting pretty sick of the media coverage of this case. The three headlines that stick out so far have been: "David Cameron thought 'lol' meant 'lots of love'" "Charlie Brooks had porn mags at home" "Charlie Brooks is a loving idiot" It's all such blatant smoke and mirrors to avoid people talking about the massive abuse of power and abhorrent relationship between the media and the government, to say nothing of widespread corruption. Really boils my piss.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
winegums posted:Getting pretty sick of the media coverage of this case. The three headlines that stick out so far have been: Bit difficult to do much more than report the facts of the case whilst trials are underway or pending.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:Bit difficult to do much more than report the facts of the case whilst trials are underway or pending. They could always run interesting-but-unrelated articles such as "Screw the CIA index, how corrupt is Britain really?" and "What would really happen if we beheaded all the really rich people?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
CountButtula posted:They could always run interesting-but-unrelated articles such as "Screw the CIA index, how corrupt is Britain really?" and "What would really happen if we beheaded all the really rich people?" You'd have to be so obtuse as to make no difference, and one slip and you're in front of the beak. The juicy stuff will come out once the sub judice rules no longer apply.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
twoot posted:Charlie Brooks drank Fairy Liquid as a hangover cure, hacking trial hears Dish washing detergent is carcinogenic. Not the most logical solution to dehydration. Twisted Perspective fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Apr 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
twoot posted:Charlie Brooks drank Fairy Liquid as a hangover cure, hacking trial hears "If I was your husband, I'd drink it."
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Coulson denies being played the Sienna Miller tape by Dan Evans. I don't know about you, but I'm shocked... http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/22/andy-coulson-sienna-miller-voicemail-phone-hacking-trial
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2014 13:51
|
|
|
According to Coulson, his affair with Brooks lasted until 2007 - 3 years after she said it ended. Note that this is while between them they edited two of the most powerful and influential tabloids in the country. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-27158920
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 12:43
|
|
|
It seems to me the defendants have certainly given the jury a lot to discuss in their deliberations, I think we'll be waiting a while once the jury retires.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 12:55
|
|
|
So what precisely are the charges laid against them? I'm curious as to the possibility of reasonable doubt and the chances of them getting off the hook. How many guilty / not guilty are needed to secure a conviction?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 13:24
|
|
|
The BBC has a piece with each defendant and what they are charged with http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24351068 A lot of them are interlocking, so a poor performance by one in the witness box can be damning for other on trial.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2014 13:36
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:It seems to me the defendants have certainly given the jury a lot to discuss in their deliberations, I think we'll be waiting a while once the jury retires.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
Its all gone a bit quiet here but right now Clive Goodman is spilling his guts all over the court. Anyone know how bad this is for the defendants?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 10:55
|
|
|
I'd be interested in seeing if the defendants are questioned again after this. Goodman's original appearance was scheduled so they would be able to be questioned about his claims and defend themselves against his accusations. Now he's the last one to speak before summing up, and his accusations will be fresh in the juries mind.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 11:41
|
|
|
Any fresh news or is it just reaffirming points to the jury?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 12:33
|
|
|
Well Goodman said he hacked Kate Middleton's phone personally 155 times, Prince William 35 times and Prince Harry 9 times. Hilariously, he hacked Kate's phone the very day before he got arrested. When questioned as to why he never mentioned it before he said: "No-one asked me." Who the gently caress knows who else he hacked that they haven't asked him about. Someone should bring in a printed out copy of Wikipedia and start going through them one by one.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 12:37
|
|
|
Interesting comment on todayquote:Goodman claims former NoTW editor Alex Marunchak gave him several internal police files on suspects hassling the Royal family
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 14:59
|
|
|
Good old Southern Investigations - glad they're back in the spotlight.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
What... crime, exactly, would hacking a Royal's phone be?
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 18:14
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:What... crime, exactly, would hacking a Royal's phone be? I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but the law on phone hacking is laid out here: http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/criminal/crimes_a_z/500359.html
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but the law on phone hacking is laid out here: The situation is rather more complex than that because there is precedent that RIPA doesn't apply to VMs that have been listened to, and that the offence is only committed by those doing the actual interception, not by those who ordered it. So the charges are a bit of a melange of unlawful interception of a communication under RIPA, unlawful acquisition of personal data under the Data Protection Act, conspiracy to cause misconduct in a public office (bribery of police officers and others), perverting the course of justice (by attempting to cover up all of these) and criminal conspiracy to commit all of the above, with the charges bought against each individual depending on exactly what the CPS think they can make stick. I think that Coulson and Brooks have probably done enough to cast reasonable doubt on the first two but unfortunately for them they're the ones that carry the least harsh sentencing - perverting the course of justice on it's own is enough to put them away for a very long time.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 10:08
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:perverting the course of justice on it's own is enough to put them away for a very long time. According to the CPS Sentencing Manual perverting the course of justice carries a sentencing range of 4-36 months. CPS posted:General sentencing brackets summarised in Archbold at 28-28 as follows: How many counts of perverting the course of justice are they charged with? The consecutive bit could make the years add up. HortonNash fucked around with this message at 10:49 on May 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 10:47
|
|
|
HortonNash posted:According to the CPS Sentencing Manual perverting the course of justice carries a sentencing range of 4-36 months. It normally scales with the seriousness of the offence too, otherwise you're saying "Come clean and get 8 years or delete loving everything and get 8 months". Archer got 4 years for considerably less than both Brooks are accused of.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 11:42
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:It normally scales with the seriousness of the offence too, otherwise you're saying "Come clean and get 8 years or delete loving everything and get 8 months". Archer got 4 years for considerably less than both Brooks are accused of. Ahh, okay.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 11:59
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but the law on phone hacking is laid out here: Not sarcastic, more wondering if 'to a Royal' adds any interesting fillips. You know, treason, intercepting the mail of the government, old 11th century laws about spying on the King and his Heirs.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 16:46
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:Not sarcastic, more wondering if 'to a Royal' adds any interesting fillips. You know, treason, intercepting the mail of the government, old 11th century laws about spying on the King and his Heirs. We don't really use those laws any more. Technically James Hewitt and that Doctor guy should have been sentenced to death by hanging, drawing, and quartering for sleeping with Princess Di. It's still legally treason to sleep with the wife of the heir to the throne. But they weren't charged with anything.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
From Peter Jukesquote:BREAKING: Goodman says he told his editor Andy Coulson that a Prince William "beagling" story was the result of phone hacking early in 2006 Going to be hard to claim ignorance that it was going on now.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 10:58
|
|
|
I'm on leave next week and would like to go to the trail, can someone remind me which court it is being held at?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 11:14
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:From Peter Jukes Liar, liar pants on fire... Boom, done
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
notaspy posted:I'm on leave next week and would like to go to the trail, can someone remind me which court it is being held at? Southwark Crown Court, but it's likely they'll be summing up by next week, so it won't be so exciting.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 11:23
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Southwark Crown Court, but it's likely they'll be summing up by next week, so it won't be so exciting. Summing up is the best part!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 11:24
|
|
|
notaspy posted:I'm on leave next week and would like to go to the trail, can someone remind me which court it is being held at? Turn up very early at Southwark Crown Court because there'll be a queue to get in for the summing ups.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 11:28
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Southwark Crown Court, but it's likely they'll be summing up by next week, so it won't be so exciting. Are you sure? There is nothing on the listings.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 11:32
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:From Peter Jukes Well, they'd have to attack his recollections or credibility.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 11:59
|
|
|
Back to summing up, Peter Jukes is Tweeting it. Could be there's no court listings for next week because it might be done by then. Very bad luck for Coulson and co Goodman appeared after all of them, not before as planned.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 12:38
|
|
|
The judge has just said the jury will retire to make their verdict on June 9th.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 13:32
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:The judge has just said the jury will retire to make their verdict on June 9th. And I'm sure the appeals process will be swift!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 16:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 18, 2024 21:00 |
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Back to summing up, Peter Jukes is Tweeting it. Could be there's no court listings for next week because it might be done by then. Very bad luck for Coulson and co Goodman appeared after all of them, not before as planned. Even look at today's listings I can see anything, does the case have a combined reference? If not no biggie, there are other things to waste my time on. Edit: I knew you were talking bollocks Brown! It's on at the old bailey not Southwark! I can never trust you again. Wait until I tell everyone on Twitter, this is the final piece of the puzzle to expose you as the CIA/FBI plant we have always suspected you of being! ! notaspy fucked around with this message at 16:36 on May 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 16:14
|
|