Rebekah Brooks cleared, Andy Coulson found guilty........

[Jah Lush]

This is an absolute outrage. How hell has she got away with this. I'm completely gobsmacked.

[El Pibe]

I'll admit to being a little gobsmacked myself, but I guess we've only seen the trial by media, biased by the fact that she's a bit of a cow and we don't like her.

It was a jury that cleared her after all, not the bilderberg group ;)

[Jah Lush]

The evidence against her just seemed overwhelming. It beggars belief how they hit upon this verdict.

[El Pibe]

I guess when she was burning stuff it might have been different crimes she was covering up ;)

[david_carnell]

It would seem she is simply the most incompetent newspaper editor in history to be utterly unaware of what was taking place under her nose.

[Otta]

The jury took days to come to their conclusion (I think I read earlier that they'd gone out on the 11th). So I suspect (not that I am any kind of legal expert) that her lawer managed to slip in some sort of "reasonable doubt" issue whereby they all knew she was guilty as sin, but they were forced to find her not guilty.

Of course I have absolutely no proof of that whatsoever, but will be interested to read more detail about the case, as I wasn't floowing that closely (I'd just assumed they'd both get done).

[Earl Aelfheah]

Does Andy Coulson still have a house in East Dulwich?

Seems hard to believe that Brooks didn't know what was going on, but the jury believed it, so I guess we have to accept it was so.

[*Bob*]

Yeah, she's the beneficiary of beyond reasonable doubt.

Better that (generally, for everyone) than the alternative - convicted on grounds of 'I reckon she probably did it'.

[El Pibe]

If that's the case otta, i assume there is the possiblity of civil cases brought by the victims where the burden of evidence is on her? (my legal grounding coming from having watched about 2 episodes of silk)

[Earl Aelfheah]

Yep I think in civil case the burden of proof is on 'the balance of probability' as opposed to 'beyond reasonable doubt', so you could be right.

[StraferJack]

I?m with the ?we might not like it, but the alternative to the system we have is even worse?

We all have a pop at Sue on here when without access to ALL the evidence or sitting in on all the trials she condemns the McCanns. Same thing here. We weren?t there so it?s not on us to make the judgment and say teh jury got it wrong

But what DC says is correct ? if we take hee by her own words, the world?s most inept editor

[DaveR]

Pure speculation, but I can imagine a jury feeling sympathetic to the PA/security guard/husband, and where the charge is conspiracy it's difficult to convict one and acquit the rest.

This is one of the few cases where there was a lot of reporting of the detail of the evidence and I thought the case against all of them was strong, but they came up with a positive story as to why they weren't guilty and (for whatever reason) the jury accepted it.

Acquittals won't have much/any impact on the civil cases which are against News International and are mostly being settled as far as I can see.

[Loz]

I can't say I followed the trial too deeply, but I had just hoped that one of the most evil people in the country would spend a lot of time behind bars. Sadly, not to be.

[maxxi]

No journos came forward to testify against her like they did Coulson - all hearsay really even though most probably true.

Now the judge has directed the jury to use majority vote Coulson could also be done for misconduct in public office and the police who sold stories got a couple of years for that so it's all adding up.

[Jah Lush]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Does Andy Coulson still have a house in East

> Dulwich?

He was a near neighbour of mine. He moved last summer. Glad that cunt got found guilty.

[adonirum]

DaveR, didn't really understand the end of your first sentence, if a charge is conspiracy then it must be impossibble, not difficult, to convict only one, otherwise where is the conspiracy? Anyway, agree with what you say and also Otta's post about legal arquement etc. Perhaps we really have got to the position in our society now, whereby "There's no justice in this country, only the law". Worth thinking about.

[DaveR]

You are right that conspiracy requires more than one, but not all conspirators have to be defendants. As I understand it, the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice was limited to the defendants, and as a matter of fact there either was a plot or there wasn't, so logically all in or all out. The conspiracies to hack phones & pay off various public servants included others not in the dock, so possible for one defendant to be convicted.

"Perhaps we really have got to the position in our society now, whereby "There's no justice in this country, only the law"."

Not sure how apt that is for this case; it was all about the facts, and the defendants came up with a good enough story.

[StraferJack]

The jury is repoted as accepting her version of events - but that isn't necessarily the case

you can have "not enough" evidence to prove guilt, without accepting the version of events

[steveo]

Inept money manager more like. How could that amount of cash be paid out without her or the Murdochs' knowledge?

[????]

My freedom for a horse.....or some such similar missquote

[LadyDeliah]

In a civil claim, the person bringing the claim would have to show on a minimum of 51% probability that she did it.

[dbboy]

Justice, what justice, either the jury was blind or bent. How oh how did Rebekah and Charlie both get off scot free? IMO both were guilty as charged.

[Sue]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> We all have a pop at Sue on here when without

> access to ALL the evidence or sitting in on all

> the trials she condemns the McCanns.

xxxxxx

I have always made it quite clear that my views on the McCanns are based solely on what information is in the Portuguese police files in the public domain, and that my view could change if I was privy to evidence which is not presently in the public domain.

And I don't know what "trials" you are referring to?

[ultraburner]

A big meh was my reaction too, Jah.

[Mick Mac]

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> rahrahrah Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Does Andy Coulson still have a house in East

> > Dulwich?

>

>

> He was a near neighbour of mine. He moved last

> summer. Glad that @#$%& got found guilty.

He moved from a house on Wood Vale at least two years ago. That's the house the press photographed him leaving from each day when the allegations broke.