3 Dec 2011

McCann s' pain doesn't justify censorship with Carter Ruck letters libel threats

McCanns' pain doesn't justify censorship effort

Ridiculous claims need to be rebutted, not suppressed. That's the real tragedy, says Eilis O'Hanlon

 0  0 ShareThisNew
No closure: Gerry and Kate
No closure: Gerry and Kate McCann
Sunday January 17 2010
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, as Kate and Gerry McCann have discovered to their cost.
It only takes five minutes on the internet to uncover a web of rumour, half truth and innuendo which would convince even the couple's most fervent supporters that they are hiding something about the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine in Portugal in May 2007, or, worse, that they actually killed her, either by accident or design, and then concocted the story of her abduction from a holiday complex in the Algarve to cover their tracks.
Which version one chooses to believe is a matter of personal taste. When it comes to outlandish conspiracy theories, there really is one for everyone in the internet's global audience of nutters, giving ever greater credence to the old line about a lie getting round the world before the truth gets out of bed. But if you're on the receiving end of it, like the McCanns and their friends, you certainly don't expect the police to add fuel to the fire.
Say what you like about the gardai, but it's impossible to imagine a senior Irish police officer behaving like Goncalo Amaral, the former investigating officer in Portimao, who was so stung by criticism he received for his handling of this case that he marked his own dismissal from the investigation by writing a book alleging that Madeleine died
accidentally in the family apartment on the night of May 3, 2007; that Gerry then disposed of his daughter's body on the beach; and that the holiday party all colluded in a cover-up to prevent possible charges being laid against them for child neglect.
The controversy surrounding Amaral's book, Maddie: The Truth of the Lie, finally reached the courts last week, as the author sought to overturn a ban on its publication, previously won by the McCanns. This could well be the closest the McCanns' Portuguese tormentors ever get to their wish of putting the couple on trial.
"They are trying to judge in a civil court what they could not judge in a criminal court," the couple's lawyer points out.
The case has now been adjourned until next month, when two more witnesses, currently unavailable, will give evidence; but even if the former police officer loses this one, it won't stop there. He insists this is about the right of free speech under the Portuguese constitution, and has pledged to go all the way to the European Court of Human Rights to defend his freedom to publish his allegations.
And here's hoping he ultimately wins. Goncalo Amaral might be a disgrace to the name of detective, whose book, far from being the fearless expose which it boastfully purports to be, is a shoddy cut and paste job that is shamelessly selective in its use of evidence, cynically exaggerates the significance of DNA traces found in the McCanns' apartment and hire car, makes leaps of logic which would embarrass Inspector Clouseau, never mind a supposedly senior policeman, pads out its thesis with silly cod-historical digressions on the "turbulent" ancient history between England and the Algarve, and the proud noble independent spirit of the Portuguese people; and which ultimately resorts to ludicrously overblown paranoia about political interference in the case (though naturally Amaral struggles to explain why so many powerful people, up to and including the British prime minister, would go to such extraordinary lengths to protect a bunch of obscure doctors on holiday from being held to account for neglecting their children).
But even bad detectives and worse true crime writers should be free to speak about their experiences and conclusions in a case whose ongoing lack of resolution is clearly not in the public interest. Not least when all the material contained in The Truth of the Lie comes from the official police files, which, since the investigation was archived, have largely been in the public domain anyway. What contrary right are the McCanns asserting here, after all? The book has already sold 200,000 copies in Portugal, been translated into six other languages including Spanish, Italian, Swedish and German, and is freely available in English versions over the internet. Ten seconds on Google and it's yours to read, whatever the courts decide.
The documentary which Amaral helped make for Portuguese TV can also be seen, subtitled, on YouTube, while numerous websites continue to rake over the same small disputed scraps of evidence which he uses in his book to crudely smear the McCanns. Indeed, he will soon be visiting Britain to give a talk at the invitation of a virulently anti-Kate and Gerry group known as the Madeleine Foundation. All of which sounds like healthy free speech to me. The McCanns' pain shouldn't give them carte blanche to silence those who say things they don't want to hear.
Unfortunately, this is what they have done from the start. These are people who issue solicitors' letters the way other couples send out wedding invitations. There's even a website now devoted to people who claim to have been "Gagged By (The) McCanns", with the tagline: "Has Team McCann tried to silence you?" Free speech isn't so free when you're working on a shoestring and your opponents have multi-million pound funds at their disposal.
The McCanns insist they act this way only because they don't want a sense of defeatism about Madeleine's fate to dilute the continuing effort to find their daughter. That's understandable, though Kate McCann's claim last week that the proceedings have "shown again there is no evidence that Madeleine came to any harm" are bewildering, to say the least. Sniffer dogs who had been trained to detect the presence of cadavers and blood both reacted strongly in the couple's holiday apartment. Something bad happened there, even if there is not a scrap of credible physical evidence that it had anything to do with them. It seems like another example of a couple who have never exactly come across as warm or likeable in the public imagination doing themselves no favours, especially when so many questions remain to be answered about that awful night and the following weeks.
They can't have it both ways, demanding that interest in the disappearance of Madeleine remains high while also continually asserting their right to control the tenor and nature of that interest.
Goncalo Amaral's claims need to be rebutted, not censored. That's the real tragedy. It's coming up to the third anniversary of this little girl's disappearance, and the effort to find out what happened to her has become swamped in an unseemly battle among people desperate to protect their own reputations. It could drag on for years.
The McCanns will soon be back in court seeking €1m in libel damages against Amaral. By the time all this is concluded, Madeleine McCann might as well be known as, "Madeleine Who?" for all the progress which will have been made to bring closure to the saga.
Originally published in 

7 Nov 2011

Brenda Ryan wants this taken off the internet..

Wednesday, 14 October 2009

How Alarmed Should We be At Brenda Ryan's Opening Post On Her New Forum?

Brenda Ryan opens a new forum, so what? You may ask and normally, this would be my response, but having read her opening post, I must admit to it setting off a cacophony of alarm bells in my head - judge for yourselves.

Post subject: Get yourselfs back to PDL now and end this.
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 4:23 pm

One thing that keeps amazing me with Kate and Gerry is their continuation with the abduction scenario. Well let’s look at the abduction scenario deeply, like many of us have done over the last two and a half years. Your inconsistencies, your discrepancies Kate and Gerry, your abduction theory is therefore probably implaussible. Even Donal MacIntyre says that it had to be done in under 180 -240 seconds. Yes seems a big number doesn’t it, but that is only 4 minutes max. 

I tell you what let us all try, lay something on our settees 90cm in length and the weight of a child at that age, then proceed outside. Once we have done that we then have to search another room to make sure the children were not sleeping in there, go to the window, open it up, then go back and pick up the child, climb through the window (remembering not to leave any DNA Trace) and then get to the top of the road for someone to spot us.

To snatch a child off the street yes it is plausible, drive up, get out snatch the child and then drive off. But to do this in an apartment and in the way that they declare is just not plausible, in my honest opinion.

But whether there were jemmied shutters or not, whether they had an accomplice is not relevant, what is relevant is your actions with regards to an abduction possibly by a unknown paedophile.

Do you honestly think he is treating your daughter like a princess? Do you think he is being nice to her? Because what he is doing to her is too intolerable to think about. That poor child is being violated in such ways that even animals do not treat each other like it. Your daughter is being used as an object for someone’s sexual gratification. She is probably traumatised and probably in pain, so how do you think she feels, if the so called abductor is showing pictures of you globetrotting, smiling and laughing? Do you not think he is probably telling her that he loves her now and that you look so happy without her?

So Kate and Gerry, you say she has been abducted, then we will go with that the day you and your friends return to Portugal for a reconstruction, you Kate answer the questions and you both demand to know why the case is shelved in Portugal and demand that it be re-opened. But up until that time we will continue to doubt you, because many of us are parents just like you, and we know damn well that we would never act like you are acting. 

All the money in the world will not bring your daughter back. It has been proven with the £2.6 million reward. Nobody came up to claim it, nobody gave you any information in order to claim the reward. And why do you think that is? Because there's probably no information about an abduction to be given. Of course continue in your fruitless search. The search you are doing away from Praia Da Luz, you remember that place don’t you? Well just incase you have forgotten, it is the area where your Detectives say that she could be being held. One more thing, during your recent trip to Portugal Kate who stopped you banging on all the doors in and around Praia Da Luz in hope of finding your daughter? Because I know I would have been banging on doors if detectives had told me she could be within 10 miles of Praia Da Luz.

So instead of threatening to sue us, threatening this that and the other, why not show us that you really are innocent and just do a few simple things. After all, if you are innocent, would it not be best to clear your names once and for all and then your doubters might even start thinking that she could have been abducted. Then the search can commence. But until you go back to Praia Da Luz, knock on the door of Portimao Police Station and answer the questions, do the reconstruction, get rid of your libel lawyers and henchmen, there will be people like myself that do not believe a word that comes out of your mouths.

You both failed miserably that night as parents, by leaving her alone with her younger brother and sister, now is the time to make amends and put things right. Don’t do it for your sakes, do it for Madeleine, because she is the victim in all of this, not you. And remember there could have been two more victims in this, if you are to be believed and that is the twins. What stopped an abductor taking them?"


This post is alarming, it is spiteful, nasty, vile and unpleasant and well, it is also just plain thick and unnecessarily erudite. Much like the poster herself. Ryan's comments are also very revealing! 

To be honest I have never paid much attention to the gossip sweeping the net about Brenda Ryan's former occupation, I am not that bothered by people who make a living out of the oldest profession in the world, but then I discover that Ryan's partner has been in trouble for paying underage girls for sex and that taken in context with Ryan's post is alarming to say the very least, and perhaps it is the police that need to look closely at her comments?

Brenda Ryan begins her comments with an opening salvo of being amazed that the McCanns have kept up the "scenario" as Ryan puts it, of course it doesn't seem to have resonated with Ryan that they have kept this up because Madeleine was abducted, and they are never going to rest and never going to give up looking for their daughter until they find her. In fact, the McCanns are actually displaying typical and classical behaviour, Madeleine is their daughter and she was abducted, what would you expect them to do, come home from holiday and just say "oh well, never mind" and just get on with their lives minus their eldest child? No of course not, God forbid this ever happened to any of us, but we would do exactly the same as them and they are doing what they promised to do "leave no stone unturned".

Not good enough for the alleged ex prostitute Brenda Ryan, she now wants us all to look at the abduction scenario "deeply", so deeply, if you cut her own opinions which she shoves down the readers throats, her examination of the "abduction scenario deeply" last for approximately nine lines! Hmm yes. The rest if her comments are her ordering the McCanns about.

She also quotes Donal McIntyre's version of the timelines as if they are gospel, really it would be funny if the overall impression of Ryan's comments were not sick, dark and vile.

Ryan arrogantly orders the McCanns to "get yourselfs back to PDL", who the hell does this woman think she is? Obviously she thinks she knows more the Portuguese judiciary and attorney general. She warbles on about them answering the questions, the fact that they had their Portuguese lawyers present advising them not to answer the questions goes completely over her thick head.
The fact that the questions were never devised to discover where Madeleine may be and who took her, they were specifically devised to try and entrap Kate McCann, also goes completely over her head. However, I don't want to talk about this, it has all been said so many times before and Ryan knows it.

Ryan talks at the reader, shoves her own opinions down the readers throats and displays an alarming level of cruelty mixed with plain ignorance and arrogance, this much is plain, but there is also something far more sinister at work in her comments, something vile, sick and twisted and depraved.

I want to ask what kind of "woman" can write something as sick as the following taken from Ryan's post;

"But whether there were jemmied shutters or not, whether they had an accomplice is not relevant, what is relevant is your actions with regards to an abduction possibly by a unknown paedophile.Do you honestly think he is treating your daughter like a princess? 

Do you think he is being nice to her? Because what he is doing to her is too intolerable to think about. That poor child is being violated in such ways that even animals do not treat each other like it. Your daughter is being used as an object for someone’s sexual gratification. She is probably traumatised and probably in pain, so how do you think she feels, if the so called abductor is showing pictures of you globetrotting, smiling and laughing? Do you not think he is probably telling her that he loves her now and that you look so happy without her?"

What kind of woman can even think about writing something so vicious, vile and sick as the above? She has addressed this to two people whose daughter has been abducted and she is taunting them with what could be happening to their child, only Ryan writes it like it is actually happening! Read it and ask yourself what kind of woman would write something like this? A paedophile perhaps?

Ryan goes on about the McCanns going to PDL and answering the questions and jumping through various hoops etc and then and only then can we begin looking for this child, so by Brenda Ryan's own sick and twisted admissions, Madeleine is suffering but she can just go on suffering until her parents have been vilified some more, this time in Portugal. Because what matters more to Brenda Ryan is hurting Kate and Gerry McCann as much as is possible.

Brenda Ryan is not only coming across as a sick and twisted female paedophile she is coming across as a psychopathic sick and twisted female paedophile. It is a also alarming because of the trouble her husband was in and why? Could this be connected and behind why Ryan would write such comments?

Who would have thought Vanessa George, Angela Allen and Colin Blanchard, would set up such a vile exchange of vile material between them on the internet? They too discussed ways that a child could be snatched from the street, just as Brenda Ryan did in her post.

Brenda Ryan's sick, vile and twisted comments are in my opinion made by a paedophile, who wrote them? Her or her partner?

Brenda Ryan's comments have echoes of the paedophile ring of George, Allen and Blanchard and quite honestly, how do we know this is not what the woman is really up to? What she wrote is sick and twisted beyond belief, how could Ryan think it, let alone write it?

And Ryan has tried hard to make everyone think that Madeleine was NOT abducted, so how does she explain seemingly to know what Madeleine 'IS' being used for? This points to abduction, so why is she contradicting herself?

Perhaps the police should call on and question Brenda Ryan and her partner.

I honestly could not believe what I was reading when I first read this and Brenda Ryan, need have no fear, her little offering has got the attention that Ryan craves, it is now lodged with those who know how to deal with it. I am also sure Carter-Ruck was very interested to read Ryan's libellous and defamatory content and I for one think that Brenda Ryan has gone way too far with this post.

This post is Ryans "Rothley leaflets".


Rosiepops said...
For those that may doubt Brenda Ryan is a paedophile, fair enough, but if you had known Vanessa George and Angela Allen, would you have pegged them for being paedophiles? I would have doubted it of Ryan too, but that was before I read her comments, which I found personally distasteful, sick and twisted beyond belief, so Ryan herself has instilled the doubts into my mind. I hope that she gets prosecuted for writing that post it was sick, and she is sick and I make no apologies for my comments, becausze brenda Ryan's post "deeply" alarmed me!
dianeh said...
Apart fromt the pure spite and bile in that post, is the worrying thought that is Madeleine was held in danger and pain, that Bren, through her actions has directly contributed to her being kept that way. Bren, you are either part of the solution, or you are part of the problem, and you are definitely part of the problem. Through your actions of trying to convince the world that Madeleine is dead, and her parents somehow involved, you have harmed the search for her. How could you live with yourself, if you were to find out that Madeleine is alive, and has been kept hidden and in danger all this time, like Jaycee Duggard? How could you live with yourself knowing you helped keep her there and caused so much pain and suffering to her parents? How do you live with yourself knowing you have abandoned a little girl to her fate? Because one thing for sure, you do not know that Madeleine is dead. And to act as though you do could be causing her great harm.
Rosiepops said...
I agree with you Diane. I have read some bitter and twisted comments from some during these past two and half years, but Ryan's is right up there with the worse of them. Her comments alarmed me, especially coming on the back of the George, Allen and Blanchard convictions and this week there has been another arrest and charge of another woman; "Tracy Lyons, 39, was arrested as part of the inquiry which led to the conviction of Plymouth nursery paedophile Vanessa George and fellow abusers Colin Blanchard and Angela Allen. Lyons, who is seven months pregnant, is charged with sexually assaulting a young child, taking a photograph of the attack and distributing it." All this taking place on the internet in Facebook, can you believe it? So how can you not make the connections to the forums run by Brenda Ryan and co? There has to be something more than they are saying, they appear to compete with each other over how graphic and disgusting they can make their posts. I honestly think it is time for the police to investigate these forums properly, words cannot express how repulsed I felt when I read Ryan's comments. I have left commenting until now because I was so angry, so very very angry, that I could not trust myself to comment. I would not trust Brenda Ryan, Laffin Assasin, Photon, JJP, Humptybumpt et al anywhere near any child of mine, or in fact anywhere near any child point blank, I am seriously worried about any child that has contact with these people. You have to be be sick to make comments like that in my opinion.
Chrisatbel said...
Ryan says, Do you think he is being nice to her? Because what he is doing to her is too intolerable to think about. That poor child is being violated in such ways that even animals do not treat each other like it. Your daughter is being used as an object for someone’s sexual gratification. She is probably traumatised and probably in pain, so how do you think she feels, if the so called abductor is showing pictures of you globetrotting, smiling and laughing? Do you not think he is probably telling her that he loves her now and that you look so happy without her?" Ryan you are one sick bitch and you need investigating. You seem to know what is happening with Madeleine. You also say HE! I can see why you get on so well with the Vile one, you dirty, filthy perverts. Thats all you are, do your neighbours know they have a sicko in the street?
vee8 said...
I think you are right Rosie, bren is harbouring a far, far darker secret than we first thought. I admit, when I first read this post, my initial reaction was 'Look at me, look at me, don't look at bennett, don't look at butler, look at me, I'm much more important.' But now I see it, all to frighteningly clearly. I now think she is a danger, not only to Madeleine, but to any child within her sphere of contact.
Anonymous said...
I agree with Rosiepops too. Brenda Ryan's post is way too much, it is sick and I am still having difficulty understanding how she could not see how offensive that was to normal decent human beings. How could Brenda Ryan think those comments were OK to publish? Is it because she does not see anything wrong in her lurid words? If she doesn't see anything wrong with them, well make you own minds up!
Tinkerbell43 said...
Bren said:- "Because what he is doing to her is too intolerable to think about". ----------------------------------- Not too intolerable for you though Bren, was it! You seem to have given it quite a bit of thought - Sicko!
Anonymous said...
Poor Bren - she has really lost the plot. The McCanns have NOTHING to prove to anyone - least of all to such an imbecile as Bren. I too hope she gets prosecuting for writing such a disturbed post.
Anonymous said...
This is a very concerning and serious matter indeed. Brenda Ryan´s post does contradict herself on a very worrying level. I agree that the whole post is blatant defamation but even more it is written with deliberate and sickening intent i.e. to arouse terror and horror in Kate and Gerry by indulging in references to the debased practices of paedophilia. I had the distinct impression that the writer of this disgusting letter was obtaining a degree of vicarious pleasure from the publishing of it. This is evident proof indeed of why this person fought so hard to revive such a cesspit as the 3A´s site. The contributors have a deep and profound need in their psychopathic personalities to band together for mutual support and to indulge in such a practice. thankyou Rosie for passing it on the appropriate authorities.´
Yolanda said...
I am glad this has been reported, but perhaps because of the gravity of the post, we should each of us take responsibility and report this post to the police? I suggest the Leicestershire police, if they need to make further enquiries they can, I understand they will probably already have Brenda Ryan's home address and phone number? If they do not, then they can easily trace her via her sick forum. Brenda Ryan you are a sick disgrace and a danger to children, you really do need investigating and urgently!
ModNrodder said...
After reading Brendas post thhe part that stuck out most as alarming is where she dwells on paedophilia. She is basically saying that she does not believe abduction is possible at all. But then goes on to a lucidity of considering abduction by paedophiles. Recently before I was banned from MM a poster by the name of Alchemist started a thread engaging a discussion on what Madeleine may have had to endure if abducted. Her condition for the topic is to consider Madeleine is not with a family and possibly with Paedophiles. Whatever, I think Brenda has recognised the possibility of being martyred by sicko's for re starting 3A's and coming to the front. Go for it Bren as you will probably get your wish and I hope you are prepared for regrets.
Anonymous said...
I have reported Ms Ryan to Maidstone police, as I too found her comments scary.
vee8 said...
This has gone far beyond any sort of game now. It's time these people, including the twisted bren, were removed from decent society, before they harm someone.

18 Aug 2011


To say I am loving this story in the Independent today would be something of an understatement!  I wonder did Osborne know that if he did not suck up to Coulson, Coulson could destroy him and Cameron so easily?  Hence we have CAmeron now repeatedly apologising for just not having the gift of hindsight, if I knew then what I know now, I think you did Mr Cameron...Cannot wait for the explosive hooker book ! LOL

xxxx  One more step nearer to justice and getting rid of Cameron and his filthy hangers on.  COOL

Chancellor was targeted by News of the World's hacker, says dominatrix

Dirty tricks claims turn the spotlight on the man who helped bring Andy Coulson to Downing Street

By Cahal Milmo

Thursday, 18 August 2011



Diggdel.icio.usFacebookRedditGoogleStumble UponFarkNewsvineYahooBuzzBeboTwitterCommentsPrintEmailText Size

NormalLargeExtra Large


George Osborne and the NOTW splash that he was targeted by


A former dominatrix was targeted by the News of the World's phone hacker Glenn Mulcaire in a tabloid scramble to publish a picture of her posing with George Osborne in front of an alleged line of cocaine, The Independent can reveal.

Natalie Rowe, 47, a former madam who supplied prostitutes to a moneyed clientele, has been shown documents by Scotland Yard detectives showing that the hacker obtained details of her mobile phone number and information about at least one of Mr Osborne's circle of close friends, as newspapers investigated claims of drug use at the height of David Cameron's Conservative leadership bid in 2005.

The heavily redacted document raises the possibility that the mobile phone of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was managing Mr Cameron's successful campaign to lead the Tory Party, was also targeted by Glenn Mulcaire and raises fresh questions about Mr Osborne's relationship with Andy Coulson.

Related articles

•Glenn Mulcaire suing News International

•Leslie Ash and Lee Chapman settle hack claim

•Fresh links between murdered investigator and NOTW

•Chris Bryant: There must be no impunity

•Rebekah Brooks holds on to her NI chauffeur-driven limousine

Search the news archive for more stories

Mr Coulson was editor of the NOTW when its story about Mr Osborne's friendship with Ms Rowe was published on 16 October 2005, including a strong denial from Mr Osborne that he had taken drugs with Ms Rowe. Two years later, the then Shadow Chancellor played a key role in the decision to recruit Mr Coulson as Mr Cameron's spin doctor following his resignation over the hacking scandal.

Mr Osborne was told by Scotland Yard in July that Mr Mulcaire had obtained his private home phone number but said he wanted police to concentrate on other potential victims of phone hacking. The Chancellor last night declined to answer questions from The Independent about whether he ever discussed with Mr Coulson the story he published about him in October 2005, or whether his personal experience of the editor as a tabloid attack dog played a role in the decision to recommend him for a job in Conservative ranks.

Mark Lewis, the lawyer acting for Ms Rowe who now works as a writer and has completed an autobiography which she says will make incendiary revelations about former clients in the upper echelons of the Conservative Party, is preparing a damages claims against News International after it became clear that she was targeted by Mr Mulcaire at a time when she was co-operating with the NOTW's chief rival, the Sunday Mirror.

She told The Independent: "It is clear the News of the World had no boundaries and they would resort to any measures to ensure they had my story. I have always wondered where they got their information. I thought I had a spy in my camp. Instead, it looks as if I was having my privacy invaded."

The former dominatrix found herself sucked into a louche and privileged world of Oxbridge-educated high fliers including Mr Osborne when she started going out with William Sinclair, one of the Tatton MP's university friends, in 1992. Mr Sinclair, the grandson of Winston Churchill's aristocratic air minister in the Second World War, went on to have a child with Ms Rowe in 1994 and was treated for drug addiction.

During the relationship, Ms Rowe regularly met her boyfriend's social set, including Chris Coleridge, the brother of Nicholas, head of Vogue publisher Conde Nast, and Mr Osborne, who was a freelance journalist and later began his journey to the top of British politics as a researcher in Conservative Central Office. More than a decade later, the former madam was the subject of a tabloid bidding war when she approached PR guru Max Clifford offering to sell her story of wild parties, sex and drug taking involving a wealthy fast set whose members included a fast-emerging star of the Conservative Party.

Mr Clifford initially reached a deal with the NOTW but in July 2005 he fell out with the Sunday tabloid, and Ms Rowe's account of her friendship with Mr Osborne was sold to the Sunday Mirror together with a photograph of the fresh-faced future Chancellor, then 22, with his arm around the sex worker. On the table in front of the pair is a roll of paper and a line of white powder which Ms Rowe, who had in the past taken cocaine but had stopped taking the drug because she was pregnant, insists is cocaine.

Mr Osborne has confirmed knowing Ms Rowe, who ran an agency called Black Beauties, supplying prostitutes to clients paying from £350 per hour, but has always been unequivocal in denying that he took cocaine with her. Describing the allegations as "defamatory and completely untrue", he said at the time: "Twelve years ago a friend of mine went out with a woman called Natalie and they had a child together. I met them together occasionally in the autumn of 1993, and it soon became clear that my friend had started to use drugs. He became more and more addicted and I saw his life fall apart. I tried to persuade him to seek treatment. Eventually he did ... That is, and always has been, the sum total of my connection with this woman."

On 16 October 2005, the Sunday Mirror and the NOTW published simultaneous first edition stories using the photograph. Ms Rowe had always wondered how the NOTW knew when her story was being published, as well as several details she had kept to herself, including the fact she used "naughties" as a codeword for cocaine. The answer, it seems, is that her mobile phone – and those of Mr Osborne's social set – were targeted by Mr Mulcaire at least 10 days before the NOTW article appeared.

The Independent understands the Mulcaire document is an A4 handwritten page which carries the date of 6 October 2005 and is headed with the name of Mr Coleridge. The rest has been blanked out by Weeting officers to protect the privacy of other individuals. There is no suggestion that Mr Coleridge was involved in any wrongdoing.

A spokesman for the Chancellor said last night: "We said at the time that the MPS met with George, that he had been notified that his name and home telephone number appeared on notes kept by Glenn Mulcaire. The MPS said they had no further evidence to suggest George's voicemail had been hacked or attempted to be hacked and there has been no subsequent contact."

Ms Rowe, who says she wants to use her case to shine light on the connections between News International and the Conservative Party, said: "I don't know what, if anything, passed between George Osborne and Andy Coulson after all this. But after the way the News of the World went after him, you would have thought he'd want nothing more to do with them or the editor who published the story."

A News International spokesperson said: "News Corporation's Management and Standards Committeeis co-operating fully with the Metropolitan Police and is facilitating their investigation into illegal voicemail interception and related issues at the News of the World."

The story behind the story

The story which appeared on the front pages of the News of the World and the Sunday Mirror on 16 October 2005 could not have come at a worse time for George Osborne and the then Conservative education spokesman, David Cameron.

The future prime minister, at the time bidding to lead the Tory party, had found himself increasingly dogged by challenges to state whether or not he had used drugs during his university days. The publication of a picture of his Notting Hill Set friend and campaign manager alongside a dominatrix and a claimed line of cocaine helped to further stoke the flames of controversy.

Within a few days, however, the two men had successfully batted away the issue as Conservative heavyweights, including Mr Cameron's leadership rival David Davis, offered their support for the right to remain silent. Commentators later suggested that the story about Mr Osborne, which he described as being part of a "smear campaign" against him, may have helped him by denting his image as an out-of-touch "Tory toff".