Missing Milly Dowler's voicemail "hacked by News of the World"

[Pickman's model]

Coulsen asked Goodman to commit perjury in short. He is fucked.

fuck coulson and all who've sailed in him and we all know who that means

 

[laptop]

Here it all is.

Er, that was 29 July: see 16 August

 

[butchersapron]

Perverting the Course of Justice

General sentencing brackets summarised in Archbold at 28-28 as follows:

threatening or interfering with witnesses - 4 months to 24 months.
concealing evidence - 4 months to 18 months, possibly longer if serious crime.
false allegation of crime resulting in arrest of innocent person - 4 to 12 months.

How about conspiracy to...?

 

[butchersapron]

Er, that was 29 July: see 16 August

Oops. ta. Will edit right link in.

 

[butchersapron]

What's Mulcaire going to do now? I reckon he'll take brown bag money to keep quiest-ish.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

here's a copy of Goodman's letter

funny how Grauniad managed to get hold of all of this before the official DCMS statement...

 

[laptop]

Perverting the Course of Justice

How about conspiracy to...?

Generally speaking, the maximum penalty for conspiracy to do X is the same as for doing X.

The difference is in ease of conviction. Conspiracy's a bit double-edged for the prosecutor; on the one hand obv. it doesn't require evidence of defendant doing X; on the other, the defence can sow doubt in the jury's mind over why such a wooly charge is being tried.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

letting some of the hyperbole blow over, there are questions arising from this letter, namely, does it actually prove anything? not really, it's now one person's word against another inre: whether Coulson allowed/encouraged hacking to take place. it's a letter of appeal that he was trying to win back his old job with, so he's bound to try and mount a robust defence, hence allusions to being promised a return if he kept schtum. i suspect that this may not be the silver bullet that some think will nail Coulson, Brookes, and the Murdochs somehow....

 

[butchersapron]

letting some of the hyperbole blow over, there are questions arising from this letter, namely, does it actually prove anything? not really, it's now one person's word against another inre: whether Coulson allowed/encouraged hacking to take place. it's a letter of appeal that he was trying to win back his old job with, so he's bound to try and mount a robust defence, hence allusions to being promised a return if he kept schtum. i suspect that this may not be the silver bullet that some think will nail Coulson, Brookes, and the Murdochs somehow....

That's what the legal bods are starting to say - after the initial excitement.

 

[peterkro]

Generally speaking, the maximum penalty for conspiracy to do X is the same as for doing X.

The difference is in ease of conviction. Conspiracy's a bit double-edged for the prosecutor; on the one hand obv. it doesn't require evidence of defendant doing X; on the other, the defence can sow doubt in the jury's mind over why such a wooly charge is being tried.

I seem to recollect a charge of "conspiring with persons and places unknown" failing miserably.

 

[two sheds]

Yes, although he'll find it harder to get out of the Harbottle & Lewis statements at the end of that Guardian article. One of News International's own legal firms directly contradicting James.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Yes, although he'll find it harder to get out of the Harbottle & Lewis statements at the end of that Guardian article. One of News International's own legal firms directly contradicting James.

Even that isn't clear cut - my reading is that they're saying that they weren't actually asked to investigate criminality as such, therefore statements in relation to their previous letter referred to by Murdoch cannot be used to demonstrate no evidence of criminality. I can't remember Murdoch's exact statements in relation to this, but I would imagine he will revert to a defence of "oh deary me, but that's what i was/wasn't told about this particular issue".

in other news, which may help clarify some of this farrago, CMS cttee is calling Tom Crone, Colin Myler, Daniel Cloke and John Chapman give further evidence on the Thursday 6 Sep.

 

[laptop]

Even that isn't clear cut - my reading is that they're saying that they weren't actually asked to investigate criminality as such

I look forward to evidence emerging of the conversation the gist of which was: "Dear Harbottle & Lewis, can you help us frame a question that we put to you which guarantees the answer 'No'? Love, the Murdochs"

 

[Lord Camomile]

Have things gone quiet on the Mulcaire front? I'm still waiting for him to turn tail and retaliate against News Int. for bailing on him. There's gotta be some bombs waiting to go off on that one...?

 

[two sheds]

From the Guardian article again:

Harbottle & Lewis then produced a letter, which has previously been published by the select committee in a non-redacted form: "I can confirm that we did not find anything in those emails which appeared to us to be reasonable evidence that Clive Goodman's illegal actions were known about and supported by both or either of Andy Coulson, the editor, and Neil Wallis, the deputy editor, and/or that Ian Edmondson, the news editor, and others were carrying out similar illegal procedures."

In their evidence to the select committee last month, the Murdochs presented this letter as evidence that the company had been given a clean bill of health. However, the Metropolitan police have since said that the emails contained evidence of "alleged payments by corrupt journalists to corrupt police officers". And the former director of public prosecutions, Ken Macdonald, who examined a small sample of the emails, said they contained evidence of indirect hacking, breaches of national security and serious crime.

In a lengthy reply, Harbottle & Lewis say it was never asked to investigate whether crimes generally had been committed at the News of the World but had been instructed only to say whether the emails contained evidence that Goodman had hacked phones with "the full knowledge and support" of the named senior journalists. The law firm reveals that the letter was the result of a detailed negotiation with News International's senior lawyer, Jon Chapman, and it refused to include a line which he suggested, that, having seen a copy of Goodman's letter of 2 March: "We did not find anything that we consider to be directly relevant to the grounds of appeal put forward by him."

In a lengthy criticism of the Murdochs' evidence to the select committee last month, Harbottle & Lewis says it finds it "hard to credit" James Murdoch's repeated claim that News International "rested on" its letter as part of their grounds for believing that Goodman was a "rogue reporter". It says News International's view of the law firm's role is "self-serving" and that Rupert Murdoch's claim that it was hired "to find out what the hell was going on" was "inaccurate and misleading", although it adds that he may have been confused or misinformed about its role.

Harbottle & Lewis writes: "There was absolutely no question of the firm being asked to provide News International with a clean bill of health which it could deploy years later in wholly different contexts for wholly different purposes … The firm was not being asked to provide some sort of 'good conduct certificate' which News International could show to parliament … Nor was it being given a general retainer, as Mr Rupert Murdoch asserted it was, 'to find out what the hell was going on'."

The law firm's challenge to the Murdochs' evidence follows an earlier claim made jointly by the paper's former editor and former lawyer that a different element of James Murdoch's evidence to the committee was "mistaken". He had told the committee that he had paid more than £1m to settle a legal action brought by Gordon Taylor of the Professional Footballers Association without knowing that Taylor's lawyers had obtained an email from a junior reporter to the paper's chief reporter, Neville Thurlbeck, containing 35 transcripts of voicemail messages. Crone and the former editor, Colin Myler, last month challenged this.
In letters published by the committee, the former News of the World lawyer repeats his position. He says this email was "the sole reason" for settling Taylor's case. He says he took it with him to a meeting with James Murdoch in June 2008 when he explained the need to settle: "I have no doubt that I informed Mr Murdoch of its existence, of what it was and where it came from."

Myler, in a separate letter also published on Tuesday, endorses Crone's account. Their evidence raises questions about James Murdoch's failure to tell the police or his shareholders about the evidence of crime contained in the email.

Also, if NI had felt that Goodman's account was wrong when he sent them the letter and they were in fact completely innocent - one would have expected them to write back in utter astonishment at the claims he was making.

I take your point about Murdoch probably being able to wriggle out of this, but I think there are real issues that he will have to wriggle out of.

 

[butchersapron]

The legal bods mentioned before are all backtracking as they get deeper in...(why the fuck they'd bother posting it does/doesn't mean anything is beyond me)

 

[teqniq]

Came to this a little late, what with being at work all day. Good to see it at the top of the news again. Please let it all end really badly for all the scum concerned. Happy happy happy, joy joy joy.

 

[claphamboy]

Came to this a little late, what with being at work all day. Good to see it at the top of the news again. Please let it all end really badly for all the scum concerned. Happy happy happy, joy joy joy.

I was thinking the same, bored with the riot fall-out now, let's get back to catching the real bastards.

 

[Streathamite]

Coulsen asked Goodman to commit perjury in short. He is fucked.

as also, quite possibly, is the prime minister. ALL he can do now is throw his hands up and cry "My God" coulson LIED to me! I had no idea!" - either way, the question of whether he sought any assurances other than Coulson's own word, now comes into play again, as do the warnigns he got from Rusbridger, clegg and milord Paddy

 

[Streathamite]

What's Mulcaire going to do now? I reckon he'll take brown bag money to keep quiest-ish.

I don't think they (NI) can afford the risk of being caught making a 'hush payment' big enough to buy his silence, not after Murdoch Snr's big show of shock, at the DCMS committee hearing, at the revelation that they were still paying Mulcaire's legal fees. they will have to cut him loose - at which point, he in turn will have no real option but to spill all that he knows.
Oh, this just looks better and better.

 

[Streathamite]

letting some of the hyperbole blow over, there are questions arising from this letter, namely, does it actually prove anything? not really, it's now one person's word against another inre: whether Coulson allowed/encouraged hacking to take place. it's a letter of appeal that he was trying to win back his old job with, so he's bound to try and mount a robust defence, hence allusions to being promised a return if he kept schtum. i suspect that this may not be the silver bullet that some think will nail Coulson, Brookes, and the Murdochs somehow....

I think the key point here is that this makes it highly likely that goodman will be asked to testify at the various trials, and he has absolutely no reason to help haul NI out of the shit - all the motivation, in fact, to do the obvious, as Mulcaire will also prolly have by then.
There is also the prospect that goodman can back this up, with his own documented evidence, or that others present at those meetings will be subpoenaed - giving them the possibility of a risk of committing perjury, or dumping their own bosses in the shit.

 

[Streathamite]

Even that isn't clear cut - my reading is that they're saying that they weren't actually asked to investigate criminality as such, therefore statements in relation to their previous letter referred to by Murdoch cannot be used to demonstrate no evidence of criminality. I can't remember Murdoch's exact statements in relation to this, but I would imagine he will revert to a defence of "oh deary me, but that's what i was/wasn't told about this particular issue".

in other news, which may help clarify some of this farrago, CMS cttee is calling Tom Crone, Colin Myler, Daniel Cloke and John Chapman give further evidence on the Thursday 6 Sep.

all they were asked to check was whether others werte aware of Goodman's activities; the murdoch's very carefully restricted their remit

 

[two sheds]

all they were asked to check was whether others werte aware of Goodman's activities; the murdoch's very carefully restricted their remit

Indeed, and then claimed that they had been given a 'clean bill of health'. That was a lie - although possibly Murdoch senior was indeed so senile or lied to by his son that he didn't realise he was lying.

 

[Streathamite]

Indeed, and then claimed that they had been given a 'clean bill of health'. That was a lie - although possibly Murdoch senior was indeed so senile or lied to by his son that he didn't realise he was lying.

I don't think Murdoch's senile - the old bastard's still clearly dangerous - I think this just got too out of hand for anyone to be in control

 

[newbie]

I particularly liked this

Two versions of his letter were provided to the committee. One which was supplied by Harbottle & Lewis has been redacted to remove the names of journalists, at the request of police. The other, which was supplied by News International, has been redacted to remove not only the names but also all references to hacking being discussed in Coulson's editorial meetings and to Coulson's offer to keep Goodman on staff if he agreed not to implicate the paper.

they just can't stop digging.

 

[DexterTCN]

I was a little bit worried that other events would be used to smother this.

Surely Coulson must now be interviewed by Scots police about his apparent perjury in the Sheridan trial. A quick google news search gave me

Coulson, who was called as a witness in December 2010, told the court that he had no knowledge of illegal activities by reporters while he was editor of the newspaper.
He also claimed: "I don't accept there was a culture of phone hacking at the News of the World."

Goodman's letter is unarguable...how can newscorp argue it's fake when they paid him £250,000 when even their own money-men said to pay him only £90k if anything - legally nothing. The money men said pay him nothing, he broke the law in the course of his employment, fuck him. The bosses gave him a quarter million and he was expecting more....he got his lawyers involved, it's so sweet you could wet yourself. He got his lawyers. It shows how fucking weak newscorp is now.

You have to wonder if people are doing this from a sense of civic duty (pause for laughs...) or fear of worse charges later. Watson is now publicly talking about computer hacking being the next part of the investigation. (He knows where he's going, I'm sure most agree.)

Cameron will most likely not be tory leader in 18 months. Didn't they pass a law saying standard 5 year terms, no-confidence motions not allowed?

 

[sleaterkinney]

Goodman's letter is unarguable...how can newscorp argue it's fake when they paid him £250,000 when even their own money-men said to pay him only £90k if anything - legally nothing. The money men said pay him nothing, he broke the law in the course of his employment, fuck him. The bosses gave him a quarter million and he was expecting more....he got his lawyers involved, it's so sweet you could wet yourself. He got his lawyers. It shows how fucking weak newscorp is now.

It's his words against theirs, far more damaging is the laywers evidence, because NI relied on that.

 

[belboid]

It's his words against theirs, far more damaging is the laywers evidence, because NI relied on that.

except it is very odd that NI never made any mention of it before, despite plenty of opportunity to do so. And all that money. And even if it is one persons word against the others, how many juries would believe any of the NI lot over Goodman?

 

[Fedayn]

except it is very odd that NI never made any mention of it before, despite plenty of opportunity to do so. And all that money. And even if it is one persons word against the others, how many juries would believe any of the NI lot over Goodman?

I think it's importance/lack of it will become clearer if and when James Murdoch is recalled. The problem Goodman has is he's a convicted hacker and rather untrustworthy, the problem News Int have is, well, they're News Int, and their rather obvious reticence to mention any of thie before....

 

[Streathamite]

You have to wonder if people are doing this from a sense of civic duty (pause for laughs...) or fear of worse charges later.

if you're referring to Goodman and other NI people, it's certainly not the former, as they simply don't have any morals. It's the latter, plus everyone rushing to cover their arses (like Harbottle & lewis) and save themselves. Plus, with goodman, I'd say revenge was in there too.

Didn't they pass a law saying standard 5 year terms, no-confidence motions not allowed?

Nope, it's one of their proposed constitutional reforms. Nowhere near the statute book yet, mercifully

e2a; apart from that, really good post.