Thursday 20 March 2014
Summary | ||
Clive Goodman is Cross Examined by Counsel for Andy Coulson | ||
Langdale questions Goodman on Phone Hacking | ||
Cash Payments | ||
Goodman questioned on Articles and Payments | ||
Editor’s Conferences | ||
Goodman questioned on Coulson | ||
More questions on Hacking |
Clive Goodman is Cross Examined by Counsel for Andy Coulson | ||
Langdale questions Goodman on Phone Hacking | ||
Langdale explains he has three files for Goodman and jury: two are new, one they already have, “by nature repetitive” Langdale explains | ||
At the #hackingtrial Clive Goodman is back in the witness box, about to be cross examined by Timothy Langdale QC, counsel for Andy Coulson | ||
Langdale asks Goodman “Have you told the court the full extent of your hacking phones?” Goodman: “I think so….” | ||
Langdale runs through Harverson, Dyer, Parker Bowles, Lowther Pinkerton, Asprey. Goodman agrees. | ||
Langdale makes it clear he’s asking about personal hacking, not through Glenn Mulcaire. Goodman agrees her personally ran DDNs | ||
“I’m suggesting to you Mr Goodman you did hack other people you haven’t told us about,” says Langdale. Goodman: “I don’t recall” | ||
Langdale runs through the Alexander Project, and Goodman’s claim Coulson knew it was Mulcaire, and Mulcaire was hacking. | ||
Langdale adduces an email Goodman sent 03/02/06 to Coulson seen before on “matey’s weekly payment” and the maths of Mulcaire. | ||
“We’ve acquired a long list of names, addresses, connections” says Goodman in email to Coulson about Mulcaire’s hacking. | ||
Goodman explains that people who leave messages often leave numbers, and you can work out connections. | ||
Of this ‘long list’ Goodman says he kept some contacts in the office and some at home. | ||
Goodman explains that the search of his desk in 2006 was stop by News International lawyers. Goodman says he “doesn’t know” if list found | ||
Goodman says he never received back his filofax and list of contacts | ||
“I got a list of property confiscated by the police” says Goodman. Langdale: “Mr Goodman please. We know how concerned you were” | ||
“I was concerned I wasn’t involved in wider hacking of VIPs and celebrities,” says Goodman. “Mulcaire’s general industrious hacking” | ||
“By the time I left the police station, I’d already been charged. The people I had hacked were put to me” says Goodman | ||
Langdale returns to Matey email “this contact has been very productive…. this sort of information no manageable on story by story basis” | ||
“If Mr Coulson knew Alexander was Mulcaire what was the point of telling him that?” asks Langdale about description of Matey. | ||
Langdale says Coulson didn’t know Matey was Mulcaire. Goodman says he did. | ||
Goodman email talks about “costs” for Mulcaire: Langdale asks “what costs?”. Goodman says office, contact, operating life. | ||
Langdale says Mulcaire was getting in £100k a year already for hacking. “What were his extra costs?” Goodman says operating costs. | ||
Langdale claims Goodman was talking about someone with “entirely separate operation”. Not true says Goodman | ||
Goodman says Mulcaire was getting increasingly frustrated and wanted to switch to Sun newspaper: “bad managed by News Desk” at NOTW | ||
“Glenn Mulcaire was fed up with working for news desk, wanted a switch to the Sun” says Goodman | ||
Goodman quizzed about Mulcaire “missing stuff” – he didn’t have the background knowledge to understand material gained. | ||
“Mr Coulson knew I was hacking myself,” says Goodman. Mulcaire provided PINs and DDNs | ||
Langdale says that this couldn’t have been Mulcaire. Goodman denies this: “No, not at all”. | ||
Langdale asks about Goodman’s line saying Mulcaire would be “a devastating loss”. “Always much better to be in control of a project” | ||
Langdale says these emails are just “flannelling”: Goodman denies this. | ||
Langdale asks about cash payments to anonymous sources made by Goodman: some less concerned about anonymity than cash in hand | ||
“I think most people in dealing with stories about Royal Family also like anonymity” says Goodman. | ||
Cash Payments | ||
Langdale talks about the alias created for cash payments: Farish, Anderson and Hall created by Goodman – sometimes others paid. | ||
“Did you always pay after publication of story, or some occasions before?” asks Langdale. “General policy was payment after delivery” | ||
“Normal process was payment on publication, but any number of occasions sources paid on handover of documents” says Goodman | ||
“Sometimes as a good will gesture, for a long standing source” Goodman says payment might not lead to a story if paid in advance | ||
Goodman agrees sources paid for “Insight, intelligence, documents, some kind of service” | ||
“There were pretty substantial sums of cash going through your hands” says Langdale to Goodman. He produces a schedule of cash payments | ||
Saunders caveats this schedule: Langdale says it has not been checked through by others, prepared by Coulson’s defence. | ||
‘Analysis of Goodman’s Cash Payments, Expenses… 2000 to 2006″ is this new document prepared by Coulson’s defence team. | ||
Langdale goes to a random column: September 2000 – no info on cash payments claimed. But £10k withdrawn from Goodman’s bank account | ||
Langdale goes to 2001: annual cash claims £28,100 went “through your hands” says Langdale to Goodman. 2002: £44,500 | ||
2003 Goodman handled £57,000 cash payments through NOTW: in 2004 £31,000 (expenses £10k) | ||
Langdale points out Goodman made no cash withdrawals from his own bank account through 2004-2005 right the way to mid 2006 | ||
Goodman explains lack of cash withdrawals: “My life changed significantly with arrival of a child, and a new wife. “ | ||
“Prior to that I lived quite I high spending life style, my first wife and I had no children and lived quite a high spending lifestyle” | ||
Goodman: “My life changed a lot… I wasn’t going out so much. I started going to supermarkets” says Goodman of marriage and new child | ||
“It wasn’t as a result of having any extra source of money” ask Langdale. Goodman says he got £140k legacy from death of mother. | ||
“What you have here is an incomplete record of my finances, it’s just one bank account” says Goodman. | ||
“What was it the police missed about your finances?” asks Langdale. Goodman: “I’m afraid you’re going to have to ask them.” | ||
Langdale asks about other sources of cash from Jan 2004 to summer 2006: Goodman “I’d get a cash advance from cashiers…. or use cash back” | ||
“I paid greater attention to saving… paid for childcare, and put it away for the child’s education” says Goodman in change of his habits | ||
Langdale goes through Goodman’s 2004 cash claims and expenses around £30k, going up to next year to £40k. | ||
“We just have to take your word for it that the cash payments went to the person concerned” asks Langdale. “It did,” says Goodman | ||
“Did you keep for yourself any of the money you got in cash from NOTW?” asks Langdale. “I did not,” says Goodman. | ||
Goodman points out his cash payments to sources actually declined by 40% in 2004 – same time he was not withdrawing cash from ATMs | ||
Langdale’s figures show the amount of cash payments rising. “Those are the figures we suggest are correct” says Langdale. | ||
“You were rather reluctant to embrace stricter rules coming into the paper over cash payments,” says Langdale. “It was a problem, yes” | ||
“Senior management were concerned about the laxity of rules over cash payments” says Langdale. Goodman says they didn’t like tax situation | ||
Goodman says he was like many other NOTW journalists chasing cash payments: “a crowd of people in the managing editors office on Tuesdays” | ||
Langdale asks again about three aliases: Goodman says the company required an address so they gave them a false address. | ||
“I was only doing what I was required to do by the company” says Goodman. “I don’t get why you think we’d put in the real address” | ||
Goodman says a real address for a false identity would defeat the point of the exercise | ||
Langdale says he’s produced another schedule of payments from Goodman to other cash contributors, excluding Farish, Anderson and Hall. | ||
Spens for Goodman says this new schedule is a “working document” and “not agreed” | ||
Other cash payments by Goodman “not known at address provided”: Alan, Curtis, Dean, Dickinson, Dundees, Grant, Owen etc | ||
“Are they all aliases?” asks Langdale of dozen or so names Goodman paid. Goodman looks through the list. | ||
“There are definitely aliases… Farish, Anderson and Hall… as for the others I’d assume some of them are” says Goodman. | ||
“I’d imagine most of these, if not all, are aliases” says Goodman. | ||
“This is not a memory test. And don’t worry that I’m going to come back and hit you with something,” says Langdale. | ||
Goodman says, without checking, he thinks most of these were aliases. | ||
Goodman questioned on Articles and Payments | ||
Langdale goes through Goodman’s payments to alias Farish and related NOTW articles. From 2002 to 2006. | ||
“In general” Goodman agrees, Farish was providing information about the Royal Family. | ||
Langdale turns to Anderson schedule of payments, that begin 02/01/01 about Prince Edward, and end in April 2006 | ||
Langdale takes us to “the third member of this particular trio” payments to Hall – starting 04/09/01 and finishing 12/04/06 | ||
“Why not payment to any of those three, your principal sources, after the first week in April 2006?” asks Langdale. “I’m sorry I don’t know” | ||
“Is it just coincidence they all seem to stop getting cash payments in April?” asks Langdale. Goodman says “I don’t have an answer for you” | ||
“I know they didn’t want to pay Mr Hall in cash anymore, and there was a constant tension about that” says Goodman. | ||
Goodman says that Anderson disappeared. | ||
“Is it just a coincidence… you start withdrawing cash again at beginning of June?” asks Langdale. “You’re looking at events 2 months apart | ||
“I’m sorry I don’t see the connection” says Goodman of end of payments to three sources, and resumption of cash withdrawals from his ATM | ||
Langdale asks “was the sum of money the source was going to receive sometimes agreed in advance?” Goodman “sometimes” | ||
“All situations are completely different, there is no template for it” says Goodman of cash payments: “I’d negotiate on behalf of paper” | ||
“The information is worth what the paper is willing to pay for it,” says Goodman. | ||
Goodman agrees it’s sometimes true “the source only gets paid when a story is published…. but each case unique and individual” | ||
Goodman says “occassionally” sources would get paid even if a story wasn’t published. | ||
“You’re asking me to give a generalisation of 20 years of sources,” says Goodman. He doesn’t ‘believe’ he ever paid a source for no info. | ||
Goodman explains sources could also provide ‘insight’ rather than just exclusive new information. | ||
Langdale takes Goodman to tab “Pre 2005′ and contributor payment forms for alias Alec Hall being paid £200 for ‘Jean Simmons – Carvery’ | ||
03/03/02 story on Gene Simmons Carvery NOTW column paid on 08/03/02 – 59 words on Kiss frontman about being on cover of Playboy | ||
“You would keep an eye on other publications in the course of you work?” says Langdale. Goodman: “There isn’t time to read everything” | ||
Langdale produces a Telegraph story not long before on 25/02/02 – about Gene Simmons. Same quote at NOTW from “Sharon Tweed’ | ||
Goodman explains he paid Mr Hall who spotted it. “You paid Mr Hall for his ability to read?” asks Langdale. | ||
“The story would have been lost in a paper with a very low circulation” says Goodman. “You’d pay?” “Yes, sort of thing done all the time!” | ||
Langdale turns to £300 payment to Anderson on 03/11/02 about Fergie in Sierra Leone. | ||
Langdale reads Goodman’s Carvery Column about Fergie confusing a pop singer with a vicious warlord, and her red hair. | ||
Langdale produces another piece in the Observer from six days earlier about Sarah Ferguson and her funny red hair and scary eyes. | ||
Same Observer article has Ferguson mixing up Charles Taylor, president of Liberia, and James Taylor. | ||
“Mr Anderson is a journalist, had spotted it, and sold it on. Absolutely commonplace. Skiil is passing it on,” says Goodman. | ||
10 minute break | ||
Back with Langdale’s cross examination of Goodman: he wouldn’t read all the supplements for papers, and could miss other royal references. | ||
Goodman explains Mr Hall worked for a middle market newspaper, and wouldn’t be able to use some more tabloid stories | ||
Langdale cites another payment of £150 to Anderson about Prince Charles ‘exam row’ appearing in Carvery diary from Feb 2nd | ||
Langdale “would you keep an eye out for Prince Charles stories?” Goodman: “If I saw them I would” | ||
Langdale adduces a Guardian story that has exactly the same information about Prince Charles 2 days before. | ||
“It’s a straight lift from this piece,” says Langdale of Guardian article on lack of academic qualifications of Prince Charles. “Not true” | ||
Langdale says Prince Charles qualifications story was ‘widespread in the press’ and shows the Western Daily Press, Western Mail and Express | ||
“It escaped your attention had it, that this story appeared in a number of places” asks Langdale. | ||
Goodman says he wouldn’t have read Western Daily Press, Birmingham Post, and Observer published the same day. | ||
“Mr Coulson took a close personal interest in the Carvery, and if he thought there was something wrong… he’d be very quick to say so” | ||
Middle of April payment of £650 to Mr Hall related to Madonna. Carvery piece “too chicken to put out her anti war video” about Madonna | ||
“You got that from other publications didn’t you?” asks Langdale. “No, I did not” says Goodman. Langdale cites the publication ‘W’ | ||
Langdale says there’s an email in which Goodman requests to make sure the W is still provided by NOTW. | ||
“I’d have to see the email and the context before I can answer that question,” says Goodman of importance of W magazine. | ||
Langdale cites “cost cutting measures” which would cut a number of Goodman magazines “seems daft buying two sets” | ||
Langdale cites email in which Goodman says he’d like to retain W, and Vague. Saunders corrects “I think that’s Vogue” | ||
“The news desk was a very bad place at the time, and there were lots of rows and discussions,” says Goodman about email over magazines. | ||
Langdale takes Goodmanto a Madonna article in W magazine – now put into word document because original in very small print | ||
The W article has similar content to the Carvery item: Madonna enthusing about Micheal Moore movie and mentioning Iraq | ||
“You just lifted your Carvery piece” says Langdale. Goodman says the email is Feb 06: “I don’t recall if I was receiving W in 2003” | ||
“Are you suggesting positively he had W is 2003?” asks Saunders of Langdale: “Or just asking?” Langdale “I’m asking” | ||
BREAKING: Goodman says he never listened to the Madonna album he described as ‘uninspired’ in NOTW in 2003 (bit of irony in that BREAKING) | ||
Goodman explains that the ‘uninspired’ description was an understanding across the music industry. | ||
Langdale asks what justifies giving Mr Hall £650 for that piece: “Spotting that story, packaging the story. It was the lead in the Carvery” | ||
14/09/03 Mr Hall gets paid £250 for Carvery story about bust up between Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman and her brother’s reaction | ||
Langdale cites a piece from the Sun Bizarre magazine “two days before” about Uma Thurman’s brother wanting to kill Ethan Hawke | ||
Another Mirror piece cites split between Hawke and Thurman. Goodman says Hall got paid for spotting these. | ||
“Had I seen these pieces in Sun and Mirror the story wouldn’t have made the paper, too similar” says Goodman. | ||
“I can only assume all three stories emanated from the same source… website or something” says Goodman. But Mr Hall got it. | ||
Goodman is asked whether his “stories dried up after death of Diana”. He says “no”: the industry changed. Public felt “revulsion” | ||
“They wanted to protect her children from coverage” says Goodman on Princess Diana: “So the industry shrank” | ||
“The sources and the stories were there,” says Goodman of Royal Family post death of Diana: “but the treatment was different” | ||
Goodman says he was told he had the most number of front pages at NOTW. Langdale suggests this was just the death of Diana. | ||
“No,” says Goodman: “In a crowded market, I managed to get exclusives” | ||
Goodman is asked about the Osama Bin Laden lookalike taking up 7 pages: Langdale says it was just a splash and turn. | ||
“if I exaggerated I’m sorry” says Goodman of 7 page splash. “You’re rather prone to exaggerating aren’t you?” says Langdale | ||
Goodman explains the tip off about Osama Bin Laden lookalike at the palace came from Coulson, but he checked using royal directories. | ||
Goodman is asked about his runner up to scoop of the year. He shared a by line with Maz Mahmoud | ||
Langdale says there were problems with Goodman’s work at NOTW before Coulson and even Brooks arrived (i.e. prior to 2000) | ||
Langdale produces a Kuttner document to then editor Pat Chapman about a reporter making “two and two add up to seven” | ||
Kuttner email talks of 09/03/89 NOTW article written by Goodman: calling it a “ballsup… accuracy is everything” | ||
Goodman says memo “a fair reflection of a mistake I made working that night. It was wrong…. I should have made further checks” | ||
Goodman says Chapman memo is a friendly warning. Over 20 years you’re going to have run-ins “difficult business, difficult personalities” | ||
In 1998 email to Phil Goodman also uses the term ‘matey’ about a source – doesn’t mean Mulcaire – paid £600. | ||
Kuttner emails Hall in 1998: “I think we have a problem with Clive Goodman,repeatedly failing to follow through and report on Royal stories” | ||
Goodman has never seen this email – never put to him by editor or anyone at the time. | ||
Kuttner article talks of Goodman missing splashes in other papers. | ||
Goodman explains how they were outbid one story: another People article didn’t check out “they had a lower burden of proof” | ||
Goodman asked about his first contact with Mulcaire: “early 2000s when I sat next to Greg Miskiw” | ||
Goodman said he acted a lot as a ‘go between’ between Miskiw and Mulcaire, because “Greg was out of the office a lot” | ||
“In the early days of Glenn Mulcaire, widely acknowledged as a valuable source” says Goodman. But didn’t know he hacked voicemails | ||
Goodman is going to be asked about material recovered from Mulcaire: mentioning Susan Gamble, Lowestoft. Goodman appears ‘top left’ | ||
“I don’t remember pursuing Gamble” says Goodman of Mulcaire notes. | ||
Goodman looks at the notes. He doesn’t remember a Susan Gamble. “My name is on it, but I don’t remember it” | ||
“As for tasking him” says Goodman of Mulcaire: “It looks like he’s trying to find someone”. | ||
“I don’t recall” says Goodman of Mulcaire notes: 03/06/99 tasking of Mulcaire for Susan Gamble. | ||
“Does that help you know whether you were tasking Mulcaire in 1999?” asks Langdale. “I don’t remember a Susan Gamble” | ||
Langdale asks if there were direct dealings with Mulcaire before 2005. Goodman says “to the best of my knowledge” | ||
Langdale cites several Mulcaire notes about Eddie Irving, and 03/06/99 top left with the name “Clive’: he doesn’t recall tasking Mulcaire. | ||
Langdale asks about period 2000-03: “were you on the decline as a journalist at the paper?” “I wouldn’t have thought so,” says Goodman | ||
Goodman says things got very strange after Neil Wallis arrived as NOTW deputy in 2003: “he didn’t like me, he didn’t like my stories.” | ||
“I was bringing in stories, but Andy and Neil didn’t like what I was doing” says Goodman. | ||
“You don’t get stories in a small circle like Royal Family…. by knocking on doors, because there were no doors to knock on” says Goodman | ||
Goodman acquired the nickname ‘The Eternal Flame’ among some NOTW journos, Langdale alleges, “because he never went out” | ||
Goodman says “in early days” Coulson encouraged him. 19/10/03 was last Carvery column according to Langdale. Blackadder created for Bolland | ||
Goodman explains that”spiteful back stabbing” style of Blackadder was a “special topic” of News of the World. | ||
Mark Bolland’s last Blackadder column was 06/03/05 and Goodman, who’d helped before, took over the column the next week | ||
Goodman explains that he didn’t want his picture on Blackadder column. | ||
Editor’s Conferences | ||
Goodman explains his demotion at NOTW under Coulson’s editorship: firstly he reported direct to editor. | ||
Goodman never said he was “excluded from editor’s conference”: he’d been attending that since before Brooks and Coulson arrived. | ||
After his promotion, Goodman explains he could present his own stories, with his own placing on the list. | ||
“The order in which people present is considered important” says Goodman. It degraded and eventually asked after Sunday magazine. | ||
Goodman says eventually he could come to conference but not present list: “It was humiliating… and designed to be so” | ||
Langdale says we’ve “seen email after email you could go direct to Mr Coulson” “On some matters,” says Goodman. | ||
“You can see from the tone of his emails he wasn’t encouraging. One word, or two words, pretty dismissive” says Goodman. | ||
“I was coming up with stories… they weren’t given a fair chance to get into the paper” says Goodman. | ||
Langdale explains how Ian Edmondson got cross with Goodman for “not going through the proper channels” | ||
“Ian Edmondson was my boss” says Goodman. “Mr Coulson is the person who… demoted me” | ||
“You were an expensive member of staff,” says Langdale. “In comparative terms a good salary”. Goodman: “I wouldn’t have argued with that” | ||
Goodman questioned on Coulson | ||
“He was quite tough, generally” says Goodman of Coulson: He felt Coulson “bullying, aggressive…. at times” | ||
“Why did you invite him to your wedding in June 2006, two months before your arrest?” asks Langdale: “I went to his wedding” says Goodman | ||
Goodman talks of the death of his joint friend with Andy Coulson: Chris Blythe. | ||
“I thought it only right to invite him to mine, I thought he might take offence if I didn’t” says Goodman of Coulson wedding invite. | ||
Goodman explains his complaint against Coulson wasn’t bullying but NOTW “sanctioned phone hacking on an industrial scale… known by editor” | ||
“It was unfair because my ultimate boss Mr Coulson had sanctioned the project” says Goodman of Mulcaire and unfair dismissal. | ||
Lunch time till 2pm. | ||
Saunders tells jury we’ll only sit till 2.30 on Monday because a juror has an appointment. | ||
Langdale tells Goodman he is not seeking to get him to name sources: “I’ll be careful” | ||
Langdale is asking about Coulson encouraging Goodman: assisting Kuttner with leader writing. Occasionally Coulson would contribute. | ||
Goodman explains about news editor conference – normally on a Tuesday. Editor’s conferences would take place daily, two on Friday. | ||
Over 20 people would attend the editor’s conference, Langdale establishes with Goodman | ||
Goodman confirms that Miskiw and Marunchak had been there for some time when Coulson arrived as deputy editor in 2000 | ||
Miskiw and Marunchak were “sometimes” quite close says Goodman. But he doesn’t consider himself part of their group. | ||
“I don’t think we saw ourselves as a club or an old guard at all” says Goodman of Miskiw and Marunchak. | ||
Goodman says he’d known Miskiw since late 80s early 90s. Worked close together “physically”. | ||
Goodman says of Miskiw: “Greg had an investigations mind… very secretive. Kept most of his work to himself” | ||
Goodman say kept on occasional contact with Miskiw when he moved to Manchester in latter part of 2003. “Don’t recall” if spoke abt Mulcaire | ||
Goodman says he thinks Miskiw and Mulcaire were “always close… still are” | ||
Langdale says Mulcaire and Miskiw’s name appears, “in relation to you Mr Goodman” after 2003 and Miskiw’s departure. | ||
Goodman can’t recall describing Miskiw and Mulcaire as “Sooty and Fingers” – at Carluccio’s | ||
“Someone manipulating someone else” Goodman agrees is what this Sooty and Fingers expression about Miskiw and Mulcaire means. | ||
“As far as I knew Greg had surrendered responsibility for Mulcaire” when he left for Manchester. Had left NOTW for Mercury in 2005 | ||
Goodman explains how he paid the cash to Mulcaire: “I give it to him… usually close by the office, in his car” | ||
“He was always very keen on being paid very quickly” says Goodman of Mulcaire. He can’t recall paying money into his bank account. | ||
Goodman can’t recall the other places he met Mulcaire for cash payments: “usually done very quickly” | ||
Goodman denies “getting any proceeds from the Alexander project” for himself. | ||
Email shown to jury from Brooks about setting up the Carvery Column 20/04/01 then Goodman’s appointment to senior editor. | ||
10/07/01 Goodman email to Kuttner about removing cash payments from news desk and his secret sources hanging around news desk. | ||
Goodman’s requests meant his “credit costs” effectively resulted from a change of department to editorial management team | ||
“That is a supportive email” says Goodman of Coulson in 2000: “I think I said he started out supportive” | ||
“My executive of head of Goodman PR INC” writes Coulson to Goodman about drawing Brooks’ attention to his work. | ||
10/05/02 Goodman email to Coulson: “biggest problem is keeping Max quiet. If he so much as whispers it we’re all going to jail for contempt” | ||
Goodman explains this email related to Paul Burrell and Max Clifford having “lots of detail around his forthcoming trial” | ||
“We were concerned that Max… would boast about having story in NOTW. And have the whole thing injuncted” says Goodman. | ||
“I think I’m being dramatic for emphasis….” Langdale says “You were rather inclined to use florid and over dramatic language” | ||
Goodman denies he was “florid” and says NOTW would use dramatic language. He says “reporters do exaggerate”. | ||
“There was a very real legal threat, I might have used the wrong word” says Goodman over contempt threat. | ||
Goodman says his “concrete wellies” comment in previous email was a joke. He denies he was talking “nonsense” in emails around office | ||
To suggestion that any editor would have to take what he said with a “large pinch of salt” Goodman replies: “You’ll have to ask the editor” | ||
08/01/03 email chain when Coulson was editor, writing to Goodman about “leaks” | ||
Following day 09/01/03 Goodman emails Coulson about “Sophie Clinic” and the ‘Lister Clinic’. Langdale says info provided by Coulson. | ||
“I can’t tell,” says Goodman: “It’s ambiguous… Lister may be out there in the public domain” | ||
Email goes on about PCC case and Harry’s exams. | ||
Another shows information coming in from source 23/03/03 “Nothing to do with hacking” Goodman agrees. | ||
“There might however be a way in” says another email, discussing the strategy for a source. “I’ve also got someone keeping me up to date” | ||
“It’s nothing to do with Hacking” Goodman agrees. 24/01/04 email about Royal Aide an allegations of mistress: source was Mark Bolland. | ||
Another email about the Carvery column 24/01/03 or 04 Goodman emails Coulson about Mark Bolland. Another email about chasing Bolland. | ||
“Greg’s people turning mobiles” email adduced by Langdale: Goodman confirms he understood this to be getting an address not hacking. | ||
25/01/03 Goodman emails Coulson about Royal Princes “Got some more info on M”: Coulson had queried “anti-Wills” in Carvery Lead. | ||
Goodman says email with “Now we have his mobile we can check out his end of things” was nothing to do with hacking | ||
Oct 2003 Coulson is 10 months into editorship, writes to Kuttner about “Clive G fully on board with leader role” and office and pool cars. | ||
“There is Andy Coulson trying to find a new role for you” says Langdale. “He decided to cancel my column and hadn’t told me replacing me” | ||
“I would say I was already extremely productive in the office” says Goodman. | ||
More questions on Hacking | ||
Langdale cites a Mulcaire note: date maybe 02/10/02 and name ‘Titus Brambell’ Goodman “formerly was Duchess of Cornwall’s protection officer | ||
Saunders says he thought Titus Brambell was a footballer. “I think he plays for Ipswich which explains the post code” | ||
Langdale hones in on some Mulcaire notes on Paddy Harverson. | ||
Langdale cites two calls from Goodman to Paddy Harverson on 13/01/05 and then hacks of Harverson’s phone by Mulcaire around 18/01/06 | ||
25/01/06 is a hack of Harverson’s phone from NI landline. “Is that you?” asks Langdale. “I don’t know… “ | ||
“I don’t think there’s any dispute I was hacking Paddy Harverson” says Goodman. “But that hub is shared….” | ||
Langdale goes through the timeline of hacking Harverson – a mixture of Goodman’s own number, NI landline | ||
“I won’t go into detail” says Langdale. “I’d prefer to go into detail because that’s sometimes quite important” replies Goodman. | ||
“Difficult to keep track of the thousands of documents that come in” Goodman replies when asked if he’s seen this doc in his preparation. | ||
Langdale goes into detail the pattern of hacks of Paddy Harverson. | ||
Goodman goes through various colour coded hacks of the phone of Helen Asprey: “you were hacking her long before Alexander project” | ||
“I’ve already said that in evidence” says Goodman of hacking Asprey’s phone. “Pretty consistent hacking all the way through” says Langdale | ||
Langdale shows the volume of hacking calls of Asprey in the first four and half months of 2005. | ||
“What this shows is the PIN numbers were changing and I was no longer able to access from the info from Greg Miskiw” says Goodman | ||
“The access to the DDN was petering out” says Goodman until Mulcaire helped directly. “No hacking whatsoever” of Asprey over weeks | ||
“I remember from that period the problem accessing her voicemails because the PIN changed,” says Goodman. | ||
“Why not ring Mulcaire yourself” asks Langdale. Goodman: “He was Greg’s source, and Greg was a power on the paper. It would be difficult” | ||
Langdale points out Miskiw left NOTW in June 2005: “I remember being in contact with Greg during this period” says Goodman. | ||
“I had no contact with Glenn Mulcaire at this time about hacking phones, as far as I remember” says Goodman of Summer 2005 | ||
Jury shown Operation Carytid schedule from original investigation into Goodman in 2006: it shows hacks from Goodman landline to Asprey UVN | ||
Goodman emails Miskiw in Jan 2005 about number for Harry Mead in regard the Harry Nazi party: “Greg would be the guy you go to” he says. | ||
Miskiw emails Goodman 01/14/05 “only explanation is that she has reset it” about Asprey. Break for 10 minutes. | ||
Langdale back with his cross examination of Goodman over a voicemail message tape recorded by Mulcaire. | ||
Langdale is discussing a Prince Harry injuries story based on a voicemail message found at Mulcaire’s home | ||
Saunders asks the jury to leave for a moment while they sort out the evidence on this voicemail message. | ||
The jury are read out a note of Goodman’s previous evidence on the hacking of Asprey’s phone and Prince Harry‘s injuries. | ||
Saunders asks one of the counsel who made a verbatim note to read out what he originally said. | ||
It’s about “scanned from Helen Asprey” email: “not intended to convey hacking because Andy didn’t know about hacking at that stage” | ||
Langdale establishes Goodman had hacked Asprey’s phone at this point and was core of “Harry Two Nuts Injuries” story in NOTW. | ||
Langdale says the message was Mulcaire’s, because it was found at his home. Asks Goodman if he’s hiding connection to Mulcaire in Jan 05 | ||
“No, that’s untrue” says Goodman. “I accessed the voicemail message…. Mulcaire accessed not with my knowledge” | ||
“Greg would come to me and say, something very interesting/funny has happened, and tell me to listen in” says Goodman. | ||
“I’d like to make that very clear,” says Goodman of not using Mulcaire directly at this point in January 05. | ||
Langdale asks why “Mr Anderson’ should have been paid £700 for this Harry story. Goodman asks to see the invoice for this. | ||
It’s ‘Nazi injury’ NOTW story about Prince Harry that ‘Anderson’ was paid £700 for. | ||
“Who got the money?” asks Langdale. “The money was given to Greg Miskiw to give to Glenn Mulcaire” says Goodman. Through internal post. | ||
Goodman says this was beyond Mulcaire’s duties, and Miskiw wanted Mulcaire paid in cash. | ||
“Can you help us please how that would make any sense at all” says Langdale. “You’ll have to be more specifict” says Goodman. | ||
Goodman explains extra payments for Mulcaire – Willams payments for Graham Taylor used as an e.g. “This sort of thing happens all the time” | ||
“So you knew at this time Greg Miskiw was using Mulcaire to hack?” says Langdale. “This is a fiction,” says Langdale. | ||
Goodman reiterates he knew it was Greg’s source at the time, but not that it was Mulcaire, and that he was hacking. That’s what he knows now | ||
Miskiw to Goodman 23/02/05 re “Fawcett’ being impossible to access; “Michael Fawcett former valet to Prince of Wales” explains Goodman | ||
Fawcett was subject of outstanding inquiry. Goodman says “Miskiw was the Kings Cross station of investigations at NOTW” | ||
Emails between Goodman and Coulson cited by Langdale 23/02/05 about Mail and Mirror splashes leaking a Sun tale. | ||
Email says Paddy Harverson is a “complete idiot” about a Sun exclusive in the Harry Nazi story which seems to have leaked. | ||
“This is just really from talking to the Sun” says Goodman about “the DNA of what the Sun would think was a leak” | ||
Goodman talks about hacking Harverson’s phone and whether it was “massively password protected”: he says its reference to Greg. | ||
Coulson replies “so not Sun leak” to Goodman’s check on possible Harverson leak. | ||
Goodman says that the Royal Palace might leak a story to something “more palace friendly.” “It’s a newspaper drama over nothing” | ||
Goodman email re ‘Charles’ and “my man in charge of invite vetting”: Goodman says that’s a “source of a source” | ||
“After Mark Dyer” wrote Goodman in email of Princes’ outgoing aide. Goodman says he was chasing him because he was “a little put out” | ||
April 05 email from Goodman to Miskiw “Call urgent re Asprey”: 08/04/05 she was hacked by NI hub phone. | ||
Break till 10 am tomorrow morning. |
Note: All the defendants deny all the charges. The trial continues.
Related Articles
Some of the Mysteries of Phone Hacking – Unlocked
Mulcaire Sanctioned by Spooks – Malign Influence of NI Lawyer on Goodmans Legal Team
Texts to Rebekah Brooks from Tony Blair on the Eve of her Arrest
Brooks – Coulson email exchange on Goodman Mulcaire guilty pleas: It is all going so well
Peter Jukes on ABC Radio
Previous Posts
Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 17 Mar
Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 18 Mar
Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 19 Mar
Links: The Trial So Far | Full Trial Summary | Indexed Evidence | Breaking News
Pingback: Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 25 Mar | Live Tweeting the hacking trial
Pingback: Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 26 Mar | Live Tweeting the hacking trial
Pingback: Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 27 Mar | Live Tweeting the hacking trial
Pingback: Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 14 May | Live Tweeting the hacking trial