The one thing that has always puzzled me about this case, is why Ms Norvill was prepared to give evidence in defence of the DT?
If the version of events as described in her evidence was inaccurate or an embellishment (as the court found), why did she do it?
And if the version of events she gave in her evidence was completely accurate and entirely dis-embellished, why would she do it?
Whatever the truth of this matter, there was never any upside for Ms Norvill to give evidence.
The only possible
reason I can think of is either:
a) she was paid (unlikely)
b) she was got at (more likely) ie "if you don't help us out at the DT, we'll do an even bigger number on you than we just did on Rush".
Norvill did not bring the matter to the police, has made no attempt to achieve compensation through the courts (though I guess that might be different has this case gone the other way), and indeed did not bring the matter to the attention of the press herself.
Everyone involved in this case has come out of it more than a little tarnished, with the possible exception of NewCorp and Murdoch: who's reputation for ruthlessness has only been enhanced. They clearly believe they should be able to say whatever they like, as loud as they like, about whoever they like, whenever they like - truth be buggered. And they are prepared to throw as much money away as needed, and destroy as many people as necessary, to achieve this end.
As far as I'm concerned, whatever miserable fate awaits Assange, Murdoch & co deserve it more.