Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 15 Jan

Wednesday 15 January 2014

Summary
	The Prosecution Case Continues
		Continued CCTV Evidence on Count 7
	Witness – Dave Cutts (Mobile phone network expert witness)
		Prosecution Counsel continue questioning Dave Cutts
		Counsel for Mark Hanna cross examines Dave Cutts
		Further Prosecution questions to Dave Cutts
	Witness – Fernando Nascimento (Cleaner at Chelsea Harbour)
		Prosecution Counsel questions Fernando Nascimento through an interpreter
		Counsel for Charlie Brooks cross examines Fernando Nascimento
		Counsel for Mark Hanna cross examines Fernando Nascimento
	Witness – Alan Ramsay (Facilities Manager of Chelsea Harbour)
		Prosecution Counsel questions Alan Ramsay
		Counsel for Charlie Brooks cross examines Alan Ramsay

The Prosecution Case Continues
	Continued CCTV Evidence on Count 7
		Jury are back in for the #hackingtrial continuing with evidence from Dave Cutts, police expert on cell site evidence (mobile triangulation)
		Bryant Heron thanks the defence teams for their co-operation over this evidence
Witness – Dave Cutts (Mobile phone network expert witness)
	Prosecution Counsel continue questioning Dave Cutts
		Bryant Heron for the Crown focuses on the Jubilee Barn and Enstone area on the 15th July 2011: jury have A4 maps of the area and masts
		Cutts statement comes from last summer: he was following the movement of Charlie Brooks‘ phone over various time periods
		His conclusion about Charles Brooks’ cell phone is that it connected to the cell site for Jubilee Barn that morning with two exceptions
		Those two divergences suggest, agrees Cutts, movement towards the NW (not in direction of Enstone Manor Farm)
		The second time segment from the 15/07/11 was approximately 11 am-12pm: call data suggests C Brooks moved toward Enstone Manor farm.
		Between 12.35 and 15.35 Brooks mobile phone appeared to move back to his residence at Jubilee Barn 15/07/11
		Now onto Charlie Brooks‘ movements on the 16th July 2011 according to cell site expert David Cutts
		In the early morning – 7.56 to 8.01 – Mr Brooks’ phone connected to “cell sites in the vicinity of Enstone Manor Farm’
		8.13 to 8.53 mobile moved East to Jubilee barn. 9.10 to 23.36 on that Saturday the call data consistent with return to Enstone Manor Farm
		Bryant Heron for the crown now looks at call data for Charlie Brooks on the 17th July 2011 – the day his wife Rebekah Brooks was arrested
		A colour coded map shows Lee Sandell, Mark Hanna, Charlie and Rebekah Brooks phone in the area of Enstone that morning
		Another map shows the movement of private security operatives David Johnson and phone designated ‘Blackhawk 1’
		David Johnson’s mobile moves from Enstone Manor Farm to Jubilee Barn that morning – counter surveillance personal protection for Brooks’
		David Cutts explains that different mobile companies often but not always use different masts – differences between Blackhawk1 and Johnson
		Jury shown another map from early that Sunday morning Brooks was arrested, identifying the phone of both Brooks’ and Daryl Jorsling
		Map 4 will be dealt with in more detail later – a subject needing clarification from Hanna’s defence counsel.
		The fifth map shows the phones of Hanna and Sandell on 17/07/11 which culminates, around 13.04, with arrival at NI HQ at Wapping
		The other ‘events’ supported by cell site evidence – pages 5-8 – is all agreed evidence, no dispute by defence counsels
		Saunders asks how a phone can use two masts – 12k apart – at the same time.
		Cutts explains that recorded events are the ‘start times’ not duration; and it’s possible to be in two cell sites without moving much
		Saunders relates how it is possible to use a phone in court “though you shouldn’t” and it can move mast by simply changing body direction
		That bit of insight thanks to an astute question by the jury at the #hackingtrial
		Page 8 shows David Johnson’s mobile call data consistent with being at Lewisham police station during the period of Rebekah Brooks‘ arrest
		Next map gives cell site evidence showing Hanna and Sandell moving from Wapping to Chelsea Quay – arriving 13.33 on 17/07/11
		On page 11 of the schedule, relates to Map 10, shows Hanna and Sandell back in Wapping according to cell site data from their mobile phones
		On p13 of the 19 page call data schedule – we’re into the evening of the 17th and movements of Daryl Jorsling: from Lewisham to Wapping
		Call data then shows Jorsling driving from Wapping to the Brooks’ London residence at Thames Quay: that completes that exercise
		Cutts will then explain a little more about cell site data, and then they will analyse one map subject to some questions by the defence
		Now a presentation is blown up on the screen “Cell Site Overview”: a graphic (smiley face) connecting to cell site, network, landline etc.
		Next graphic shows that cell sites are effectively ‘hexagonal’ but a cell site cluster in reality is messier with overlapping coverage
		Slide 3 explains call data records: date, time, duration, originating or terminating mobile numbers, IMIE, and cell site identity number
		Next slide from police forensic expert shows a ‘call data record’ and all the info itemised in the previous slide
		Phone companies typically record the name and postcode of the mast at the beginning of the call, and then end – no intervening masts
		Next slide from MPS phone forensic expert shows there are three sectors for directional antennae – AZIMUTH is direction of antenna
		The mobile phone company gives a unique ID for each antenna: call records give directional sense of where the caller is in relation to mast
		Mosts masts have several antennae – but there are sometimes omnidirectional cell stones that don’t. NI had one but no Jubilee Barn
		Cutts shows a photo of a mast with three directional antennae: a second shows a omnidirectional ‘microcell’ for a business or shopping mall
		Cutts shows a map of Oxfordshire, and how in a rural environment a mast would typically cover 6-8km. In a urban environment much less
		Cutts summarises: call data from mobile phone gives an idea of location, duration and travel
		Bryant Heron for the Crown says he’d now like to move from the general to the specific – an A3 size map of Oxfordshire
		The title of the map looks at 17th July 9.12 to 9.53 and we focus on the mobile phones of Mark Hanna and Lee Sandell
		Both sides agree that both phones moved from Enstone towards Jubilee Barn: the off site meeting place for the Brooks and their home
		David Cutts and Bryant Heron for the crown go into some intense detail about calls and numbers no one can follow without a schedule
		Great Tew gets a mention in the hacking trial @johnmitchinson @rachael_kerr
		Cutts did a “radio propagation survey” using equipment to check the coverage of mobile phone masts for the Enstone Manor Farm area
		10 minute break
		Jury back in for detailed analysis of a specific period and area of cell site data for Mark Hanna and Lee Sandell on morning of 17/07/11
		Dave Cutts, MPS forensic evidence expert, has tried to ascertain the movement of Hanna and Sandell towards Jubilee Barn around 9-10 am
		Saunders tries to unpack the movement of four calls “consistent with being made a Jubilee Barn” but four others not consistent
		Cutts says “they were simply in that vicinity or local area” about the different cell site data.
		Cutts explains how the Enstone cell site extends to within 4km of Jubilee Barn – the Brooks’ Oxfordshire residence.
		Three cell sites, it is established by Justice Saunders, provide coverage within the vicinity of the Brooks’ country home
	Counsel for Mark Hanna cross examines Dave Cutts
		Cutts is now cross examined by William Clegg, counsel for Mark Hanna about his statement and his cell site analysis
		Clegg asks “was the purpose of the exercise to establish if.. Hanna was in vicinity of Jubilee Barn between 9.15 and 9.53?” Cutts: “Yes”
		Clegg asks if the reading for Sandell was the same as Hanna’s: “Yes, it was.”
		“You were anxious not to make a mistake because a man’s liberty was a risk?” asks Clegg. Cutts; “Yes I did.”
		Clegg asks about Cutt’s conclusion 3.4 “confirming content police had asked him to consider… Hanna’s mobile phone… Jubilee Barn at 9.12”
		Cutts agrees “that appears to be a mistake by me” about 9.12 call by Hanna: “Had you not checked your evidence,” asks Saunders.
		Clegg for Hanna: “The end time was 9.53 – I hope you didn’t make a mistake there too”: Cutts admits that’s another mistake.
		“So you misread your own data when making your statement?” asks Saunders. Cutts says the name Castle Barn confused him
		“I can simply call it human error… but it’s clear that cell provides coverage to Enstone Manor,” says Cutts of misattributed calls.
		“Is that just thrashing about in your error, and saying the first thing that came into your head,” asks Clegg of Cutts’ error.
		“Perhaps you’re getting confused by that bit Mr Clegg” Justice Saunders says to counsel for Hanna about Chipping Norton Football ground mast
		Clegg for Hanna asks about 9.20 a.m. call in Jubilee Barn; “Another mistake?” Saunders: “Just say, yes.”
		“Are there any other mistakes?” asks Clegg. “Not that I’m aware of…” says Dave Cutts. They then trace the movement of Hanna
		Cutts seems to have switched four calls – two attributed to Jubilee Barn should be Enstone: two attributed to Enstone should be Jubilee Barn
		Cutts is asked whether a certain mast provides coverage on a road to Chipping Norton: “I don’t know if I have another survey data.. but yes”
		Clegg suggests that his was consistent with a journey to Chipping Norton from Enstone Manor? #theroadtochippingnorton
		Clegg says Hanna’s phone must “having been moving pretty fast… a helicopter” in its movement north of Jubilee Barn.
		“That was not something I was asked to consider,” Cutts says of this mooted journey to Chipping Norton.
		“Did you consider yourself to be an independent expert?” asks Clegg: “Yes. I always ask for defence case statement…”
		Cutts said he never received the defence case statement for Hanna although he asked DC Stent at the time of compiling his report
		Cutts was first asked to do the work on 7th October: Clegg says that Hanna defence case statement was served nine months earlier in January
		“If I don’t receive it, the presumption it’s not available,” says Cutts. He says he’s employed by the MPS but considers himself independent
		Clegg establishes that Cutts had seen the trial had begun, and must have know Hanna’s defence case statement had been served
		Cutt says there is not always a defence case statement in these instances.
		“I expect you phone up Mr Stent and asked for defence case statement,” asks Clegg. “No, unless I’m told there is something contentious>”
		“You’re very happy to leave that assessment to an unqualified police officer,” asks of Clegg.
		“It’s merely an unfortunate miscommunication,” asks Clegg. He establishes no written confirmation of request for defence case statement
		Clegg for Hanna asks more about the Thames Valley Police mast which was contacted on 9.15 call. 9.18 Chipping Norton football club
		“There’s a body of evidence consistent with someone driving to Jubilee Barn rather than being there throughout,” asks Clegg.
		“This is more consistent on the suggestion you were asked to consider by the police,” asks Clegg of Cutts. “Yes, that’s right’ says Cutts
		The next call of Hanna’s is routed through Chipping Norton around 9.20. Sandells a minute later also near Chipping Norton.
		Clegg for Hanna lights on a call from Hanna to Sandell that morning on the road to Chipping Norton: consistent with being in two cars.
		“That’s not fair,” says Saunders of Clegg claiming Cutts agreed with the judge over a debate between two masts.
		Next call data, routed through Charlbury Fire Station, is consistent with Lee Sandell being in Jubilee Barn area
		“Would you go agree… two phones travelled together in convoy to Jubilee Barn and then back,” asks Clegg. “Yes it is,” says Cutts
		Clegg for Hanna produces an ‘initial draft plan’ produced by Cutts and his team: “I don’t recognise this map,” says Cutts.
		“This looks like something prepared… not by my team… I’m only involved when police have obtained phone data,” says Cutts of plan.
		Edis offers to tell Mr Clegg what the document is: Cutts doesn’t know what this initial draft plan is.
		Clegg asks Cutts whether he has ever been asked where Hanna’s phone is between 1 am to 9 am that morning of the 17th July 2011.
		Edis for the Crown says “We have made admissions about this. I don’t think there’s any dispute about that. Or about much else.”
		Clegg asks to take further instructions over lunch from his client Hanna. The jury leave, told not to discuss evidence over lunch
		Back with #hackingtrial and cross examination of David Cutts, a forensic expert on cell sites – independent from MPS I hear.
		Clegg for Hanna has asked Cutts to re-examine the range of the Thames Valley Police mast and to see if it covers Jubilee Barn
		Cutts confirms the coverage reached to about half a mile: “Half a mile is in the vicinity, because it’s radio propagation, impossible:
		Saunders said he wasn’t aware of a specific question about the mast.
		“We can all take one piece of information out of context in order to get the story,” says Cutts of discrepancy in call data.
		“All my answers are caveatted by ‘at or in the vicinity of… ‘ that’s always my answer to these questions,” says Cutts of his mobile data
		“Half a mile away is not considered in normal English as ‘at’ the place,” interjects Justice Saunders. “Yes, my ‘lud,” agrees Cutts.
		Cutts agrees than many circumstances can affect the range of mobile phone masts.
		“I’m going to suggest you’re wrong about that,” says Clegg counsel for Hanna about one of Cutts’ cell site statements
		“M’luds mathematics is enviable,” says Mr Clegg of Saunders calculations of movement feet per second.
		Saunder is now looking at the 88ft before getting to a cell site – very granular level of detail being discussed at #hackingtrial
		“You’re not trying to help one side of this case are you? Is there any question of you being partisan?” asks Clegg. “No,” says Cutts.
		“A lot of your statement is wrong,” says Clegg. “I’ve put my case very clearly.”
	Further Prosecution questions to Dave Cutts
		Re-examination by Bryant Heron of Cutts: “Does call data support contention number was in vicinity of Jubilee Barn and Castle Barn?”
		That was the original question posed in Cutts’ written statement.
		Saunders says “you’ve been given a hard time in the witness box,” to Cutts. “It’s essential that experts are independent…”
		“It is vital that courts and juries can rely on experts. It may be that could can give an explanation for your mistakes,” Saunders warns
		Saunders says that in the future it may not be possible for defence to hire their own experts – points to dangers of mistakes.
Witness – Fernando Nascimento (Cleaner at Chelsea Harbour)
	Prosecution Counsel questions Fernando Nascimento through an interpreter
		Bryant Heron calls Fernando Nascimento as a witness, accompanied by a Portuguese translator.
		The translator is sworn in: Saunders explains she is simply a conduit
		Now Mr Nascimento is sworn in via his interpreter
		Bryant Heron will ask questions the interpreter will translate. Asks him to answer in native tongue. Asks about events on 18/07/11
		Nascimento confirms he was working in Chelsea Harbour, and “was doing things with rubbish bin and tractor”
		Nascimento is asked about the bins in the Charlie Car Park
		Nascimento confirms he went to the bins in the underground car park
		Bryant Heron for the crown says he will show some photos on the screen. The jury see shots of bin by lifts (invisible from yesterday’s CCTV)
		Nascimento confirms through his interpreter he recognises the location. He is shown another shot of three bins. Confirms their arrangement
		Nascimento is asked if he saw something else there? Doesn’t understand the question. He attached bins to tractor.
		When he attached the bins to the tractor, did you see something else? “I noticed a black bin liner behind one of the black bins.”
		Nascimento thinks it was black bin on the far right of picture shown to jury.
		Nascimento says it was impossible to see the black bin liner – but one of the bins was away from the wall. He went to look and could see.
		Nascimento confirms the black bin bag was closed, but it was possible to see what was inside because of small hole on top of the bag
		Nascimento say inside – not everything. He remembers a brown bag inside.
		Nascimento remembers the brown bag looked like it was made of leather
		Nascimento says when he first saw the black bin bag he didn’t move it away. He just put it beside the bin. He continued collecting wheelies
		Nascimento says he went around the car park to collect all the bins, and saw the black bag was still there, and so put it inside green bin
		Nascimento says he then to loading bay to unload the bins. There’s a rubbish compacting machine where he took the bins
		Just before he got to unloading the green bin into the compactor, Nascimento opened the black bin bag to see what it contained
		Nascimento saw two bags inside the black bin – he believes they were identical bags with different colours: one was brown, the other black
		Nascimento says he opened one of the bags – can’t remember which.
		Bryant Heron shows Nascimento’s statement from 18/07/11 and asks him if his memory would have been fresher then. He agrees.
		Bryant Heron asks the judge for leave to refer Nascimento to his original statement: interpreter locates Portuguese version
		Nascimento is asked if the statement refreshes his memory which bag he opened. No. “That was worth it,” jokes Saunders.
		Nascimento said he opened the brown bag, and there was a computer in there. He took the two bags to show to his supervisor.
		The black bin bag went into the compactor, but not the two bags inside, Nascimento clarifies.
		Nascimento said there was a computer in one of the bags, and an iPad in the other. The rest was all papers, says Nascimento.
		Nascimento says his supervisor, Ausino Reyes, contacted the security supervisor by radio.
		Nascimento and Reyes met security supervisor, Michael, at the loading bays, and handed bags to him. They had been put in another bin liner
		Later that day Nascimento spoke to boss Alan about how he had found bags, and then was asked to identify the two bags by a police officer.
		The court is shown two bags: buff soft leather bag, and a black World Economic forum shiny black fabric bag
	Counsel for Charlie Brooks cross examines Fernando Nascimento
		Saunders for Charlie Brooks cross examines Nascimento and is asked whether he knew there was CCTV there before July 11 – yes, says the witness.
		Nascimento doesn’t know whether it covers the whole area of the car park. Saunders shows Nascimento some CCTV which he says shows him driving
		Saunders for C Brooks asked Nascimento to see time code 10:36 – the moment he claims he saw the hidden bin bag
		10:40 – 4 minutes later Nascimento is asked if he looked to the left to see if black bin bag was still there “I think so,” he replies
		Nascimento returns five minutes later to go to bin area where black bin bag was. He had been around the car park he says.
		Nascimento agrees he went to collect the black bin bag and put into the bins – we see a flash of him putting black bin bag in recycle bin
		Nascimento doesn’t remember exactly where he drove to next. He opened the bag and thinks that was at the loading bay
		The jury are shown Nascimento arriving at the loading bay about 40 mins later.
		Nascimento agrees it’s only a few hundred yards to the loading bay – takes about ten minutes to get there. He arrives 11.21.
		Saunders asks if he could have opened it earlier. Nascimento agrees he could have done, within the bag.
		Nascimento is asked if the top of the computer was flat/closed. He says yes. “Someone has opened the computer up, was that you?” Saunders
		Nascimento says he might have opened it a fraction. He doesn’t know where he did that. Sometimes he goes to the river to get another bin
		“Yes, I was curious to know what was inside the bag,” says Nascimento
		Saunders says the person who opened the laptop tried to put in a password not once but twice. “Was that you?” No says Nascimento
		Nascimento says this wasn’t the first time he’s encountered equipment like this. He doesn’t know if there’s CCTV down by the river.
		Nascimento is asked why he described in his witness statement the laptop as a bit broken. It was an old computer, says Nascimento
		Nascimento is asked if he remembers the computer as a Sony Viao – no he says.
		Jury shown loading bay around 11.24 showing him going to first of four bins and removing brown and black bag.
		Nascimento says he was on the way to the supervisor’s office, Mr Reyes.
		Nascimento disagrees with Saunders assertion he took the nylon and leather bags to cleaning office to look at them out of sight
		Nascimento says the questions put by police officers don’t quite fit the order of account. He took it to supervisor not his office.
		Nascimento gave the statement in Portuguese and then translated into English – told he could change anything inaccurate.
		Nascimento says he doesn’t have very good Portuguese
		Nascimento says when the questions were put to him, and he explained the process; that is more or less what happened that day
		Nascimento says he didn’t empty out the bags – but did check them. He can’t remember an Apple laptop.
		Nascimento says his supervisor told him it was an Apple computer. He doesn’t know which computer was opened.
		“I don’t know how to use a computer,” says Mr Nascimento.
		Nascimento said he saw Mr Reye/Reis opening the computer, but not putting a password.
		Nascimento remembers Reis/Reyes didn’t pay much attention, but when they saw the new ipad and newer computer – too new to be in bins
		Jurt are shown brown bag with various items: Nascimento thinks he took the computer out of this bag. A Jiffy Bag is also visible.
		Nascimento says he didn’t open up the Jiffy Bag – “if you had you wouldn’t forgotten,
		BREAKING: Lesbian Lovers was the magazine hidden the Jiffy Bag according to Counsel for Charlie Brooks
		“I don’t understand English,” says Nascimento. “There wasn’t much writing on the magazine,” says Saunders.
		“If I had seen it I might have taken it,” says Nascimento of Charlie Brooks‘ copy of Lesbian Lovers.
		Saunders for Charlie Brooks suggests there was £1000 cash left in the bag abandoned by the wheelie bins.
		Of other paperwork Nascimento cannot remember his supervisor paying much attention.
		Mr Nascimento’s supervisor is also Portuguese and can’t read English. Didn’t call security right away. Protocol says contact manager first
		Nascimento agrees his supervisor Reis/Reyes is an old friend. He can’t remember an iPod or any chargers. Or black case for iPad.
		Nascimento doesn’t remember if the iPad had a black case.
		Nascimento says he’s know his supervisor socially and professionally for about six years – they became friends at work.
		Nascimento says he went to see the security guy. Ten minute break
		Back with Nascimento and his interpreter. He’s asked by Saunders for Charlie Brooks if he remembers lots of unopened letters
		Jury are shown a packed nylon bag with lots of papers: Nascimento remembers there were lots of papers.
		Nascimento can’t remember whether it was him or his supervisor who put them into one black bin liner.
	Counsel for Mark Hanna cross examines Fernando Nascimento
		Junior Counsel for Hanna, Duncan Penney, has further questions for Nascimento. He doesn’t know when the police searched the compactor
		Nascimento said he was asked which compactor he had used by police. They called back later.
		Penny for Hanna is asking about the black bin liner the bags were originally stored in. He reads two paras of Nascimento’s witness statement
		Penny is referring to a further statement by Nascimento on the 21st of July 2011. He wants confirmation it’s true.
		The second statement refers to a search the police were going to make of waste compactor where the rest of the rubbish was put.
		Nascimento was shown two black bin liners secured with tape at the top and was asked if they were the ones he discarded. “Yes, one of them”
		Nascimento said that he could only recognise the bag on the outside, twisted at the top, with sellotape around it.
		No re-examination of Nascimento from the crown. He and his admirable translator leave
Witness – Alan Ramsay (Facilities Manager of Chelsea Harbour)
	Prosecution Counsel questions Alan Ramsay
		Prosecution call Alan Ramsay
		Ramsay was, in July 2011, the facilities manager of Chelsea Harbour – the Brooks’ London residence: he still holds that position
		Ramsay says he was contacted by his security officer late morning 18/07/11 bringing the two bags in question
		Ramsay said he inspected the bags to find some identifying document – found a cheque book for Mr and Mrs Brooks.
		Ramsay had been aware of police attendance the day before even though he wasn’t personally on duty
		Ramsay “I had to make a decision whether to contact the owner and return it… events of the day before made me think of contacting police”
		Ramsay tried to understand “if there is any rational explanation…” Cut short by Saunders.
		Ramsay secured the bags in the manager’s officers, and one of his officer inspected the CCTV. Neil Perkins, a porter, contacted him
		Perkins was accompanied by Charlie Brooks: Brooks said he’d lost a couple of bags to the facilities manager.
		C Brooks didn’t say where he’d lost the bags ‘initially.’ Brooks had heard the cleaner had handed them into Ramsay’s office.
		Ramsay took the detail and description of missing bags. He asked him where he lost them. Brooks: “they’d been place behind a bin…”
		Brooks claimed to Ramsay the bags were left there previous evening by a friend for him to pick up.
		Ramsay said he would investigate the matter. He then called the police. Police officer attended at 14.15 and Ramsay showed them the bags
		Bryant Heron for the prosecution asks about access to and from the underground car park at Chelsea Harbour: card system bar code reader
		Ramsay says access to the main building is by a fob system.
		Ramsay co-operated with DC Pritchard over the search of the rubbish compactor by disabling around 4pm on 18/07/11
	Counsel for Charlie Brooks cross examines Alan Ramsay
		Saunders for Mr Brooks cross examines Ramsay, Chelsea Harbour facilities manager. The whole estate is covered by the car card system
		Ramsay was told the two bags had been in a black bin liner by the cleaner and his supervisor
		Ramsay did not make a note at the time of C Brooks’ statement, but he said “there’d been a mistake”: the bags had been left 8pm night before
		Ramsay agrees there are 130 different CCTV cameras in Chelsea Harbour: “Covers the principal pedestrian routes.”
		Saunders says to Ramsay “I think your CCTV coverage is the best I’ve ever seen”. That’s it for today. Back Monday.
		Next two days are taken with legal argument due to unavailability of a juror.

Note: All the defendants deny all the charges. The trial continues.

Related Articles
The Pizzagate Tapes
The Trial Ahead: plus Industrial Espionage and Personal Violation
Survey Results and my use of ‘BREAKING’ on tweets
Media and Law Review of the Year 2013: Part 2 Phone Hacking Blagging Bribing and the Trial
Has the phone hacking trial created a new form of journalism?

Previous Posts
Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 9 Jan
Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 13 Jan
Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 14 Jan

Links: The Trial So Far | Full Trial Summary | Indexed Evidence | Breaking News