Looking Good For Rebekka ?

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26272727

Cleared of one charge already. The Judge had some odd things to say though
about her treatment...how can this not prejudice the prosecution case on the other 4 charges ?

"And he told the jury that at the end of the trial, he would "have a lot more to say" about Mrs Brooks's treatment by the prosecution and the police."

[black_cat51]

not odd at all. It was her lawyer that said the last think, and you'd expect him to - it's his job to cast doubt.

[emeritus]

It was her defence Lawyer Mikey not the judge that said that.

[New Judge]

I believe it was Jonathan Laidlaw QC, counsel for Ms Brooks, who made those remarks, Mikey, not the judge. It would be very surprising if he did not have something to say at some stage about the way his client had been treated by the prosecution.

[mikey4444]

I stand corrected...thanks. I thought it sounded a bit daft coming from the Judge !

However, if the Judge has kicked out one of the four charges against her, I can't but see that it will not throw doubt in the minds of the Jury regarding the remaining charges. I realise that is the way court proceedings work but it can't be an ideal way to proceed.

[youngmafbog]

I guess thats always a risk for the prosecution if they bring multiple charges especially if one of them is not rock solid as appears to be the case here.

On the other hand though the jury could interpret it as the judge thinks the other 3 are solid so she must be guilty of them or he would have thrown them out.

Remember the majority of the public errs on the thick side and dont think things out as many on here would do.

[douglas9401]

As opposed to R. Brooks as judge and jury for all those years New Judge?
Nary a right of reply for anyone targeted by her 'newspapers' under her leadership.
She's another example of power corrupting and utter disdain for us plebs.
Still, with that paragon of virtue Blair and his backroom boys in her camp how can she lose?
Hell mend her.

[mikey4444]

jmb...you are probably right.

There is another aspect to this and similar cases though. What about the Jury ? This case has been going on for weeks and the Jury must be pretty sick and tired of it all by now. Their normal lives has been in suspension every since the first day. If this happened to me I would be almost bankrupt by now, as I am self-employed. The only time I have ever served on a Jury was for one day only, in a Coroners Court a few years ago, and that was enough.

[mikey4444]

Don't forget douglas that dave was also a close confident of Beka...remember all those "country suppers " that went on in the Cotswolds ! ( nobody ever explained what a Country Supper was by the way )

It seem Beka was hedging her bets, politics wise that is.

[sandyRoe]

Is 'country suppers' the modern euphemism for what used to be known as 'Ugandan Discussions'?

[douglas9401]

Not her hedging her bets so much as a couple of roasters fawning over a flame haired temptress with the power to bury any of them when she liked.
The more it's thought about, the more revolting the whole setup seems.

[mikey4444]

Is this what you had in mind sandy ? ::

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ugandan%20Discussions

My god, this hacking trial gets more interesting by the day !

[sandyRoe]

It was. :-) But on reflection I'm sure both Rebekka and Cameron are people of the utmost probity and the discussions centered on nothing more than borrowed horses.

[FredPuli43]

That there is no case to answer, on one count out of several ,does not sway the jury one way or another. As far as they are concerned ,it is a technical matter of law.

[mikey4444]

Are you saying fred, that the Jury has sat through weeks of court proceedings and then, when suddenly one of the five charges is dropped, that they won't think that perhaps the remaining four might not be very strong either ?

What, not even a tiny little bit ?

It might be a technical point of law but the Jury can't "unhear" what they have listened to these last few weeks. I still think that Beka is looking rather more confident of being acquitted now than she did yesterday.

If the CPS thought that the charge was serious enough to bring it before a Court months ago, why did it collapse in Court today ?

[youngmafbog]

Fred, technically you are correct of course it is just a point of law.

But you seem rather naive as to the intelligence of the average jury rather than my experience of them. On one of them a jurors reason for guilty vote was 'because he looks guilty'

Yes I know the problem of self employed and jury service Mickey, not fun. Unfortunately I seem to get picked on for jury service, but on the positive side the longest was 3 days (I was foreman for one and had the pleasure of saying guilty 10 times for the 10 counts) Still, we all have to do our civic duty.

[sandyRoe]

What's the masculine version of the French word, 'tricoteuse'?

[FredPuli43]

Exactly as I say, mikey. The other counts are still before the jury;those have not been dismissed; and the jury are told that the one count is not because of "a matter of law". The judge reminds them, when he makes this ruling, that the law is for him alone ,while the facts are for them.

[mikey4444]

Well, we shall soon know what fate awaits Beka and Co. Whatever happens in court, nothing will convince me that they are not all scumbags.

[New Judge]

That's good enough for me! Take them down :-)