Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 16 May

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

Friday 16 May 2014

Summary
	Clive Goodman’s Cross-Examination by Counsel for Andy Coulson Continues
		Goodman questioned about events after his arrest
		Goodman’s meeting with Coulson in the Cafe Rouge
		Goodman’s discussions with NI after his arrest
	Clive Goodman is Cross-Examination by Counsel for Stuart Kuttner
		Jonathan Caplan QC questions Goodman about seeing Kuttner after his arrest
	The Prosecution Cross-Examine Clive Goodman
		Anthony Edis QC questions Goodman on the Royal Directories
		Goodman questioned on Glenn Mulcaire
		Goodman’s meeting with Rebekah Brooks after arrest
		The Prosecution question Goodman on Phone Hacking

Clive Goodman’s Cross-Examination by Counsel for Andy Coulson Continues
	Goodman questioned about events after his arrest
		Back at the #hackingtrial (yes I’ve typed that over 100 times) with continuing cross examination of Clive Goodman by Coulson’s QC, Langdale.
		Langdale is now onto matters after Goodman’s arrest on 08/08/06
		“Henri Brandman was provided to me by News International… they were paying for my defence” says Goodman
		Goodman consulted with Tony Lorenzo on employment matter.
		Goodman said the CPS had an “awful load of evidence… there were discussions of whether this was a technical breach” of phone hacking.
		Langdale says that in Goodman’s “unfair dismissal claim” would say his employer’s were invovled: Goodman says they were separate issues
		Langdale points out that the contact report with Coulson from 10/08/06 is actually from March
		Goodman confirms that Coulson gave him the impression he was in discussion with the CPS, Home Office and police over initial hacking charges
		Back to the phone call contact report is date 14/03/07: Goodman says the dates changed because it’s a copy from an older computer.
		“My archive has been confiscated and returned, confiscated and returned” says Goodman: “but this was created absolutely at the time”
	Goodman’s meeting with Coulson in the Cafe Rouge
		Langdale deals with the Cafe Rouge meeting with Andy Coulson: Goodman said he drove there, two or three minutes from his home.
		Goodman said he “attempted” to record the meeting: “I’m no undercover reporter…. terrible recording… long since gone..”
		Goodman cannot remember if he had the physical recording at the time of the internal NI tribunal: house constantly searched he says.
		“The recording is of insufficient quality to be of any use” says Goodman recording meeting Coulson. He says he made notes in the car after
		“I think the same afternoon” says Goodman of writing a computer document of the meeting.
		Goodman says he recorded the meeting because he felt “manipulated by Mr Coulson…. the promises not genuine, interfering in my legal case”
		“I felt I couldn’t trust them and needed some self protection” says Goodman of recording his former boss.
		Langdale asks Goodman if he wanted “an admission” of Coulson in regard to phone hacking. “
		Goodman says “I was terrified… been in prison three days… facing financial ruin. Andy was holding out the one hope. You could come back”
		“I don’t think he would have gone on tape accepting it” says Goodman of Coulson: “He was extremely suspicions”
	Goodman’s discussions with NI after his arrest
		Langdale goes to March 2007 meeting with Cloke and Myler at News International.
		Goodman says there were probably three recordings of conversations with Coulson – but one of them has disappeared.
		Goodman says of recording meetings: “I was in a very hostile negotiation with a powerful organisation… I had to put the best case I could”
		“He was saying there was a chance I could come back to the paper” says Goodman of Coulson; “I had to run it”
		Langdale adduces an email by Goodman’s sister, Fran, to Coulson saying of Cafe Rouge “he was pleased you went to see him”
		Goodman says the email wasn’t true: his sister worked for Coulson. Saunders intervenes when Langdale says “do you really mean that”
		Goodman says he didn’t tell his sister of the extent of his phone hacking. They just addressed the case presented to them by the CPS
		Langdale adduces a letter from Goodman to Brandman saying he had no other involvement with Mulcaire contracts
		27/10/06 another Goodman email to Brandman on Mulcaire: “I have no idea how he obtained his information”
		Goodman describes sitting in a police station and being shown file after file on Mulcaire, vodafone, and using a cashpoint machine line
		Langdale cites Brandman’s first draft ‘Proof of Evidence” for Goodman’s case in 2006
		27/10/06 is the first draft of Goodman’s Proof. Para 28 ‘Clive to comment on the charges against him’ writes Brandman
		“All the way through this I relied upon the legal advice of the solicitor and counsel provided by News International” says Goodman
		‘I have no legal background” Goodman adds of his defence post arrest: “This is the first time I’ve ever been through anything like this”
		Langdale shows the jury Goodman’s response to Brandman’s request: “I have no involvement in… other services Mulcaire provided for NOTW”
		Goodman says this refers to other Nine Consultancy work – hacking of Milly Dowler, Home Secretary, Celebs
		Goodman sends Brandman a new draft: “happy to brief you on the how, when and why of Glenn Mulcaire, but don’t think it’s for email”
		31/10/06 Brandman replies to Goodman: “I shall not be providing Kelsey… with the information included in paras 30 etc.”
		Brandman emails Goodman saying he’ll send Kelsey Fry QC a separate document with information of the hacking
		Langdale cites the “instructions to counsel” sent by Brandman to Kelsey Fry on 31/10/06
		This ‘instruction to counsel’ is for a conference on 07/11/06 – it records a number of documents provided in lever arch files
		One of the lever arch files is the prosecution case against Goodman
		Brandman puts out Goodman’s position to Kelsey Fry: no idea of “massive nature” of Mulcaire’s enterprises.
		Brandman instructions to Kelsey Fry mention Miskiw and Thurlbeck as Mulcaire’s handlers – Goodman just a “walk on part”
		There is some discussion back in 2006 whether Goodman has breached a “technical offence”: no mention of “mitigation matters”
		02/11/06 Goodman says hacking so extensive Coulson asked “no more references to dark arts, family and friends, and phone message”
		Goodman says at this point he was suspicious he would be landed with all Mulcaire’s hacking – “I thought I had to start defending myself”
		“I was increasingly worried about the manipulation…. the obvious contact and traffic going on between my solicitor and.. NI” says Goodman
		This draft of Goodman’s Proof mentions that he showed transcripts of voicemail messages to senior editorial staff
		“I was frightened your client, Andy Coulson, and my solicitor was negotiating behind my back” says Goodman of including new evidence
		“It’s quite plain there were communications all the time” says Goodman of NI and Brandman: “and now it’s clear how extensive it is”
		Goodman says he provided information to NI Lawyer, because he face ‘financial ruin’ without getting job back and NI coverage of legal costs
		04/11/06 Goodman emails Brandman again with a “reworked draft of the life and times of Goodman C”
		“I have had no involvement whatsoever with Mulcaire’s other work with the paper” says Goodman in this version of his Proof of Evidence.
		Goodman says there was no mention of the Alexander Project in that draft because “they were offering me employment”
		Goodman says his solicitor Brandman “had made it plain to me I wouldn’t get very far if I blamed others. It would make my situation worse”
		Justice Saunders takes Goodman through the different drafts two days apart where mentions of wider hacking had disappeared.
		“It was quite obvious it was going to be a guilty plea..evidence overwhelming…judge would take dim view” Goodman says of mentioning others
		06/11/06 Proof of Evidence now explored by Langdale: back to Para 28 with “nothing at all about the Alexander Project”
		Goodman says that the legal conference with Kelsey Fry on 07/11/06 there was a discussion of “who knew”
		06/11/06 email from Brandman to Kelsey Fry’s clerk suggests, says Langdale, Kelsey Fry didn’t receive other documents on Alexander payments
		Goodman had described the November conference as “bad tempered and short”; a second conference in December 2006 was attended by NI lawyer
		Langdale asks why Goodman didn’t write a contact report for the November conference though he did for the December
		“Apparently my solicitor made no notes whatever of any meeting I had with anyone” says Goodman of Henri Brandman’s note taking of conference
		Onto Goodman’s tape recorded meeting at Carluccio’s with NI lawyer in 2006
		The NI lawyer did not know he was being recorded says Goodman. Much is unintelligible. “I know what I did” says Goodman in transcript
		Langdale claims Goodman was being untruthful. Goodman goes back to mentions of Thurlbeck and Gordon Taylore.
		“Andy’s problem is three executives…. contact with Mulcaire” says Goodman in recorded meeting. That’s the context of “I know what I did”
		“What you’d done went way beyond what you told [NI lawyer]” says Langdale. Goodman admits he didn’t mention Harry, Middleton, William
		“I was never asked and I never volunteered” says Goodman of legal discussions of wider hacking of the Royals in 2006
		Langdale cites 09/12/06 taped phone conversation between Coulson and Goodman
		Goodman says he taped convo “because they were finding me a convenient victim to blame the hacking on. I was very very scared”
		Goodman says Coulson would have “smelled a rat” if he’d tried to get him to mention hacking: and he would lost job and legal representation
		Langdale says an admission from Coulson would be “the most useful weapon”: “I failed to see how that would help” says Goodman
		“You’re suggesting I should have blackmailed your client” says Goodman.
		“I don’t think you know much about doing business with News International” says Goodman of entrapping Coulson: “they’re very very powerful”
		Langdale takes Goodman to page 1ab of a green file – comes after 1z! 17/11/06 email from Brandman to Goodman.
		Goodman hoped to limit the conspiracy charge limited to three Royal Aides from Nov 2005 to August 2006: he succeeded.
		21/11/06 Goodman to Brandman “I’ll bring copies… of the document marked confidential” Langdale suggests this means Kelsey Fry had not seen
		“You must have been rather pleased” says Langdale. Goodman: “I don’t think pleased is the word… a relief to have something with limits”
		Goodman shown 23/11/06 Brandman attendance note about the previous days meeting with John Kelsey Fry QC.
		The attendance note doesn’t appear to be in Justice Saunder’s bundle – it has nothing on it.
		Goodman agrees there’s no mention of wider hacking or confidential file in this attendance note.
		11/12/06 Goodman emails Brandman with amendments to the Proof: “there are 3 other far more senior NOTW execs revealed as handlers”
		Goodman says in this email he wants Kelsey Fry’s view on whether it would helpful to mention the other 3 NOTW execs handling Mulcaire.
		“What I was seeking to stress in this was that I did not want to be involved in all Mulcaire’s other hacking” says Goodman
		Goodman says previous discussions were “very short” because NI lawyer interrupted saying Coulson “would deny everything”
		Goodman emails Lorenzo at Lewis Silkin 03/06/07, over his employment status after prison sentence
		Goodman says of his employment: “I was suing them for unfair dismissal.. but I wasn’t seeking a settlement, I was seeking to come back”
		Goodman writes in 07 that Coulson’s role with the Conservative party then “very useful to us… a stick to beat David Cameron with”
		Goodman reiterates he got over hostile feelings towards Coulson: he says he wanted to resolve his situation with News International
		10/07/07 emails between Lorenzo and Goodman about settlement “thanks for keeping a rein on my Old Testament desire for vengeance”
		“Tony was a fantastic employment lawyer” says Goodman: he says the vengeance wasn’t against Coulson.
		Goodman tells the jury the only reason they are seeing these documents is because “I released them”
		Langdale has finished his cross examination of Clive Goodman at the #hackingtrial
Clive Goodman is Cross-Examination by Counsel for Stuart Kuttner
	Jonathan Caplan QC questions Goodman about seeing Kuttner after his arrest
		Jonathan Caplan QC, counsel for Stuart Kuttner, has a few brief questions for Clive Goodman.
		Caplan goes back to August 2006 and Kuttner meeting Goodman at police station and driving him home.
		Goodman says he spoke to Kuttner on the journey home, and he came to visit a day or two later.
		Goodman says he was actually held overnight – arrested on 8th August, released on 9th. Kuttner returned to see him on 10/08/06
		Caplan adduces Kuttner’s contemporaneous notes of his conversation with Goodman on the 10/08/06
		Goodman thinks Kuttner also took notes on the 09/08/06 as well.
		Caplan re-reads Kuttner’s note about Mulcaire introducing Goodman to “SIS… serving spook… with leftovers of… secret services”
		“Dec-May trial at £500 per week” wrote Kuttner. Caplan suggests this is an accurate note because it reflects Goodman’s account to lawyer
		Goodman says of Kuttner’s note: “I don’t know how much of this is me, or how much was Stuart’s input and emphasis”
		Caplan reprises Mulcaire claim security services were monitoring the phones around Royal Famliy: and willing to share details.
		Goodman explains he met someone at a bar behind News International: he couldn’t be sure the person he met was actually a serving spook
		“I was in a pretty confused and frightened state, and probably not speaking in coherent sentences” says Goodman
		Caplan reminds us of what Justice Saunders says “this is not an industrial tribunal” but asks Goodman about Kuttner’s alleged bullying
		“He was very agressive” says Goodman of Kuttner: “and in emails… was clearly trying to get rid of me”
The Prosecution Cross-Examine Clive Goodman
	Anthony Edis QC questions Goodman on the Royal Directories
		Edis now starts the prosecutions cross examination of Goodman: “Who sold you the Royal Directories… that’s what I’m concerned with”
		Edis says “everyone knew, you knew, the directories were coming from serving police officers” Goodman denies this.
		Goodman says he told Coulson, Kuttner, Weatherip and others that they were serving officers to expedite payment.
		BREAKING; Goodman says nobody “asked him” about paying police officers at NOTW.
		Edis claims that everyone at NOTW knew paying police was a crime because of the arrest (and acquittal) of Neville Thurlbeck
		Edis asks Goodman: “You’re saying the NOTW would be more likely to pay… if they thought they were serving police officers?”
		“You thought it would be easier to get money out of them if you were paying policemen” Edis asks again.
		“I don’t remember being told specifically” about not paying police officers says Goodman: “But it’s against the law”
		Goodman agrees he was lying: “but it took place in a circumstance where this building up of sources is commonplace”
		“A lot of what goes in the paper is no doubt untrue” says Edis.
		“This is not about the media in general” says Edis “but about getting money out of Stuart Kuttner” and other NOTW execs.
		“You might want to big up a source when it comes to the Queen’s nuts” says Edis of sourcing stories: “but it doesn’t apply to a phone book”
		Edis shows a marked up version of the ‘Anderson’ payments with red highlighting on stories related to policing and/or Royal family
		These payments start on Jan 2001: Goodman is asked about the first payment “might have been a directory…. a long time ago”
		Goodman says he didn’t ask questions of Anderson about book: “because if you ask you rarely get a straight answer”
		Goodman says Anderson was a freelance journalist: “these directories in the Royal Household…. were not considered security sensitive”
		Edis: “You paid a thousand pounds so it couldn’t have been a bit of rubbish” Goodman: “But they were valuable to the newspaper”
		Goodman says that the three pseudonyms were ‘headings’ used for cash payments to more than three sources
		“The journalist known as Anderson seems to be a very well placed source on Royal stories” says Edis.
		Goodman says he won’t name freelance journalist because “he’s protected under the human rights act”
		“I know who I think it was” says Goodman of Anderson source.
		Goodman agrees he met Anderson and Farish over and over again: he didn’t call them by first names “it was a business transaction”
		“People are very wary of doing business with the NOTW” says Goodman; “that’s why they wanted payment in cash”
		Goodman says they would call and say “Hi, it’s me”: he doesn’t recall if he had their numbers in his mobile phone, says most calls in office
		Edis says that Fleet Street is not a huge world. Goodman says he used to meet Anderson at various locations in the city, not News Int.
		Goodman says Anderson wasn’t a Royal specialist because he didn’t know the significance of information.
		“If they were journalists they’d be doing it for themselves” says Edis. Goodman “Maybe he didn’t trust doing business with NOTW”
		“There is some driving reason for people to want to be anonymous, because we can’t come after them later” says Goodman of NOTW sources.
		Goodman says that if they’d signed Mr Anderson “there would be a desire to expose him… completely exposed”
		“Freelance journalist does his job” says Edis: “Hold the front page”: Goodman disagrees “more like Royal Rat”: Edis “Royal Rat?”
		“Nothing inherently suspicious in being paid in cash” says Goodman. “Freelance journalists are supposed to pay tax” says Edis.
		“Tax was paid in some way” says Goodman: “either by Mr Anderson or News International”
		Edis says of Anderson “this person is only selling you stuff about the Royal Family… what is he selling you for £1k that isn’t a story?”
		Goodman can’t tell what Anderson was paid for without more contemporaneous details.
		There’s one non Royal story from legal representatives of a former prime minister’s wife.
		Goodman explains how he would stand up tip-offs from Anderson: “eventually putting them to relevant press office… and ask them”
		Goodman says internal lawyers might not check trivial stories – but something like the Queen’s nuts would have to be checked.
		Goodman accepts that with hacking based stories he had to “support i by other means” but most Royal Stories would be put to press office
		Edis cites a story about Royal Palace alarm system so cranky it had to be tested with a broom handle.
		Goodman explains that the Royal Households are full of gossip but denies his source was a member
		Goodman explains how he paid Mulcaire through Miskiw on the story of Prince Harry‘s injuries.
		“Farish Anderson and Hall were not real people, they were budget heads” says Goodman. As for payment to Mulcaire via Miskiw, ‘maybe’ hacking
		Goodman says paid Miskiw through internal NI mail system. He once ferried £16k to Scotland “it’s a strange world and strange things happen”
		Goodman denies paying Mulcaire direct in Jan 05: “I didn’t know where he was… Miskiw is the man I paid”
		Edis cites £1000 payment to Anderson for Count 3 Royal Phone Directory amid other Royal stories
		Twice a day, for 7 months, @thetuftii has been turning my #hackingtrial tweets into a movie: here’s today’s http://buff.ly/1nWfpwD #kudos
		Edis is back after lunch with the Farish payments made by Clive Goodman circa 2002/3: paid for two books £1k each.
		Edis points out that the two payments for Royal directories are surrounded by “security and police stories”
		Goodman says that these are Royal Stories: Farish was another newspaper executive says Goodman.
		“What did he do for a living?” asks Edis of Farish. Goodman says identifying his job any further would breach his human rights.
		Goodman says Farish was in newspaper “management”. Edis ask “how” this source had so many Royal stories. Goodman says he didn’t know.
		Goodman says that an analysis of Farish and Anderson would show most the stories are Royal not police stories.
		Goodman says he won’t give any more details about Farish source in case that would identify him.
		Goodman explains he outed another sources were already “out there”: e.g Mark Bolland “not a secret”
		Edis says “I’m not trying to trick you into giving him away… but do you know his real name?” “I believe I do,” says Goodman.
		Saunders establishes that Goodman knows Farish’s real name.
		“Are you saying you never had a police source… paid or unpaid?” asks Goodman: “No,” says Goodman.
		“The Royal protection squad are very unique, and very hostile to reporters… not natural friends of journalists” says Goodman.
		Edis produces documentation recovered from Goodman’s house when he was arrested in 2006.
		Edis shows a “mugshot” of man in historic documents relating to the 1990s.
		One of these documents Edis produces, recovered from Goodman after arrest, is a “police document”. Goodman says he got it from NOTW staff
		Goodman says because he was a Royal specialist other gave him documents: he thinks this police document came from NOTW crime correspondent
		Edis adduces another internal police custody document, for someone not charged. Goodman thinks this also came from NOTW journalist
		Goodman never asked where this internal custody document came from: Edis “they’re not being very secretive if they gave it to you”
		3rd police document from Cambridgeshire Police also recovered from Goodman’s about someone who has delusions they are member of Roya Family
		Goodman believes this third police also came from a NOTW crime correspondent. A fourth document about criminal around Buck Palace also
		A fifth police document about someone bothering Princess Diana also adduced by Edis: Goodman says same internal NOTW source.
		A briefing paper from Royal Protection Police in 1995 was also recovered – Goodman says same source: another NOTW journalist
		A police witness statement also adduced: Goodman says that came from the person who made the statement
		Edis adduces a floorplan of apartments in the Royal Palace, a map of Kensington Palace with “deployment of units” recovered from Goodman
		Edis says “there are a lot more plans at the end… an internal police document about security at Royal Palaces”
		“This surfaced” says Goodman “it was found with thrown out furniture. It was given to us by people working on the ‘mothballing'”
		Edis goes through the familiar emails (to all here) from Jan 2003 using his screen (it needs a box underneath to be visible)
		Edis establishes that Goodman had a close working relationship with Coulson at that time in Jan 2003 and he was interested in Royal stories
		24/01/03 Goodman email about Michael Peat managing relationship of Charles and Camilla – in dispute with Mark Bolland at the time.
		Edis asks about the source of the allegation of Michael Peat‘s affair: Goodman says Mark Bolland told both him and the editor.
		“Turning his mobile” says Goodman “means using someone’s mobile number to find an address or landline”: Edis: “You didn’t have his mobile”
		Goodman maintains he did have Peat’s mobile number and that Peat said “it’s no impossible” that he gave it to him.
		Edis then cites the email about “one of our Royal policeman at St James’ Palace” having a green book
		Goodman agrees this is a lie. “So you were obtaining money on false pretences” says Edis. Goodman says he wasn’t.
		Edis says a palace policeman might be useful for tracking Peat, as he’s “a pain to follow”: Goodman says he lived in very secure areas.
		“It might help you if you got a call from a policeman saying Sir Michael Peat is just leaving in a Bentley” says Edis. “No one ever called”
		Edis points out that the email talks about a cash payment to another newspaper executive: “so they were willing to pay” he points out.
		Email goes on “they could end up on criminal charges, so could we”: Edis points out that newspaper execs weren’t public officials.
		“Do you think Mr Coulson might call the police and have you arrested?”asks Edis of this emails. “No, it never happened on the newspaper”
		“No, they were paid” says Edis of alleged payments to cops. Goodman says Coulson made no further inquiries.
		Coulson followed up Goodman email reminding him they’d paid for a directory the previous year: Goodman said they were different books.
		Goodman emails Kuttner with a “deliberate cryptic” payment request. He can’t remember if he had a conversation, though thinks he did.
		“Should have Peat’s car reg…. Greg’s people turning phone” says email. Goodman says Miskiw turned mobile numbers into locations
		25/01/03 Mulcaire records show no mobile phone number for Sir Michael Peat – but two landlines are shown on his notes, headed “affair”
		Edis establishes that Miskiw never passed on the mobile number Mulcaire: Goodman maintains Peat gave him number previous year.
		Edis says that the Royal Green Book has the info also found in Mulcaire’s notes: “that was the rush to payment” says Edis.
		Goodman says he wouldn’t have gone out to pay the source on the Friday 28th because Fridays are so busy at NOTW.
		Edis points out that someone has entered Sir Michael Peat‘s mobile number by hand in Green Book: Goodman says that’s him.
		A Goodman email to senior NOTW exec “a notoriously anxious boss” says “NOW have his mobile”: Goodman says he lied to get him off his back
		“What we’re trying to find out is… there might be a location of something illicit” says Goodman of tracking Peat’s phones.
		“We’re trying to find out if his landlines are linked to any other mobiles we’re not aware of” says Goodman of checks on Michael Peat.
		Goodman passed on details Mulcaire found on ‘the girl” – but says it was through the intermediary of editor Greg Miskiw.
	Goodman questioned on Glenn Mulcaire
		Edis turns back to Goodman’s Proof of Evidence and “I first became aware of Glenn Mulcaire… who worked direct for NOTW for 10 years” (96)
		Goodman says Miskiw was “very secretive” about Mulcaire and another senior NOTW journalist was too.
		“Did they all forbid you and other reporters from having direct contact with Glenn?” asks Edis. “Miskiw was not encouraging” says Goodman
		Another senior NOTW journalist was “vociferous” about no contact with Mulcaire, says Goodman.
		Edis reads out the section from Goodman’s 2006 Proof about Coulson wanting no more references to “dark arts” at conference.
		Goodman doesn’t think phone hacking was included in “dark arts”: “family and friends” call traffic: “messages” means phone hacking.
		“The editor effectively banned discussion of phone hacking,” says Edis. Goodman talks about products being “casually talked about”
		“I knew what they meant” says Goodman of news conference discussions: “though I’m sure it went over the heads of a lot of people there”
		Edis cites a transcript of a conversation between Goodman and Coulson: Miskiw and Mulcaire like “Sooty and Fingers”
		Goodman talks about a brief conversation with Miskiw prior to trial: the only one speaking to Mulcaire who was “behaving erratically”
		Goodman says Miskiw was worried about Mulcaire saying “something incriminating” and “not wanting that can of worms opened”
		Edis cites the transcript of Goodman’s tape of meeting with Cloke and Myler over unfair dismissal.
		Goodman explained in 2007 to NI that news desk would call Mulcaire regularly to get info. “He was concerned about how stories portrayed”
		“He would often call me” says Goodman of Mulcaire “to see how his stories had been portrayed in conference”
		“This fantasy that he was a bona fide PI” said Goodman of Mulcaire to NI executives in 2007 “was just untrue”
		“I was aware that Glenn was a key figure to the organisation” said Goodman in 2007: “I knew he was providing some kind of secret service”
		Edis asks if Goodman sat near Miskiw in 2002: Goodman says “people keep sources pretty much to themselves”
	Goodman’s meeting with Rebekah Brooks after arrest
		Edis cites Goodman’s note of his meeting with Rebekah Brooks at the RAC club in 2007 “Wade Contact”
		Goodman wrote of Brooks offering him job in 07 “she claimed not to have consulted [Senior NI exec}… who cares about a few media stories”
		BREAKING: Goodman claims Rebekah Brooks offered him a job after prison “because who cares about a few media stories” #hackingtrial
		Justice Saunders asks the jury if they’re feeling sufficiently “lively, intellectually stimulated” to carry on today. They say they are.
		Edis says that Goodman’s acquisition of the Green Book “was all to do with hacking”: Mulcaire was tasked.
	The Prosecution question Goodman on Phone Hacking
		Edis points out that Goodman had said to NI that any pretence Mulcaire was involved in normal PI work was a “fantasy”
		Goodman replies Mulcaire did do some legitimate trace work – he cites the Peat case – and this has nothing to do with phone hacking.
		“I didn’t talk to Glenn Mulcaire about this” says Goodman of Peat affair story: “I just wrote it up with the editor.”
		Goodman says the Miskiw handling of Mulcaire was “entirely out of his hands”: Edis says “it wasn’t entirely out of your hands, was it?”
		Edis moves on from 2003 to 2005 and a Goodman email to Miskiw on 13/01/05 Goodman says he had “suspicions” about it by then.
		Goodman says he was told sometime around Jan 2005 Mulcaire was phone hacking.
		22/01/05 email about “health inf…. scammed from Helen Asprey”: Goodman knew about phone hacking, but says Coulson didn’t
		“What’s a scam?” asks Edis. “An unauthorised way of getting information” says Goodman “You mean a frauds” says Edis. “No”
		“Getting into someone’s medical records is a very serious thing for a journalist to be doing,” says Edis. “I wasn’t” says Goodman.
		Goodman says that the Prince Harry medical information was from a conversation not records. He accepts it’s confidential information
		Edis points out Harry was “fourth in line to the throne… a pretty important person to be spying on… that’s what you’re saying to editor”
		“Did you ever say anything to Mr Coulson about what you’d done?” asks Edis. “No… we felt it was a public interest” says Goodman.
		Goodman says this conversation about public interest in Harry health story wasn’t with Coulson.
		Edis says “you’re not trying to hide what happened from Mr Coulson… you’d be a lot less open than this email. You’re giving the game away”
		“There was clearly something to hide, because we would have had the conversation about phone hacking” says Goodman of email to Coulson.
		“To be fair to him, Andy didn’t know about phone hacking at the time” says Goodman of Jan 2005 email about Harry “health inf… scammed”
		“By now you’re phone hacking yourself” says Edis of Feb 05: “you’re not phone hacking because you’re bullied into it?”
		“There was an incredibly competitive aggressive atmosphere” says Goodman but agrees there was no bullying in early 2005
		Goodman says of phone hacking Miskiw “passed it over… I didn’t see the danger. I’m capable of phone hacking if given DDNs and PIN numbers”
		“I didn’t have the authority or budget to commission something like that” says Goodman of a Sun exclusive lead leaked to Daily Mail.
		Edis is discussing the “massively password protected” email about Paddy Harverson which Goodman was asked to check out for leaks.
		Edis cites another email about Michael Fawcett which “could relate” to phone hacking “someone many people were interested in”
		08/03/05 Goodman is interested in Tom Parker Bowles: he texts Coulson about a Blackadder lead being “lifted word for word”
		Another email is about Royal Wedding and “my man in charge of invite vetting”: Goodman says it’s not Farish or Anderson but protected source
		Goodman denies this has come from a “palace copper”: he says “vetting” wouldn’t be done first by police, by any number of other people
		“Queen furious about policeman stealing nuts” mentions “memo to palace cops”: Goodman says many – two dozen – who knew about this story.
		“When the Queen makes her view known like this” says Goodman of nuts controversy: “it’s like a bomb going off”.
		“How does a journalist who doesn’t work at the palace know he’s going to get his hands on two Royal phone books” asks Edis of Goodman.
		14/05/05 and 01/06/05 email – much cited – about a Royal directory “a very risky document for him to nick”: Goodman says just bigging up
		Edis asks why Goodman needed to big up his palace directories source if Coulson willingly paid for previous: things change all the time
		Edis asks about “mooning Royal cop” story: “it’s a police source isn’t it?” “No, it’s a Royal source” replies Goodman.
		Goodman email also says Special Branch investigating palace cops because of a NOTW story about an Operation Trident incident
		Edis then cites email to Bev Stoke about men in “uniform” and “you, me and them ending up in prison” – Goodman says he was deceiving her
		Edis asks whether Goodman knows if Special Branch were actually investigating palace police: he doesn’t.
		“Thanks to the way we pay them, they’re untraceable. But they’re in uniform” says Goodman email. He says he wasn’t being truthful
		Jury out till 10 am Monday

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

Related Articles
The Route to Verdict: Justice Saunders Directions to the Hacking Trial Jury
Those Rogue Reporter Emails
Stuart Kuttner Emails to Surrey Police over Milly Dowler
Kuttner Notes of Conversation with Goodman Just After his Arrest
Some of the Mysteries of Phone Hacking – Unlocked

Previous Posts
Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 8 May
Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 14 May
Hacking Trial Live Tweets – 15 May

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