Rebekah Brooks latest

Panda wrote:http://news.sky.com/story/1215248/hacking-trial-hears-of-brooks-car-crash-life

I don't understand why Rebekah's private life was relevant , nor the surrogacy.

Quote from article
Mr Laidlaw went on to ask about her relationship with Coulson and in particular periods of "physical intimacy" with him which began in around 1998.
She said: "Any affair, by its very nature, is quite dysfunctional. It certainly added a complexity to what was a very good friendship.
Unquote.
It has nothing to do with the case, it does give her an opportunity to play the 'normal soft tender woman competing in a male dominated business' rather than the cold calculating truth bender that she really is.
She is however, whether intentionally or not, highlighting that her entire life and lifestyle are dysfunctional and that she is aware of her problem.

IMHO, she's as guilty as sin.

I agree malena, Brooks was given 1 million pounds by Murdoch and an Office and Car when she was forced to resign from NOTW.....shows how Senior her position was, the private life i assume is to prove how distracted she was and didn't know what was going on......if you believe that you beleive anything. 

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/feb/21/phone-hacking-trial-rebekah-brooks-private-life-andy-coulson

A cheap shot by her Lawyer to gain sympathy ....I hope the Judge and Jury were not taken in by the crocodile tears.  

http://news.sky.com/story/1217017/brooks-shock-horror-at-milly-dowler-hacking

And Rebekah expects us to believe her?????

Borrowing the immortal words of Mr Anjos who told the Portuguese newspaper Jornal de Noticias: when describing Clarence Mitchell.
"He lies with as many teeth as he has in his mouth."

She lies with as many teeth as she has in her mouth.

Everyone else is always wrong, everyone else is always lying, she knows nothing about any wrong doing, she did not realise the practice was illegal....

Just what was she doing to earn her pay when editor of the 'News of the World'?

malena stool wrote:Borrowing the immortal words of Mr Anjos who told the Portuguese newspaper Jornal de Noticias: when describing Clarence Mitchell.
"He lies with as many teeth as he has in his mouth."

She lies with as many teeth as she has in her mouth.

Everyone else is always wrong, everyone else is always lying, she knows nothing about any wrong doing, she did not realise the practice was illegal....

Just what was she doing to earn her pay when editor of the 'News of the World'?

I know malena, but there are 4 more charges against her surely she can't sail through this scot free. I seem to remember she was guilty of paying SY Police for information received.I DON'T THINK SHE WILL ESCAPE JUSTICE.!!

Panda wrote:

malena stool wrote:Borrowing the immortal words of Mr Anjos who told the Portuguese newspaper Jornal de Noticias: when describing Clarence Mitchell.
"He lies with as many teeth as he has in his mouth."

She lies with as many teeth as she has in her mouth.

Everyone else is always wrong, everyone else is always lying, she knows nothing about any wrong doing, she did not realise the practice was illegal....

Just what was she doing to earn her pay when editor of the 'News of the World'?

I know malena, but there are 4 more charges against her surely she can't sail through this scot free. I seem to remember she was guilty of paying SY Police for information received.I DON'T THINK SHE WILL ESCAPE JUSTICE.!!

The 'hacking scandal' will certainly test the impartiality of our judicial system towards those who possess both money and influential friends.

Phone Hacking: Rebekah Brooks Did Pay Public Officials For Information
PA/Huffington Post UK | Posted: 27/02/2014 15:55 GMT | Updated: 27/02/2014 16:59 GMT

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/02/27/rebekah-brooks-did-pay-public-officials-for-information_n_4866858.html

Former News International chief executive Rebekah Brooks has admitted paying public officials for information on "half a dozen" occasions during her time as a newspaper editor. But she denied knowing that the name of a source paid by the Sun for stories over eight years or that she worked for the Ministry of Defence (MoD).

The 45-year-old told the hacking trial at the Old Bailey she sanctioned payments on "a handful" of occasions between 1998 and 2009, when she edited the News of the World (NotW) and later the Sun. Asked by her lawyer Jonathan Laidlaw QC if she ever sanctioned payments to public officials, Brooks answered: "Yes."

Questioned on how many times, she replied: "A handful of occasions - half a dozen." She added: "My view at the time was that there had to be an overwhelming public interest to justify payments in the very narrow circumstances of a public official being paid for information directly in line with their jobs.

"Public interest - I and everyone else always finds this a very difficult subject to address because it's very subjective depending on what newspaper or media organisation you're in. Each newspaper has its own interpretation." The court has previously heard claims that MoD press officer Bettina Jordan-Barber received a total of £100,000 for information she provided to The Sun.

Jurors were told a record of payments was found relating to 71 stories across categories such as deaths in action, injuries in action, alleged misconduct, loss of Army property, and treatment of troops and their welfare. Mr Laidlaw asked if she knew who the journalist's source was.

"No I didn't know who Bettina Jordan-Barber was," she replied. Asked if Brooks knew the source was a public official, she replied: "No. "He never told me any of his confidential sources. I mean most journalists kept their contacts and sources pretty close to their chest. It's a standard thing in the industry."

Asked if she should have known the identity of paid sources, Brooks said: "There should have been a process for that to come to me so I could, if anything, take responsibility for it." Brooks told the court she had regular contact with "senior level" officers, including the Metropolitan police commissioner and other chief constables.

The former editor said she frequently met with senior military figures such as the chief of staff and army commanders who held posts in Helmand, Afghanistan. She also claimed to have meetings with figures from MI5 and MI6.
Brooks said public officials working for former prime ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown would often tell journalists information during the pair's "feud".

"We found both camps willing to tell particular journalists information, all of whom would be considered public officials," she said. Brooks denies conspiring with others to commit misconduct in public office between January 1 2004 and January 31 2012 and other charges.

Brooks said there were two main ways of making cash payments to contacts. One was a docket system where the journalist would fill out a form which would then be cashed in at the company's cashier's office and the money given to the source. The second involved cash being sent through the wire transfer service of Thomas Cook.

Mr Laidlaw took Brooks through stories in the Sun which had followed payments to Ms Jordan-Barber. A story with the headline "Captain Boozy Gets Barred From William College" was published in October 2006 when Brooks was attending the Conservative party conference, the court heard.

The former editor said she was "not sure" she would have sanctioned payment for the story, which referred to an army instructor getting drunk and causing trouble on a bus, despite being in the public interest. She told the court that reading the story did not suggest it had come from a public official.

"Seeing it in isolation it could have been any source," she said. "It could have been the bus driver or someone on the bus. It certainly touches my public interest, the public interest, test. If I would have been asked to sanction payment for this....despite the public interest in this, I'm not sure I would have done."

The court heard Brooks was in Australia in November 2006 when the Sun ran a story about the death of a female spy in Iraq. Asked if she would have known from reading the story that it had come from a public official, she replied: "I would not have particularly thought it did or it didn't."

Brooks said she would not have sanctioned payment for the story because "it would have come out any way". An email sent by a Sun journalist to Brooks in November 2006 was read to the jury. It said: "Morning boss, I wondered if you would please authorise the following payments for my number one military contact?"

The court heard that the sum amounted to a total of £4,500 and that Brooks emailed back within a minute with the response: "Of course". Asked if she would have remembered at the time which stories the payments related to, she said she thought she would have recalled one of them but not the others.

But she told jurors she would not have had any reason to doubt the reporter in question. "I'm not policing him. I'm not reading this email as we are now, looking for something wrong. At the time I think my state of mind would have been 'I think that's quite cheap at the price'."

Thanks malena, note it is Laidlaw, her own QC asking the questions, isn't he supposed to be defending her??? Who is the Prosecutor? Interestingly Brooks has acknowledged the payments etc not like the first couple of days when she denied knowing anything.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/28/world/europe/uk-phone-hacking-trial/index.html


Rebekah has had to admit to paying for 'stories' asked the Court to finish early because she was exhausted after spending 5 days in Court.........could it be she was for the first time nervous?

Is it a sign that she's about to fold?

I hope so...   

malena stool wrote:Is it a sign that she's about to fold?

I hope so...   

I wouldn't be surprised because she and Charlie were caught trying to get rid of Computers and information., the main charge is perverting the course of justice ....serious !!!

While I personally can't condone anyone receiving death threats even if what she's saying is true and she has received them. These people are congenital liars and will use any form of smoke and mirrors to appear to be the 'wronged party'. Still she denies all knowledge of any wrong doing, telling the jury she was at a fertility clinic when the reports about Milly Dowler’s phone emerged.

What does her being at a fertility clinic have to do with phone hacking?

The answer is absolutely nothing... zilch... zero, but it might drum up a bit of juror sympathy for a 'poor' 45 year old woman who needs a baby.

Is Mr Mitchell on her advisory panel?

I don't think so Malena, she wasn't well liked by the public and since so many have lied, why shouldn't she??? Getting rid of the evidence will be her downfall and confirmed payments to the Police. Also, when Murdoch gave her £1 million and rental for an Office for a year and I think a Car it was a very generous severance pay, because she protected James.?

Panda wrote:I don't think so Malena, she wasn't well liked by the public  and since so many have lied, why shouldn't she??? Getting rid of the evidence will be her downfall and confirmed payments to the Police. Also, when Murdoch gave her £1 million and rental for an Office for a year and I think a Car it was a very generous severance pay, because she protected James.?

As I've posted many times Panda, once these people attain positions of power and high office, almost all become amoral narcisissts, lying and cheating becomes the norm, blatant bribes become gifts between friends and they protect each others back..afraid that the downfall of one will bring the whole rotten edifice tumbling.

You only have to look at the people who have offered her their support....

malena stool wrote:

Panda wrote:I don't think so Malena, she wasn't well liked by the public  and since so many have lied, why shouldn't she??? Getting rid of the evidence will be her downfall and confirmed payments to the Police. Also, when Murdoch gave her £1 million and rental for an Office for a year and I think a Car it was a very generous severance pay, because she protected James.?

As I've posted many times Panda, once these people attain positions of power and high office, almost all become amoral narcisissts, lying and cheating becomes the norm, blatant bribes become gifts between friends and they protect each others back..afraid that the downfall of one will bring the whole rotten edifice tumbling.

You only have to look at the people who have offered her their support....

Notice how she mentions Tony Blair a couple of times, name dropping and we already know she and her husband, good sign. are friends with Cameron, lets just hope the Judge is not corruptable. Although to give them their due, ever since they have stuck two fingers up at the EU and Human rights, the Judges have sent Murderers to prison for life, decided Dewani was fit to stand Trial in Africa

I doubt name dropping tony Bliar will get her many brownie points.   

Lioned, neither would her friendship with Cameron.  If Brooks comes out of this declared innocent justice is a dirty word in Britain .


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26449362

This is her response when asked whether she knew Mulcare was hacking phones while she worked for the NOTW,


She was asked why when Mulcaire was arrested in 2006, during her editorship of the Sun, she did not inquire into what he had been doing for the News of the World while she was editor from 2000-03.

'She said she did not need to because she had known at the time that he was working as a private detective, and they were widely used to trace people for the newspaper.'

If she gets away with that she will be a better escape Artist than Houdini.  

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/hacking-trial-rebekah-brooks-challenged-over-her-role-in-company-coverup-9171781.html

Rebekah Brooks is looking more pale by the day.......but her Husband keeps on smiling   

It's the Prosecution's turn and the gloves are off.  No wonder Rebekah's looking pale.

So, Max Clifford was previously employed by News Intl!!!
========================================================

Brooks: Why we wanted names secrecy
Updated on the
03 March
2014
13:38
Published 03/03/2014 13:05
Print this

Former News of the World editor Rebekah Brooks has told the Old Bailey that the paper did not want the names of journalists who benefited from private investigator Glenn Mulcaire's phone-hacking activities to come out in court because "he could say anyone or anything".

Giving evidence for a seventh day, Brooks was questioned about a civil liability case involving convicted hacker Mulcaire and the tabloid's publisher News Group Newspapers in 2010.

Jurors were taken through emails sent between the paper's lawyers and its senior management, including Brooks, which referred to a proposed order which would lead to all the reporters to whom Mulcaire had passed information being identified.

Brooks, 45, told the court: "We were opposing that order - again this is in the context of a civil liability - on the basis that he was an unreliable witness going forward naming names, and both financially and reputationally we didn't want that to happen.

"The view was that he could say anyone or anything."


During questioning from her lawyer Jonathan Laidlaw QC, Brooks was asked about Max Clifford, who was also involved in the civil case.

Brooks, who became chief executive of News International in 2009, said she had worked with the publicist since she was 25 or 26, with the News of the World paying him "millions and millions of pounds" for stories over the years.

But she added that he fell out with the paper and went on to work with its rival publications. Brooks, of Churchill, Oxfordshire, denies conspiring to hack phones, conspiring to commit misconduct in public office and conspiring to cover up evidence to pervert the course of justice.

All seven defendants deny the charges against them.

Mulcaire was jailed in January 2007 for unlawfully intercepting voicemail messages received by royal aides.

Brooks told the court that she had personally negotiated a £200,000-per-year verbal agreement for a "successful commercial relationship" with Mr Clifford so that he would drop civil proceedings against News International.

The deal, brokered in February 2010, brought the PR guru back to work with The Sun and the News of the World again after he was banned for "three or four years".

Mr Clifford demanded that the confidential agreement reflect losses he had incurred because of his ban at News International being public knowledge, the court heard.

"He felt that having News International out of the bidding picture, and the Mail Group and Mirror Group knowing that, he had lost out but it was impossible to quantify how much," Brooks said.

"It was unquantifiable but I felt it was true that Max had lost out so the deal had to reflect those three years he hadn't worked with NGN (News Group Newspapers)."

Asked if News International had also picked up the bill for Mr Clifford's legal fees, she said: "I believe so."

Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2014, All Rights Reserved.