Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 10 Mar

Monday 10 March 2014

Rebekah Brooks faces more Question on Count 1 – Phone Hacking
Brooks third week on the stand
Publicity of Phone Hacking
Greg Miskiw and the Sophie Wessex Story
Rebekah Brooks Cross Examination continues on Count 5 – Illegal Payments
Payments to Police Officers
Public Interest
Prince William Bond Girl picture
Cash Payments
Rebekah Brooks Questioned on MOD Stories
Editorial Approval Needed
Payments to Bettina Jordan-Barber
Rubber Stamp

Rebekah Brooks faces more Question on Count 1 – Phone Hacking
Brooks third week on the stand
Back at the #hackingtrial – forgotten which week it is. Perhaps week 17 ? No doubt someone will tell me.
Andrew Edis QC, counsel for the prosecution, is continuing with his cross examination of Rebekah Brooks on Count 5
This is Rebekah Brooks‘ third week in the witness box. She has three large bottles of water beside her, and has a slight cold.
Publicity of Phone Hacking
Edis wants to go back to three things: 1) He asked her if she had seen articles about journalists being in the habit of phone hacking.
Brooks says she re-read the files on Thursday: “It was the Mail on Sunday one I was thinking of…”
Edis: “Do you accept there was publicity… which suggested journalists could and did hack mobile phones?”
Brooks says she remembers the phone companies having a “factory floor” setting. Edis says he has some more articles.
Greg Miskiw and the Sophie Wessex Story
Edis returns to the Sophie Wessex story in April and 2001: Brooks admits she negotiated the exclusive interview with press or private secs
Brook concedes the story appeared extensively for 2 weeks in NOTW, and she was directly involved with Mazer Mahmoud.
“It came from Max Clifford,” says Brooks of disgruntled employee Wessex story. She agrees she had “close involvement’ with story
05/04/01 There’s Greg tasking to Mulcaire for Sophie Rees Jones: it has the name Hugh Stephenson and the name of Coventry.
“The name didn’t ring a bell but I can review the story,” says Brooks.
‘Can you think of any reason this story would need services of ordinary private investigator?” asks Brooks of Sophie Wessex story.
“It would depend on Mazer Mahmoud,” says Brooks: “he ran his own stories… It’s very hard to…”
“What was Greg doing on the story?” asks Edis of Miskiw tasking of Mulcaire.
“That was the final phase investigations unit,” says Brooks. “Mazer worked on his own.”
“You gave Greg a thousand pound bonus,” asks Edis of Miskiw: “What did he do?” Brooks: “He was a department head”
Edis points out that Mahmoud and Thurlbeck also got bonuses for Sophie Wessex story: Brooks “they brought in a big story”
Rebekah Brooks Cross Examination continues on Count 5 – Illegal Payments
Payments to Police Officers
Edis brings up again an email from Sun journalist 03/02/06 “Do you accept police officers were paid for stories during your time at the Sun”
Brooks says she knows of no corrupt payments. Edis queries her on her original use of “rarely’ made payments in previous evidence.
Brooks says sometimes police officers give no work stories but can’t remember an occasion. “So why did you speculate?” asks Edis.
“I probably should have said never and caveatted it,” says Brooks. “Is this just an invented hypothesis,” asks Edis.
“Is your evidence invented around emails you’ve seen, or does it reflect what happened at the Sun” asks Edis.
Brooks: “It’s not invented…. I’ve been looking at emails for three years… It might have happened..” Edis: “But what actually happened?”
“Because I haven’t got access to everything… but the Mayor of Tetbury might be an example of that,” says Brooks of police info off duty
Brooks asked if “off duty” police stories is what she had in mind at Editor of Sun. Brooks says “yes”
“After a while at newspapers nothing surprises you what the source of stories are,’ says Brooks of police evidence.
Public Interest
Brooks says she was probably told by lawyers that off duty stories were OK. She cites the public service defence for payment.
“When I authorised the payment to public official… it would have to be like the Stephen Lawrence thing: that high bar of corruption
Edis says: “Where was it written down at the Sun we don’t pay police officers for information”? Brooks says it was the law and understood
“There was no written rule we do not pay policeman,” says Edis. Brooks: “It’s the law of the land. I don’t believe journos didn’t know”
“It was known at the Sun….. Senior Sun crime reporter… it wouldn’t occur to him to pay police officer,” says Brooks.
“We didn’t have the laws of the land written down… we had a lawyer at the office, day by day, 24/7” says Brooks.
Saunders asks with a slightly different angle about public interest defence justification for payment to police officers.
“If you wanted to break the law… you’d discuss it before it happens” says Brooks, citing Malaysian airline crash and Stephen Lawrence.
Brooks talks about exposing undercover officers and the Stephen Lawrence murder as justifying breaking the law.
Brooks agrees journos would have to make public interest explanation for payment.
Edis points out that Sun email is about a story already run, and no mention of the public interest.
“It’s after the event, no mention of public interest, no one thinks Kate Moss and Peter Doherty… I’m thinking that’s not serving officer”
Brooks says the Sun journalist would know not to pay a serving police officer.
Edis returns to 11/04/06 email about paying a “serving police officer”. Brooks doesn’t remember story or email but has tried to be helpful
The emails talks about Mayor Tetbury and the “basis of a good page lead” and News and Picture desks already paying £1k
Brooks says News and Pictures were allowed to make payments without her approval. Edis asks: “What are they asking you? What’s the system?”
Brooks talks about advance payments for “exclusives”.
Edis asks whether this email suggests the serving police officer may or may not have been paid according to her approval.
“It’s relatively ‘back of the book'” says Brooks of this Tetbury story. “Was this within your rules?” asks Edis. “I hope,” says Brooks.
“I assume the process would be….” Brooks continues about regional journalist contact dept head, going to back bench.
Email talks about paying police source through a photographer and Thomas Cooke: “no record of name of source at the Sun” asks Edis
Brooks talks about paying journos in Afghanistan: “This happened in Cirencester,” points out Edis.
“I would like to keep it anonymous because source is serving police officer,’ says email. Brooks concedes this is could be explanation
Edis cites 18/04/06 email about paying a serving Sandhurst officer £1k for story using same anonymous method
“You know what this story is about” asks Edis. “Yes I do,” says Brooks. Story of senior military officer involved in fatal traffic accident
“Why is it in the public interest to have a picture when the story is already out there?” ask Edis. Brooks says pic might reveal things.
Brooks says pic might reveal car accident driver might have a history of accidents or “raging dislike of the police”
“None of these people who write these emails never say anything about the public interest do they?” says Edis.
“It’s almost as if they don’t know the public interest is the basis you’re going to make this decision,” says Edis.
“All sorts of things may have happened, but you got this email,” says Edis. Brooks: “I would have talked to news editor or picture editor”
Brooks says she would have “found out source was public official” Sandhurst story
Brooks agrees: “She would have found out source was public official before paying” on Sandhurst picture story.
“I may have said, yeah, OK I see why you made that decision” Brooks says of Sandhurst decision.
“The normal procedure is that…. payment to public official where there is risk of prosecution it’s important editor makes that decision”
“It depends what’s sparked the editor’s interest” says Brooks of oversight. “The commission of a crime” suggests Edis.
Prince William Bond Girl picture
15/06/06 Internal Sun email cited about William dressed as a Bond Girl: suggesting picture comes from Sandhurst commander asking for £4k
“I have the guy with the picture over the barrel because I know his identity” says Sun email forwarded to Brooks on paying £4k
“You agreed to paying £4k to someone at Sandhurst for a picture of Prince William in bikini?” asks Edis.
Brooks first thought she says might have been “social setting… get the picture… I’ve looked at timing… Huge England Game” says Brooks
“It was a decider…. kick off time… Normally I’d be on the back bench. My first thought would be ‘let’s get the picture in” says Brooks
Brooks says “It wouldn’t have immediately occurred to me that would be an issue”
Edis: “The email says it’s going to William’s platoon commander – though we know that’s incorrect”
Brooks on the Bikini shot: “If he’s very concerned about the snap appearing in the Sun, it’s very odd he wants to sell it”
“I wouldn’t have thought William’s platoon commander was having a sideline with the Sun,” says Brooks.
“This could have been a public official,” says Brooks. Edis: “Did you snap into action and find out?” Brooks “It was a very public party”
“I’m more concerned about who is going to get the money and what you thought at the time,” asks Edis. Brooks says she doesn’t remember this
Saunders explains why he’s amused: “I’m just smiling about twice wearing Bikini”
Brooks: “We didn’t have a printed version of every rule, we had lawyers on stand by. It wasn’t something I invented, this public interest”
Brooks replied in 11 minutes to this email. “Were you actually watching the football at this time,” asks Edis. Brooks “I may have scanned”
Edis points out of email Sun exec isn’t sure, “that’s why he’s emailing you… you didn’t have much time to think about it did you?”
Brooks explains how busy it would have been on the back bench with impending football results.
“Did you give any of this explanation to the police?” asks Edis. “You had a prepared statement… and a policy not to answer any questions”
Brooks explains of her no comment interviews that her previous lawyer had been talking to police about full interview – but lost lawyer.
29/12/07 email from Senior Sun journo shown to jury about “a source serving alongside” Prince Harry in Afghanistan.
This was during the news blackout “will be a great story when we can report it”
Brooks says she can’t remember if she talked to Sun journo about nature of relationship with source: “I may well have done”
06/01/09 email cited from Sun Journo re “my man at Five”. Brooks “On MI5 and MI6… we discussed whether could steer us in right direction”
Edis asks if this MI5 man was an official ‘contact’ rather than a “confidential source’:
“So you thought it was the press officer, ‘everyone’s man at five” says Edis. “Did you care enough to ask them?” says Edis.
Cash Payments
Edis turns to a defence bundle: “that should be enough paper for what we need to do for the next hour or so”
Edis cites “a list of payments related to Sun newspaper stories related to… army bonking in the Congo… this goes on for 11 pages”
The payments began in 2004 when Brooks was editor: Edis asks her about the rules on cash payments back then.
“I think any cash payment,” says Brooks: “had to be signed by department head and editor of day…. Very similar for Thomas Cooke payments”
Brooks thinks these payments for Congo bonking stories should have been approved by editor, depending on limit
“Did the limit, if there was one, ever change?” asks Edis. Brooks can’t remember over Thomas Cooke. Edis asks: “What’s the point of this?”
Edis says the purpose of the system was “to prevent newspaper paying cash to people who shouldn”t be receiving money from newspaper”
Brooks disagrees: “there wasn’t an assumption that cash payments were nefarious”
“You pay a lot of confidential sources by BACs,” points out Edis. Brooks agrees it’s more “financially efficient”
Edis: “The point of paying someone by cash is that nobody can look at their bank account, maybe their employed, and see they’re paid by Sun”
“There’s no evidence at his end he’s ever had any money from anybody, that’s the point,” says Edis of cash or Thomas Cook payments
“That could be the reason,” concedes Brooks on anonymity being the motivation for cash payments but adds “they were part of our business”
“Cash payments don’t equal criminality,” says Brooks. “But they can,” says Edis “and point of getting Editor involved” to ensure they didn’t
Brooks says there a “huge tightening” up after Goodman case. Edis asks “are you saying to jury Thomas Cook payments weren’t?”
Brooks says T Cook payments very low at the Sun. Edis: “Precisely so. So it didn’t take much management, did it?”
“Those reasons are multiple,” says Brooks of Thomas Cook payments “and don’t equal something dodgy going on.”
Brooks says her PCC reply was mainly about the docket system of cash payments. “This is invented isn’t it?” says Edis.
“Did you explain that distinction to police in interview” asks Edis.
Saunders intervenes: in cash dockets “they’re getting cash, in Thomas Cook payments they were getting cash.”
Brooks says in PCC letter I’m replying about “cash dockets… though difference with Thomas Cook is minimal…. it’s the same result”
“You say you were asked about cash payments by the PCC in their letters?” asks Edis. “I think so,” says Brooks.
Edis goes back to list of payments for Bonking Congo stories at the Sun and the need for editor’s approval.
“Who usually edited the Sun?” asks Edis. “I did,” says Brooks.
Brooks explains marketing, production and circulation meetings: “your role as editor was not just to sit at that desk”
Brooks agrees her job was “journalistic standards… such as whether it’s a good idea to pay someone for a story who was public official”
“This particular source provided stories to the Sun for five years… did you ever ask who source was?” “No, I did not,” says Brooks.
“Why not?” asks Edis. “Senior journalists keep sources to themselves” says Brooks.
“These stories come from all over the world,” says Edis. “Quite a lot of them concern matters of military discipline, don’t they?”
“I saw them on an individual basis,” says Brooks: “There were breaches of the army code.”
“They have another characteristic,” says Edis: “Wherever they are coming from… they were giving you stuff essentially true”
“It doesn’t sound like it’s a man in a pub in Aldershot,” says Edis. “No, they don’t” agrees Brooks.
“Your newspaper paid over £80k to this particular connection… did you know about that?” asks Edis.
Brooks says she would look at name of reporter “and often respond with congratulations… I did not assume x was paying public official”
“I know it seems unrealistic, when you see it like this… but this is not how it was presented to me at the newsroom.” says Brooks.
Edis asks about procedure: some authorised by her, others by other Sun staff “and a larger number that do not have emails”
Edis points out that from the “emails that survive” there do not appear to be authorisations for most military contact sources.
“The records ought to survive rather than being lost in the various email calamities, but we only have what we have” Edis on authorisation
“I couldn’t hand on heart say that was the system throughout my editorship,” says Brooks: “I’m caveatting my financial memory”
Rebekah Brooks Questioned on MOD Stories
Editorial Approval Needed
Edis turns to the timeline of MOD stories: first three in 2004 authorised by senior Sun editors.
Brooks concedes editorial approval needed in 2004 for MOD stories.
Following 3-4 pages of stories “but no evidence of authorisation appears to have survived by any editor” says Edis.
Edis asks whether senior Sun editors on “cash payments to confidential source.. he would do as you did” Brooks says yes.
“Did you ever discuss that with him?” asks Edis of other senior Sun execs making cash payments to public officials.
Brooks recalls the example of Hayden source on the Anthrax story. Edis reminds her: “And he was convicted of a criminal offence”
Edis moves on to one more page before a break. Saunders explains only going on till 2pm today.
Edis turns to beginning “evidence that has been discovered” of Brooks authorising MOD payment. She does not recall if authorised beforehand
“Can you actually remember getting this “Captain Boozy” request for 2k in October 2006?” “Not particularly, no” says Brooks.
Edis points out email dated around Goodman arrests “so you’d be particularly sensitive would you?”
“You’re approving approximately a thousand pounds a month to this source, did you know that?” says Edis. Brooks “That must be right”
“I was looking at the stories in isolation” says Brooks. “It didn’t occur to you that it came from the same source?” asks Edis.
“I think it’s obvious when you put them together that “my top military person’ is the same person…. each day at Sun making 100 decisions”
“I would have thought senior military person or journalist at the time, if I saw them in context” says Brooks.
“The question was “did you think they were the same source”?” asks Edis. Brooks “I certainly thought contact in email was from one source.”
Saunders asks Brooks if editors ask journalists about ‘category of source’. Brooks would says it would be fair on sensitive stories.
“The buck stops with the editor,” says Saunders: “There’s nothing to stop the editor asking about confidential sources.”
Brooks says she never thought it necessary to ask her Sun journo about the category of their source. 30 minute break.
Back at #hackingtrial after break.
Saunders reminds us and the jury Goodman’s arrest in 2006 was over phone hacking and not payments to public officials.
Saunders reiterates his question: “were you inhibited in anyway in asking any way the ‘category’ of a source”.
Edis returns to arrest of Goodman – who was accused of paying Mulcaire £12,300 in cash using false name of ‘Alexander’
“That’s why you replied…. to PCC in March next year,” says Edis of cash payments “for commission of crime”
“That’s why you included it in your letter,” says Edis of PCC letter about controls on cash payments: “a matter of real concern” in 2006
“The concern was about phone hacking, but I accept we talked about cash payments in the PCC letter” says Brooks.
“Main concern was phone hacking” says Brooks. “And how to stop it,” adds Edis “by stopping people getting paid”
“The fact that cash payments could be abused was highlighted by the case,” says Brooks.
“Everyone would be concerned who was getting the money and what for,” says Edis: “Were you concerned about that?”
“I would say we were more concerned,” says Brooks of cash payments after Goodman arrest. (Part of the charge was cash payments to Mulcaire)
Edis points to email from the day before Goodman plea hearing 28/11/06 “a big day in the life of your employers.”
“You’d have known, you were editor of national newspaper” says Edis. The day before Mulcaire pleaded Brooks authorised £4k to MOD official
Brooks responded in a minute: “Not asking any questions at all,” Edis points out of Sun journo’s top military contact.
“One source bringing stories from three different places, wanting quite a lot of money” says Edis. “It wasn’t a lot of money” says Brooks.
“Not a lot of money to the Sun, but quite a lot of money to the person getting it,” says Edis to Brooks point that Sun budget was £58million
“Depends on who was getting it” says Brooks of the £4k she approved that day.
“I would have thought it was good value for money…. whoever his source was,” says Brooks.
Brooks says she never thought it was a public official.
“In the 60 seconds between receipt and reply did the thought “is this person a public official’ cross your mind?” ask Edis.
Saunders: “Did you apply your mind at all to the issue this would be a public official?” Brooks: “Probably not”
“You presumably knew all you needed to know about this transaction because you approved it in less than a minute” says Edis.
Edis moves onto another document in this bundle. October 2007 – a year on – Brooks authorises a payment on Wiliam’s major killed by Taliban
“What was it about that story that was a ‘belting exclusive splash'” says Edis, quoting email. The fact he was killed already publicised.
The MOD fatality list published online on the Sunday. Edis: “You had the connection with William – was that the belting exclusive splash?|
Edis asks about ‘Sandhurst Sex Scandal’: £4k payment to ‘same contact’: Brooks replied “Brilliant scoop”
Edis talks about the official press release timetable after the family have been informed when soldiers killed on active service.
“What you get by paying for it, is that you get it first before any else?” asks Edis.
“I think in this circumstance, the exclusive was the connection with Prince William,” says Brooks. Edis: “You get that on your front page”
“There’s no particular public interest in this coming out a day earlier… the interest is yours, a commercial interest,” says Edis.
Saunders points out that, in previous evidence, Brooks had said that she wouldn’t have paid in public interest for stories coming out anyway
Brooks also agrees there’s no public interest in the Sandhurst Sex Scandal also in email “just a follow-up”
Payments to Bettina Jordan-Barber
“This £4k paid to Bettina Jordan-Barber, is not justified by any public interest at all” Edis. Brooks talks about change of Al Qaeda tactics
Edis points out their was an inquest into the major’s death “during which matters of that sort are a matters of evidence”
Edis asks about Brooks’ PS to the email about a health campaign: “she can’t remember what it was about… perhaps a cancer campaign”
Edis talks about story about contaminated blood in armed services which the Sun ran. Brooks is pretty sure it wasn’t that.
Brooks says the dates don’t quite work “the Pentagon didn’t tell the MOD till after this date”
Brooks says she’s looked over some old editions of the Sun trying to research this comment.
Edis turns now to 2009 email authorising payment to Bettina Jordan-Barber.
06/02/09 email adduced. Payments for “No 1 military contact… for 2 big exclusives” female soldier loses leg, and senior officer in leaks.
Edis says the exclusive bit about injured female soldier “was her name”: story had emerged in November 2008.
Edis points out that the new things were name, photograph and full amputation.
“What you’ve bought for £1.5k is her name and photograph? You tell me. What have you bought?” asks Edis
“Might have been the details… Sun journo is asking for money for,” says Brooks.
Edis talks of a story of senior officer leaking stuff to human rights group: “It came from multiple sources?”
“What did you get from this source that was worth £2k?” asks Edis. “I think the story,” says Brooks. “What? All of it?” replies Edis
“I don’t ask x which bit of the story came from Number One military contact,” says Brooks to this Sun exclusive.
Edis quotes from the Sun article about leaks to human rights group: “a senior source says”
04/02/09 is the publication of the story 06/02/09 the authorising email follows. Brooks: “I think there’s two sides to this story”
Edis goes through article “quite a lot of detail there… 2 days after that story appeared… you got this email…. what did you think?”
“I would have thought it’s senior journo asking for 2k for an important exclusive we’d run two days earlier,’ says Brooks.
“This is 2009,” not as long ago as some of the other emails, Edis points out. Brooks says she’s refreshed her memory since reading for case
“Do you remember where you thought he’d got it from?” asks Edis. “I didn’t think it was a public official,” says Brooks
Six weeks later, in March 2009, email uses same expression “my No 1 military contact” and “uses that same expression generally” says Edis.
Four stories cited in email for £3k “none of which justifies a public interest defence” Brooks said in previous evidence.
Brooks accepts the RMP were already investigating an expenses story, so wasn’t being covered up.
Rubber Stamp
BREAKING: Brooks admits she was just acting as a ‘rubber stamp’ for payments to Number 1 Military Contact.
Brooks is quizzed about what “best military contact’ and how that works. Brooks said they had many ex military officers.
“But they wrote under their own name… not the same as a confidential source selling stories for money”, says Brooks.
Brooks says the Sun had an ex senior officer selling stories for “quite a long time” but for “very little” – not 1000s of pounds
Edis grills Brooks on whether this ex military source covered the whole world and was always stood up by MOD. Brooks says “quite a lot”
More payments to Bettina Jordan Barber: “two payments for same story” says Edis. Brooks agrees.
“Prize Medals must not be Bling” is an accompanying Sun column by named former military officer (not her source says Brooks)
Both Sun stories cite same source saying gallantry medals were “overblown”
“We’re now on £9.5k for military contact in 2009” says Edis “Did you really make no connection between these emails when they came to you?”
“If look at the emails… a couple of months later…. possibly… that he has a very good military contact,” says Brooks.
“By logic…. I don’t remember… but I assume I must have made a connection” says Brooks.
Edis “If we hadn’t shown you this emails would this have been something you’d have forgotten?” Brooks: “The emails have jogged memory”
Another email authorising payment of £4k for front page splash “taking our running total for 2009 to about £13.5k” says Edis.
“That means “Ace Military’ contact provided story worth putting on front page?” asks Edis. “Yes,’ says Brooks. Authorised same day.
Edis points out military source well placed to get stories from Sandhurst and Afghanistan: “Did you think about that?” Brooks: “not really”
“What were you thinking about when you got these emails?” asks Edis. Brooks says she was thinking about seniority of the journalist.
“So you’ve decided not to do your job because you thought he was doing his, is that what it comes to?” asks Edis.
Saunders asks “was your job to supervise journalists.” Brooks said “I think I did…. but didn’t read these emails and think criminality”
“There was an obvious risk this was a public official,” says Edis. Brooks accepts that “if you read all these emails together”
Edis points out six emails in just one year “anyone reading these emails … would conclude there was a risk…”
“Unless you’re the journalist themselves and putting story together” says Brooks: “That’s now how I saw them and analysed them”
“You were chosen for your job because you were good for it. You would remember how a story was treated in a paper.” says Edis.
“You would have a good memory of what was in the papers you edited” says Edis. “I’d remember the big ones, yes” says Brooks.
Another £4k payment for “a story about a haircut” and other stories that Brooks has previously said probably not have a public interest
Edis cites story of TA volunteer dying in civilian hospital with Swine Flu “complicating existing health problems”
Brooks says “there might have been public interest in swine flu if the MOD tried to cover up”
MOD apologised for saying it was “existing health problems”
“As it’s perfectly obvious you’d run that story last week,” says Edis. Brooks explains she was being ‘hypothetical’ about coverup.
“We’ve got £4k none of which qualifies as public interest,” says Edis. Brooks disagrees “it doesn’t pass the high bar to pay public official
“Here’s £4k paid to public official, and none of it should have gone to her according to your evidence,” says Edis. Brooks agrees.
“Because of your high test, none of this should have gone to this woman. And it’s your job to make sure it didn’t happen” said Edis.
“Nowhere in this documentation is the phrase ‘public interest’ mentioned by anybody” says Edis. Brooks agrees not.
“You say this is because this didn’t occur to you because it never occurred to you she was a public official,” says Edis. “That’s right”
“I’ve put it right to you, it never occurred to you that she might be a public official,” says Edis. “No it didn’t” says Brooks.
Break till 10 am tomorrow morning.

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

Related Articles
Brooks – Coulson email exchange on Goodman Mulcaire guilty pleas: It is all going so well
Peter Jukes on ABC Radio
Rebekah Brooks Takes The Stand At Phone Hacking Trial – The Daily Beast
The Brooks Plan B and Blair Unofficial Advisor emails
Half Time at the Phone Hacking Trial

Previous Posts
Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 4 Mar
Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 5 Mar
Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 6 Mar

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

3 thoughts on “Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 10 Mar

  1. Pingback: Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 11 Mar | Live Tweeting the hacking trial

  2. Pingback: Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 12 Mar | Live Tweeting the hacking trial

  3. Pingback: Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 13 | Live Tweeting the hacking trial

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s