Admitted: I didn’t follow the UK phone-hacking trial on a daily basis. Yet based on what it was about; how many victims there had been; the amount of evidence; witnesses; an enquiry; proven criminal acts having taken place and much more … Based on what various papers reported on and off the internet, based on reports in news broadcasts on television and radio, on documentaries of what had or might have happened …
So I was unpleasantly surprised that Ms Brooks walked free and Mr Coulson was convicted. Especially, as they had been in practically daily contact with each other, had been in a boss-employee relationship, had been – for a while – in a shared-cushion-relationship.
How could he have been convicted, yet she walk free? Was it due to a difference in gender: pretty woman, obnoxious man?
In his article, journalist and author Nick Davies makes an interesting case. The same money which was used to fund the sleazy paper, its articles, its means to get information; the same money which was used to pay the salaries of Brook, Coulson, people working for the paper and those used to supply it with information; that very same money was used to defend her and ultimately of course: the Murdoch family’s involvement.
After reading Davies’ article, I’m inclined to believe him. He has a case. She didn’t walk free because she’s a woman, she’s pretty looking, managed to get rid of evidence, whatever. She walked free because she was closer to the fortune which backed her and paid for her defence. It pays to be friends with the Murdochs.
For Nick Davies article: phone-hacking trial