Login | Register
SearchMy Stuff
My ProfileMy PreferencesMy Mates RSS Feed
2 3 ... 30 31
Reply to Topic
Author Discussion

CommanderJameson

Original Poster:

22,096 posts

106 months

[news] 
Monday 28th October 2013 quote quote all
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24691241

I'm going to bid "not guilty".

With a fall-back of "guilty of lesser charges, two years suspended".

Symbolica

9,764 posts

95 months

[news] 
Monday 28th October 2013 quote quote all
Can we hang them if they're found guilty?

In fact, could we just do that anyway?

Blib

25,168 posts

77 months

[news] 
Monday 28th October 2013 quote quote all
I'm going 'guilty'. They're tall poppies and more than a few would like them cut down to size.

rohrl

5,163 posts

25 months

[news] 
Monday 28th October 2013 quote quote all
I can’t see how Brooks can get off the secondary charge of hiding/destroying evidence. They seem to have her bang to rights on that one. I expect to hear some utterly nauseating pleas for clemency though and if she is convicted I wouldn’t be that surprised if the court is inexplicably lenient in the sentence handed down.

jmorgan

19,160 posts

164 months

[news] 
Monday 28th October 2013 quote quote all
Clever lawyer, get off, naughty world is out to get them, big pay out for the inconvenience.
Advertisement

Derek Smith

18,891 posts

128 months

[news] 
Monday 28th October 2013 quote quote all
It was well known in my day that if there was overwhelming evidence to convict, that was the time to worry. It would mean that the case would not revolve around evidence as such but on what are generally known as technicalities. These will, of necessity, be obscure so difficult to protect against. Further, some technicalities contradict so a prosecution can't ensure compliance by going overboard, or even on the rails, one way.

On top of that, a long trial means that much of what the jurors will hear will be discarded. They will forget. The prosecution will put its case, then the defence will concentrate on certain aspects, and the jurors will, quite naturally, concentrate on what the defence questioned. This means that they will concentrate of peripherals rather than the subject matter.

To simplify, a witness will say that they saw a dark coloured car. The defence will then ask in cross to someone who has only seen the car in daylight, such as SOCO, what colour the car was. If it was taupe, the defence will bring in a piece of card coloured taupe, but just the light side of medium. The SOCO will agree and then the defence will produce a witness to say that the car in possession of the defendant was dark grey. The jury are then wondering about the colour of the car, something that, given the circumstances, has little relevance.

Much will be, as normal, up to the summing up.

Brookes has already said that she paid police for information:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1AJjnl2y8U

so the defence spin on that will be interesting.

No chance of her getting off through undue influence though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue7cdgsMMgI

"I received messages of support from #10, #11, the Home Office, Mr Blair . . . "

Mind you, that was pre charging. One wonders if they have been sending quite so many 'lots of love' emails since.


Edited by Derek Smith on Monday 28th October 16:16

Ozzie Osmond

15,550 posts

126 months

[news] 
Monday 28th October 2013 quote quote all
rohrl said:
I can’t see how Brooks can get off the secondary charge of hiding/destroying evidence. They seem to have her bang to rights on that one.
You appear remarkably well informed.

I'm surprised the PH boot-boys haven't yet jumped in to ban all contributors and close the thread in a fit of panic....

Mermaid

15,726 posts

51 months

[news] 
Tuesday 29th October 2013 quote quote all

The trial is expected to last about 6 months, plenty of revelations and a lot of nervous people around.

joe_90

3,784 posts

111 months

[news] 
Tuesday 29th October 2013 quote quote all
They will never see a day in jail, in-fact I have a £100 bet (to charity) that I am right on this.

10 Pence Short

30,921 posts

97 months

[news] 
Tuesday 29th October 2013 quote quote all
I note it was previously ordered to be secret (and not renewed after today, hence it being public knowledge now) that Brooks changed their legal team a couple of months ago, with John Kelsey-Fry QC no longer representing her.

Mermaid

15,726 posts

51 months

[news] 
Tuesday 29th October 2013 quote quote all
10 Pence Short said:
I note it was previously ordered to be secret (and not renewed after today, hence it being public knowledge now) that Brooks changed their legal team a couple of months ago, with John Kelsey-Fry QC no longer representing her.
Because of the length of the trial or something else?


Jonathan Laidlaw QC not as highly regarded for this type of case?

Justin Cyder

10,924 posts

29 months

[news] 
Wednesday 30th October 2013 quote quote all
It would be pleasing symmetry if a former editor or two of the News of the World did in fact discover whether prisons are like holiday camps as a result of this trial.

CommanderJameson

Original Poster:

22,096 posts

106 months

[news] 
Wednesday 30th October 2013 quote quote all
Justin Cyder said:
It would be pleasing symmetry if a former editor or two of the News of the World did in fact discover whether prisons are like holiday camps as a result of this trial.
"Where's my Playstation? I was supposed to get a Playstation! I read it in the...

...oh."

Derek Smith

18,891 posts

128 months

[news] 
Wednesday 30th October 2013 quote quote all
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2479862/Sc...

One unamused judge.

D'you think his lack of appreciation of the humour might have something to do with the criticisms of various judges that the Eye has indulged in over the years?


turbobloke

59,844 posts

140 months

[news] 
Wednesday 30th October 2013 quote quote all
'Eye not in contempt of court' says Attorney General and the jury members have seen it, so we have plod overstepping the mark even by 'asking' (as happens). There must be a museum somewhere with truncheons that need polishing, a better use of time than hassling innocent vendors.

outnumbered

1,357 posts

114 months

[news] 
Wednesday 30th October 2013 quote quote all
Derek Smith said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2479862/Sc...

One unamused judge.

D'you think his lack of appreciation of the humour might have something to do with the criticisms of various judges that the Eye has indulged in over the years?
Good to see the key defendants are all wearing their Remembrance poppies already, obviously not for PR reasons of course. rolleyes

BoRED S2upid

10,144 posts

120 months

[news] 
Wednesday 30th October 2013 quote quote all
So whats the maximum jail term they could get?

Derek Smith

18,891 posts

128 months

[news] 
Wednesday 30th October 2013 quote quote all
BoRED S2upid said:
So whats the maximum jail term they could get?
In theory, unlimited for some. In practice, very little and probably suspended.

Interesting opening statements by the prosecution.

Has the defence objected on the grounds of the defendants unlikely to get a fair trial at a pre-trial hearing? I didn't read anything about it but then, I suppose, I wouldn't.

The CPS demanding that the newsvendor be advised to remove the Eye with its second Salem witch trial cover is indicative of their mind-set. The bloke's response to the CPS request is rather sweet.

These blokes - all blokes in my day - saw everything. When, after the Daily Telegraph payroll job, I ran into Holborn to see which way the offenders went I was devastated to find no newsvendor. Luckily there was a road sweeper although he was nothing like as sharp. These blokes would normally say stuff like: I didn't see anything, but it is most likely that the bloke you are looking for ran into that pub. You were expected to buy a newspaper but not wait for your change.

LordLoveLength

190 posts

10 months

[news] 
Wednesday 30th October 2013 quote quote all
BoRED S2upid said:
So whats the maximum jail term they could get?
Burnt at the stake?

Derek Smith

18,891 posts

128 months

[news] 
Wednesday 30th October 2013 quote quote all
rohrl said:
I can’t see how Brooks can get off the secondary charge of hiding/destroying evidence. They seem to have her bang to rights on that one.
There was a lot of coverage at the time of the police raid. If her notebooks went missing then there is a degree of pressure on the defence to answer that one.

I've got a friend who reckons that some might well change their plea halfway through the trial. Sometimes the judgements of the defence as to the amount of weight a jury might give to a certain bit of evidence are little more than guesswork. If evidence is given firmly, confidently and naturally, it can be very persuasive. I was in court at a trial with Argyle. The main prosecution witness came over well and at the end of the evidence in chief the defence counsel asked for 'a moment or two' to confer with the defendants. Argyle said something like: I thought you would. I don't expect it will take too long.

Someone whose opinion I find worthwhile listening to reckons that the trial will not go the full distance.
2 3 ... 30 31
Reply to Topic