High Court The judge in the case of the Duke of Sussex et al versus Associated Newspapers has warned the litigants to "adjust their expectations" of the "new and compelling evidence" on which their case is based. When he did so, and I read the details, it took me all Friday night and most of Saturday to work out why the name "Jonathan Rees" was jangling such a huge and noisy alarm bell in my mind. Now the penny has dropped, I can assure you that the judge is not exaggerating and this is why:
Jonathan Rees was, is and always will be, the recurring non-convictable suspect in the murder of Daniel Morgan in the car-park of the Golden Lion Pub in Sydenham on the 10th of April 1987. This case involved corrupt relationships between former and serving officers of the Metropolitan Police Service and tabloid newspapers including the Sun and News of the World (both Murdoch titles) and others including the Daily Mirror. AFAIK, Associated Newspapers were the ONLY tabloid group not associated with Mr Rees either before or after he became a suspect in the murder.
The "evidence" consists of a "confession" by an associate of Mr Rees, that they both colluded to illegally spy on on a whole laundry-list of random celebrities for Associated Newspapers (and not any of the Murdoch and other titles they actually worked for). And not only does the confession (since withdrawn, perhaps because it has served its purpose and the confessee doesn't fancy being cross-examined on it) originate with a person close to Mr Rees, it originated at a TIME (in 2021) when Dame Cressida Dick's belated report into the FIVE failed inquiries into the Daniel Morgan murder was putting Mr Rees, his co-accused and the Murdoch tabloids back in the spotlight in a way they must have found very, very uncomfortable.
And, just as some people were suggesting that perhaps the Justice4Daniel Morgan campaign and those seeking justice for Stephen Lawrence might get themselves past the fact that Daniel wasn't black and he was probably murdered for a very specific reason, to the fact that the serial failures to solve both cases had almost every other factor in common (especially institutional corruption within the Metropolitan Police Service), a finger was firmly pointed at the ONLY tabloid group not previously associated with the suspects in Daniel's murder and the only tabloid group likely to seek justice for both Stephen and Daniel. And what a cunningly-designed finger it was too!
The litigants are, in descending order of self-importance:
The Duke of Sussex
Sir Simon Hughes
Sir Elton John
Liz Hurley
Sadie Frost
David Furnish
and... Baroness Lawrence, mother of the murdered Stephen Lawrence.
The first six litigants are (perhaps significantly) all a bit less important than they think they are; but Baroness Lawrence is more important than she knows, because any alliance between herself and the Justice4Daniel campaign might blast away the last few fetters preventing the root and branch, flame-thrower in every dark corner reform which the Metropolitan Police Service and Mr Rees's friends and allies still within it, so urgently require and the people of London and indeed the whole country, deserve.
Now, if this scam had named Baroness Lawrence alone, her own modesty would probably have caused her to smell a rat within the first few minutes. But she was "just one" of a list of people she might see as "more important" than herself, when in fact none of them are: they just have reputations that they value and a WELL-KNOWN grudge against the tabloid press in general. They could be relied on to go to court -and, with the help of some quite poor legal advice- they did.
The "confession" is evidence of nothing except a need on the part of certain increasingly desperate men, including important publishers and editors as well as policemen, to lead Baroness Lawrence and anyone with "investigative" in their job title up a war-path out of the car park of the Golden Lion in Sydenham and to the door of the newspaper group most capable of causing the guilty men trouble.
Comments