I keep on getting questions about where to get the book: the link to the papersback is above, and it can also be bought as an ebook on Amazon. Meanwhile, forgive the necessary but odious publishing puffery, some nice words about the book below the fold. Blame Martin Hickman. Oh – and you can read the first three chapters here – Beyond Contempt Final 1st September First 3 Chapters
Top court reporting – NICK DAVIES, REPORTER, GUARDIAN
Written in a chatty, gossipy style that brings the courtroom drama alive. Peter’s marathon tweeting effort earned respect from all but his bitterest foes. A vital and essential read for everyone who cares about journalism and justice – NIGEL PAULEY, JOURNALIST, DAILY STAR
A great account – DOMINIC PONSFORD, PRESS GAZETTE
An absorbing and highly revealing account of the trial, with masses of new information, even for obsessives like me who followed every tweet. What’s striking is how the mass of cash Rupert Murdoch threw at the defence disrupted, disturbed and thwarted the prosecution and its narrative – DAN WADDELL, AUTHOR AND FORMER TABLOID JOURNALIST
I walked the dog, brewed a large pot of coffee, made a sandwich and sat down to read. It’s gripping…Hours later, I had a cold pot of coffee, a half eaten bacon butty and a reproachful dog pawing to be fed and walked again – BROWN MOSES’ “REGULAR CONTRIBUTOR”
Utterly compelling – EMER O’FARRELL, READER
Peter Jukes is the Mo Farah of citizen journalism, extraordinary en-durance topped by a medal-winning flourish. A thorough, forensic and fascinating read. A must for every media professor’s book shelf, and required reading for journalism students everywhere – PAUL CONNEW, FORMER DEPUTY EDITOR, NEWS OF THE WORLD
Peter paints a picture so vivid of the places, people and processes in-volved in the “trial of the century” that those who were there or have been there will instantly connect, and those who’ve only seen the Old Bailey on television will get a feel for what it’s like to spend days with-in its walls – JIM QUINS, READER
Peter is such a pioneer: without his absolute professionalism this ex-periment could have failed – MARK COLVIN, ABC PRESENTER
With sharp minds sparring to uncover or hide motives and intents, Peter’s insightful commentary shows how slender, yet how vital, is the rule of law defending the people against corporate power. Who won? The legal process coped – just. The reader will have to judge for herself whether justice was done. But the innovation of crowd-funded live tweeting of the trial and the rapid publication of this book must be judged an outstanding success – CHRIS HAYNES, READER
Peter Jukes is a genuine media pioneer, the citizen journalist personi-fied, exposing one of the greatest Establishment scandals of our time like no other journalist. This is the definitive account and is a must read for anyone who wants to understand not only our media, but power in Britain – OWEN JONES, AUTHOR AND COMMENTATOR
Quite remarkable. As a reader I feel I now know all the key players in the trial and their tactics, why some defendants were found guilty and some not, all this despite me never having spent a minute at the trial – PROFESSOR STEWART PURVIS, FORMER ITN EDITOR IN CHIEF
Firstly, great blog! Thanks so much for bringing this to us over all of those weeks. I have to ask you one question … do you think the right verdict was reached? Iâm intrigued to know the answer although perhaps for legal reasons you are not allowed to openly give your opinion.
Dom Superhero Managing Director 45 â 51 Whitfield Street, London, W1T 4HD M: 07788 717 627 | DL: 020 3031 6183 | SB: 020 3031 6180 http://www.superheroscreen.com
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail!
Apart from problems of defamation, there’s no legal strictures on saying what you feel about the verdicts.
My problem is this: knowledge. Given what the jury saw and heard, and the arguments presented, I’m not surprised by the majority of the verdicts. When it comes to Brooks, there was precious little email evidence (only four or so remain from her time at NOTW editor) and no live witnesses against her. Contrast that with Coulson. The book explains several other factors that might have influenced the jury’s decision. Such verdicts are ultimately subjective, as the judge wrote in a ruling. Objective evidence tends to produce guilty pleas.
The jury had to be sure Brooks and others must have known about phone hacking or misconduct in office by paying public officials. I can easily see why they weren’t ‘sure’.
However, given what I personally know about the newspaper industry, I would probably have come to a different conclusion. The main weakness of the prosecution it seems to me is that they had no witnesses or statements from Brooks’ peers about ‘checking sources’. Brooks’ defence was that she didn’t check out the source of all her stories, and so didn’t know about phone hacking or payments to public officials. My understanding is that any editor in that position would check out the source of a story before publishing it. But that was never given in evidence, argued out or proved.