JUSTICE FOR MADDIE AND THE TWINS

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

2011-12-03T13:10:00.000Z

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 New

No closure: Gerry and Kate McCann

Also in Analysis

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

Brenda Ryan wants this taken off the internet..

2011-11-07T17:30:00.002Z

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.

QUOTE:____________________________________________
"Bren
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?"

UNQUOTE____________________________________

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".

13 comments:

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!; 14 October 2009 18:29
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.; 14 October 2009 18:54
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.; 14 October 2009 19:35
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?; 14 October 2009 19:42
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.; 14 October 2009 19:55
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!; 14 October 2009 20:34
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!; 14 October 2009 20:48
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.; 14 October 2009 22:47
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.´; 15 October 2009 12:10
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!; 15 October 2009 12:45
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.; 16 October 2009 19:17
Anonymous said...: I have reported Ms Ryan to Maidstone police, as I too found her comments scary.; 17 October 2009 17:56
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.; 17 October 2009 19:34

WILL MADAM SIN BLOW THE LID OFF/ IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE!

2011-08-18T21:23:00.000+01:00

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

Share

Close

Diggdel.icio.usFacebookRedditGoogleStumble UponFarkNewsvineYahooBuzzBeboTwitterCommentsPrintEmailText Size

NormalLargeExtra Large

GETTY IMAGES

George Osborne and the NOTW splash that he was targeted by

enlarge

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".

HUMAN BONES FOUND IN THE ALGARVE

2011-08-04T16:54:00.002+01:00

Monkfish live on the ocean floor and like ship wrecks (see article below) I know they are also expensive fish because they are more difficult to catch hiding in sand on the ocean floor and the wrecks they often inhabit.

Lab results awaited with interest.

Human Bones found in Algarve - update

4 August 2011
Posted by Joana Morais Leave a Comment

Some people on twitter and on facebook have been speculating if the human bones found by a fishing boat in Algarve could belong to Madeleine McCann, according to a follow-up article published today in Diário de Noticías (paper edition), the bones belong to an adult.

Human bones picked up by trawler nets

by José Manuel Oliveira

According to authorities, human bones, belonging possibly to a "young adult or adult" were found yesterday, along with shellfish and monkfish in the nets of a fishing vessel during a routine inspection made by the Navy. The inspection was done between 6:00 and 6:30, when the fishing vessel was at work between the areas of Fuzeta and Tavira Island, six miles from the coast, the equivalent of ten kilometers.

As stated by the commander of Olhão's Port Authority, Ricardo Arrabaça, there are some "long bones of an incomplete arm, besides a pelvis bone and a leg bone, both equally incomplete", adding that "they might belong to an individual, adult who has been in the sea for a long time". In that way, it was excluded the idea that rouse immediately when thinking about the eventuality of the bones belonging to Madeleine McCann, the English child who disappeared on the evening of May 3, 2007, from Praia da Luz, Lagos. On the other hand, there is no record of disappearances at sea in that area.

The fishing boat, a trawler of Vila Real de Santo António, where no infraction was detected, had to be accompanied by the Portuguese ship Eagle to the port of Olhão for the bones to be collected. The human bones followed up from there to the National Institute of Legal Medicine in Lisbon. The case was referred to the Public Ministry.

in Diário de Notícias (paper edition), August 4, 2011

How to Catch Monkfish

X Paul ParsonsPaul Parsons is a freelance writer, living in Houston, Texas. Parsons writes from an array of different topics, but specializes in medical, personal finance, computers and business.

By Paul Parsons, eHow Contributor

Print this article Catching fish requires patience.

Flag this photo

Catching a monkfish requires a moderate level of fishing skills and some good bait. The monkfish, also known as an angler fish, is an ugly fish with a large mouth. You can find it in the northwest Atlantic feeding on the ocean floor. In order to catch a monkfish, you need to know where to look. Monkfish prefer to hide near wreck sites, feeding on shellfish and other creature that stay near the bottom of the ocean. Although avid fisherman use nets, you can catch a monkfish with a rod and reel.

Difficulty:ModerateInstructions

Things You'll Need

Boat

Sonar equipment (optional)

Fishing pole

Bait (skate is a good one)

Fishing net

Suggest Edits

1

Take your boat out onto the water. Look for shipwreck sites because this is where monkfish like to feed. Sonar equipment can help you to see what is on the floor. Boat charters and fishing guides can also help you to locate wreck sites. If there aren't any wreck sites, monkfish will migrate up to 25 miles out. They normally aren't found any farther out than that.

2

Bait your fishing pole. Skate bait is normally used for monkfish, but you can also use scallops or other larger baits.

3

Drop your line. Keep in mind that the ocean floor is typically 120 feet or more depending on where you are. The monkfish weigh anywhere from 25 to 50 pounds so use a heavy line on your pole.

4

Drag your line on the bottom. Monkfish remain half hidden in the sand on the ocean floor; as you drag your bait, the monkfish will take it. When you feel the tug on your line, give a firm jerk to set your hook.

5

Reel in your monkfish. The monkfish doesn't put up much of a fight, so don't get discouraged if it feels like you are pulling up a heavy boot. Use your fishing net to get your monkfish into the boat and remove the hook.

Read more: How to Catch Monkfish
eHow.co.uk http://www.ehow.co.uk/how_6392590_catch-monkfish.html#ixzz1U4orrZa6

MORE TEAM MCCANN MATES UNDER ARREST

2011-08-02T16:59:00.000+01:00

See the article below this, Kuttner was the original architect of the massive money making campaign for Team McCann as the ultra wealthy world of football was targeted.

I honestly believe the McCanns must be terrified as the net closes and they haplessly watch their former mates, under arrest, in custody etc. Just wait for the knock Kate and Gerry. That picture of Maddie in her Everton kit that he handed to the police in Portugal, in duplicate, not nice Gerry.

Phone-hacking scandal: Stuart Kuttner is latest NoW exec to be arrestedFormer managing editor and one-time public face of the News of the World taken into custody

Share reddit this Amelia Hill guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 2 August 2011 14.27 BST Article history

Stuart Kuttner (left) with Sara and Michael Payne during the Sarah's Law campaign. Photograph: Fiona Hanson/PA

Stuart Kuttner, the public face of the News of the World and its most vocal public defender for 22 years, has been arrested by police investigating allegations of phone hacking and of bribing police officers to leak sensitive information.

As managing editor until his resignation in July 2009, Kuttner was in charge of finances at the now-defunct tabloid.

Kuttner, 71, was described at the time of his resignation by the last editor of the newspaper, Colin Myler, as a man whose "DNA is absolutely integrated into the newspaper which he has represented across the media with vigour".

Kuttner reportedly did not know he was going to be taken into custody when he arrived by appointment at a police station in London on Tuesday at 11am for questioning over the phone-hacking scandal.

Police from both Operation Weeting (the investigation into phone hacking) and Elveden (the investigation into allegations of inappropriate payments to police), are understood to have arrested Kuttner, who is suffering serious health problems and recently returned from treatment in the US.

Kuttner is believed to have been arrested on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications, contrary to section 1 (1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, and on suspicion of corruption contrary to section 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906.

They are the same allegations that Rebekah Brooks, the former News of the World editor and ex-News International chief executive, faces since her arrest last month.

When Brooks faced a Commons culture, media and sport select committee hearing last month she told MPs that payments to private investigators were the responsibility of the paper's managing editor's office.

Brooks admitted using private investigators during her time as editor of the tabloid between 2000 and 2003 for, she claimed, "purely legitimate" purposes.

When asked whether she had ever discussed individual payments to private investigators with Kuttner, she admitted that "payments to private investigators would have gone through the managing editor's office". But, she added: "I can't remember if we ever discussed individual payments."

Kuttner's role as the public face of the News of the World proved to be key to the tabloid under the editors, Rebekah Brooks – then Rebekah Wade – and her replacement, Andy Coulson, both of whom were reluctant to talk to the media.

When Brooks's "Sarah's Law" campaign caused public hysteria in some towns and cities across the UK, prompting strong protests against suspected paedophiles by some Portsmouth residents, during which cars were burned, it was Kuttner who faced the cameras.

He also played a role in the paper's dealing with Sara Payne in the years after her eight-year-old daughter, Sarah, was abducted and murdered in July 2000.

The Guardian revealed last week that Payne's mobile phone had been targeted by private investigator Glenn Mulcaire at a time when key members of the newspaper's executive staff were working hard to forge what Payne believed to be a close and genuine friendship. Kuttner was one of those who attended the funerals of her parents.

No reason was given for Kuttner's departure from the newspaper two years ago, shortly before the Guardian exclusive that blew the phone-hacking story wide open.

At the time, News International said he would continue to work on "specialised projects", including its Sarah's Law campaign.

In February 2008, he appeared on Radio 4's Today programme and claimed the News of the World was a "watchdog" which guarded against corruption among those in positions of power.

"If [the use of private investigators] happens, it shouldn't happen," he said.

"It happened once at the News of the World. The reporter was fired; he went to prison. The editor resigned."

He went on to argue that British journalism is "a very honourable profession" and that newspapers such as the News of the World had to act as watchdogs because "we live in an age of corrosion of politics and of public life – degradation".

His role as the public face of the News of the World continued when he visited Soham in 2002, following the disappearance of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, to defend the tabloid's decision to offer a reward of £150,000 in conjunction with the Sun newspaper for information that could lead to their safe return.

He also appeared on the BBC's Breakfast with Frost, responding to criticism of the reward and saying the man leading the investigation into the girls' disappearance, Detective Superintendent David Hankins, had welcomed it.

The managing editor was also an influential presence behind the scenes. When Gordon Brown and Tony Blair gave their first joint newspaper interview for more than 10 years to the tabloid in April 2005, Kuttner's byline was on the story, along with that of Ian Kirby, the paper's long-serving political editor.

The arrest of Kuttner, who was news editor at the London Evening Standard before moving to the NoW in 1987, is the 11th by Operation Weeting police.

After being questioned by police – a process that lasted 12 hours in the case of Brooks – he is expected to be released on bail until October.

Others arrested and bailed have included Brooks, ex-NoW editor Andy Coulson, ex-NoW assistant editor Ian Edmondson, ex-NoW chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck, senior ex-NoW journalist James Weatherup, freelance journalist Terenia Taras, an unnamed 63-year-old man and ex-NoW royal editor Clive Goodman.

Operation Elveden was also involved in Kuttner's arrest. Officers from Elveden are being supervised by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

• This article was amended on 2 August 2011. The original said that protesters in Portsmouth burned the homes of suspected paedophiles in 2000. This has been corrected.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Football joins hunt for Madeleine

By staff writers and wires

FOX SPORTS May 14, 2007 12:00AM

Support ... Everton's players show theirs for missing Madeleine. Pic: AFP Source: AFP

FOOTBALL, the world game, is putting its considerable weight behind a campaign to solve a little girl's suspected abduction during a family holiday in Portugal which has galvanised the UK.

Since four-year-old Madeleine McCann went missing on May 3 from her hotel room in the Algarve, her relatives have led a campaign that is drawing growing support from friends, ordinary Britons and celebrities.

Some of the celebrities appealing for help are Portuguese nationals living in Britain, such as Chelsea football coach Jose Mourinho and star players in the English football league.

Former England football captain David Beckham, who also played for Spanish giants Real Madrid, made a televised appeal.

Beckham held up a missing person poster written in Spanish, bearing a picture of the girl, who would have celebrated her fourth birthday on Saturday.

Others offering reward money are England football star Wayne Rooney and Bill Kenwright, the Everton football club chairman who saw pictures of Maddie wearing his club's shirt before they were released.

"One after another they've stepped forward,'' Kuttner told Sky News television.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.

End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.

Everton players all wore T-shirts emblazoned with the slogan "Please help find Madeleine" above her photograph as they walked out to play their final English Premier League match against Chelsea at Stamford Bridge.

"It's becoming something that is almost turning into a national phenomenon," British commentator Matthew D'Ancona said on BBC television.

Stuart Kuttner, managing editor of News Of The World and a leading force in efforts to offer money for information leading to her return, said the girl's disappearance has touched a national nerve.

"I think the whole country . . . is traumatised by this appalling event, and the support is immense," Kuttner told Sky News UK.

The newspaper and wealthy Britons like Harry Potter author JK Rowling and Virgin business tycoon Sir Richard Branson have offered a total of £2.5 million ($6 million) in rewards.

Other Britons have played smaller roles.

They have tied yellow ribbons, balloons and teddy bears onto railings at a war memorial in McCann's hometown of Rowley, central England, worn yellow arm bands at football matches and long-distance races, and attended prayer vigils.

Members of the public have also been helping relatives of her parents Kate and Gerry in Scotland, England and Ireland to e-mail photographs of the wide-eyed, blonde-haired girl to other countries so it can be widely displayed.

The International Family Law Group said it soon would be possible for members of the public to make their own donations.

Relatives said they feared that Maddie, as she is affectionately known, might no longer be in Portugal, but could have been taken through neighbouring Spain to some other country where the case has not received much publicity.

The campaign in Britain complements one in Portugal where a vigil has been held and where motorcyclists have driven around the country displaying posters of the girl.

Following the case in London are British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his finance minister Gordon Brown, who is on track to succeed him at the end of June in the top job and who has been photographed wearing a yellow ribbon.

The Times newspaper reported that Scottish businessman Stephen Winyard, a father of three who lives in Monaco, offered a reward of £1 million ($2.4 million) for decisive information.

"One of the most important things is to keep the story alive, of course keep the reality alive, keep it in the forefront of peoples' minds," Kuttner said.

Philomena McCann, the girl's aunt, who lives in Glasgow, Scotland, told the BBC that people can help by distributing her niece's picture to different countries, by praying for her or contacting members of parliament.

She said more than 40,000 copies of the poster had been downloaded from one site.

"We've had lots of feedback from people in Lisbon (the capital of Portugal) and in Spain," her aunt said.

"We have had such fantastic support from the world of football, business and the general population have been stupendous."

With Agence France-Presse

Brought to you byFOX SPORTS

ShareBack to top of page

GERRY MCCANNS DIRECT CALLS TO MYLER AND REBEKAH WADE TO CONTROL PRESS STORIES ABOUT HIM

2011-07-27T16:36:00.002+01:00

McCanns launch fightback over 'nonsensical' murder claims

By Ian Herbert

Wednesday, 19 September 2007

UK GUTTER PRESS THAT MAKE ME ASHAMED TO BE BRITISH......

2011-07-27T02:55:00.002+01:00

The quality UK press head the fight for justice for Maddie, they just forget things like Brit cops did not want to interview him about the disappearance of Madeleine, but a historic case prior to his anticipated death. It is not just Rebekah who has the paedo fascination it would seem. In fact when I got this image I kind of assumed it was The Sun, how remiss of me! I wish my mum and step dad would stop buying this, but they tell me it is just for the telly.

Please note Ms Lazzeri's email addy, if you want to drop her a line and compliment her on this load of old tosh that Kate, Gerry and Clarence were so thrilled with (it fits their number one theory Maddie was stolen to order and this is the evidence for it, now please don't laugh), please be my guest! Maybe you could ask her what this means, was it a made up story or a listened in story and how much dosh did Wayne get for it? Strange thing about these people who want to "help the McCanns" they never go to the police or produce the evidence, in this case he just could not deal with and burned it, just for Maddie. Ummm

Ms Lazzeri tells us:

Wayne did not contact The Sun about the message. We learned of its existence through a friend.

Thanks Ms Lazzeri, now we can all guess what that means!

NewsGOT A STORY? EMAIL : TALKBACK@THE-SUN.CO.UK

EXCLUSIVE

I know who took Maddie

By ANTONELLA LAZZERI and ANDY CRICK

Published: 01 Sep 2010

MADELEINE McCann suspect Raymond Hewlett confessed on his deathbed that he KNEW what happened to the little girl, The Sun can reveal.

In a letter to his estranged son Wayne, he denied having anything to do with Maddie's disappearance.

But he said he knew she had been stolen to order by a gipsy gang who kidnap children for wealthy couples unable to have kids or adopt.

Vanished ... Maddie

Hewlett, a serial paedophile seen near the spot where Maddie was snatched in Portugal, said they had a "shopping list" of potential targets - such as a little girl with blonde hair like Maddie.

Private detectives working for Maddie's parents Kate and Gerry are "extremely interested" in Hewlett's claims.

A source close to their ongoing investigation said: "What he says fits the No1 theory, which is that she was stolen to order."

Hewlett died of throat cancer in April, aged 62, after persistently refusing to meet the McCanns' detectives.

He became a suspect because of his appalling record of rape and abduction of children.

And he was living as a nomad in Portugal with his second family when Maddie vanished from the McCanns' holiday apartment in Praia da Luz in May 2007.

Shocked ... son Wayne

Hewlett's letter to builder Wayne, 40, was delivered to the son by a mystery man - thought to be a solicitor or a private eye - a week after he died.

Most of it was an apology for how his vile crimes had affected his first wife Susan and Wayne.

But then he went on to write about Maddie, who was nearly four when she went missing.

Wayne, of Telford, Shropshire, said: "It was a bolt from the blue and I shook when I read it.

"He stated he didn't want to go to his grave with us thinking he had done such a horrible thing.

"He said he had had nothing to do with taking Maddie but did know who had.

"He said a very good gipsy friend he knew in Portugal had got drunk and 'let it out' that he had stolen Maddie to order as part of a gang.

"My dad said this gang had been operating for a long time and had snatched children before for couples who couldn't have children of their own.

"Maddie had been targeted. They took photos of children and sent them to the people they were acting for. And they said Yes or No.

"Dad said the man told him it was nothing to do with snatching children for a paedophile gang or for a sexual reason.

"He said there were huge sums of money involved. And he totally believed what this man was saying."

The account fits with others surrounding the Maddie mystery.

Several strange men were seen taking photos of children around the Ocean Club resort in the days before she vanished. And The Sun revealed earlier this year that a British expat thought he had seen Maddie in a white van driven by a gipsy couple the day after she was lost.

Hope ... parents Kate and Gerry McCann

Wayne, who had no contact with Hewlett for nearly 20 years, said his father's letter seemed "very genuine".

He added: "I don't know if this is what happened to Maddie or not, but it does make sense. I can't believe he'd go to those lengths to make up some elaborate lie when he was so weak and ill."

Wayne said he considered going to Kate and Gerry with the letter but was worried it could cause them more heartache if it gave them false hope. He added: "I actually burned it because it unnerved me so much.

"To have a letter from someone you hated for so long was just mind-blowing. I couldn't deal with it."

Wayne did not contact The Sun about the message. We learned of its existence through a friend.

But now he intends to sit down with the Maddie detectives to tell them everything he knows.

The McCanns' spokesman Clarence Mitchell said last night: "We are extremely grateful to Wayne for coming forward with this information and the detective team will be interviewing him as a matter of priority."

a.lazzeri@the-sun.co.uk

VIDEO BY HIDEHO AND INTERVIEW WITH PAT BROWN CONCERNING HER CARTER RUCKING

2011-07-26T17:42:00.002+01:00

I do think this lady sounds very genuine and I am sorry for doubting her. Kate and Gerry clearly have a lot to hide and they show it! Their bullying tactics are really awful, as Pat says she referred to a theory, she was not trying to insist these were the facts, indeed that is precisely what a profile is!

It is disappointing that Amazon have just given in, purely on the basis of a letter and nothing more. Of course Kate and Gerry can afford even more lawyers now and as Pat also points out, one could accuse Kate McCann of making defamatory statements in her own book and have it pulled. Rank hypocrisy, but in the end, it is surely going to make the doubters that bit more certain. When they get arrested it will be nice to hear Pat again!

With thanks to Hideho who always does great work on this case (even if I do not always entirely agree with her we are on the same side and many times I do and appreciate all her research) and on this occasion clearly pulled all the stops out and worked really hard to produce this so fast

There is no justice for their own little girl is there, it is always about them. On what is known of this case and their lengthy stint as prime suspects, people are clearly entitled to believe Maddie died in the apartment and maybe she did. The McCanns may be able to attack individuals but the internet as a force is simply one they cannot reckon with, people power and the people simply do not believe they are innocent in the disappearance of this little girl. YOu cannot stop us thinking that Kate and Gerry. Oh and by the way, the contents of your car boot all over the world wide web, ain't life a bugger eh?

UPDATED MCCANNS BOOK PLUGGING IN AUSTRALIA/ WAS IT JUST A HOAX FOR CASH AND POWER?

2011-07-23T19:21:00.001+01:00

Looking for Madeleine McCann

Reporter: Rahni Sadler

Date aired: 24/07/2011

Sunday Night reporter Rahni Sadler is given unprecedented access to the parents of missing British toddler Madeleine McCann. Four years after Madeleine disappeared during a family holiday in Portugal, the McCanns disclose startling new clues driving the on-going worldwide search for their daughter.

The couple, who have raised millions of dollars in the past three years to fund their own private manhunt, now believe Madeleine’s abductor stalked the family.

Also, exclusive never-before seen home video reveals a side to the McCann family that will surprise many.

We join Kate and Gerry McCann as they travel across Europe on a mission to keep Madeleine in the minds of the public.

Sunday Night and Random House are giving away copies of Madeleine by Kate McCann to 100 viewers. For entry details click on the link below.

For further details on the personal memoir click here. Random House has made available a chapter from the book which viewers can access, it appears above the book jacket “open the book”.

UPDATED EX DAILY TELEGRAPH WILL LEWIS ORCHESTRATED LEAK FOR NI/ Met police to investigate mobile tracking claims

2011-07-21T17:00:00.003+01:00

Exclusive: News Corp executive suspected of "orchestrating" leak
inShare19
Share this
Email
Print
Related News
Deals of the day -- mergers and acquisitions
10:08am EDT
FEATURE-As UK sells old aircraft carriers, China buyers circle
9:55am EDT
Murdoch links set to overshadow Sky results
9:05am EDT
UPDATE 2-News Corp sells Russian, Romanian outdoor ads business
8:30am EDT
US STOCKS-Futures flat as Caterpillar earns offset Greece
8:14am EDT
Analysis & Opinion
The Murdoch discount
Murdoch’s UK crisis could bring big indirect costs
Related Topics
Rupert Murdoch »
By Mark Hosenball
LONDON | Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:34am EDT
(Reuters) - A leading private investigations firm said it had strong reason to suspect that Will Lewis, a senior executive of Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, was involved in "orchestrating" a leak of material from a competing news organization which helped Murdoch's business interests.
Kroll, one of the world's biggest corporate investigations firm, was hired by London's Telegraph Media Group, a competitor of Murdoch's London-based News International, to find out who had leaked unpublished excerpts of a secret audio recording that Telegraph reporters had made of Britain's Business secretary, Vince Cable.
The investigation firm says in a report, prepared for the Telegraph last March, that it could not categorically identify the source of the leak. One main reason for this, Kroll said, was that the Telegraph Media Group's information security systems were too porous and too many people had access to the relevant systems for the leaker to be pinpointed.
A News International spokesman did not respond to a request from Reuters seeking comment from Lewis.
Kroll advised the Telegraph that because of the number of people who had access to data banks - including employees for telecoms giant, BT, to whom the Telegraph outsourced technical support functions - that even if the leak investigation continued, it was unlikely to produce a conclusive result.
However, Kroll investigators say in the report that they have strong reason to suspect that Will Lewis, a former chief editor at the Daily Telegraph and by late 2010 a senior executive at News International, was involved in facilitating the leak, along with another former Telegraph employee who also later moved to News International.
In the Telegraph recording, first reported by the BBC, Cable said that he had "declared war" on Rupert Murdoch. At the time, in December 2010, Cable was responsible for deciding whether the government should allow Murdoch to acquire the 61 percent of U.K. satellite broadcaster BSkyB the media magnate did not already own.
As a result of the leak, Cable was stripped of his responsibility for the BSkyB deal and the Telegraph faced awkward questions about why it did not publish Cable's anti-Murdoch comments itself. The Telegraph hired Kroll to investigate how the suppressed Cable material had leaked out.
Lewis, who earlier this year became one of News International's most senior executives, more recently became a key member of News Corporation's management and standards committee which is overseeing efforts to deal with the phone hacking and bribery scandal that has shaken Murdoch's media empire. Kroll did not interview Lewis during the course of its investigation.
A spokesman for News International's management and standards committee told Reuters he would not comment directly on the contents of the Kroll report and that "any inquiries for the BBC should go to the BBC." News International did not respond to requests for a comment from Lewis and others named in the report. Spokespeople for New York-based News Corporation and its chairman Rupert Murdoch did not reply to emailed requests for comment.
A BBC spokeswoman told Reuters that it would not reveal its source. Representatives from the Telegraph had no immediate comment. Vince Cable did not respond to requests for comment. Kroll refused to comment.
Reuters is a competitor of the Journal and of Dow Jones Newswires, the financial news agency that News Corp acquired along with the Wall Street Journal in 2007.
CIRCLE OF KNOWLEDGE
The Kroll report details the lead up to and fall out from the leak.
"We have established that on 9 December, the circle of knowledge of an impending 'big story' by the same team who broke (a major political story about British parliamentary expenses) extended to ... a former Telegraph employee now employed by News International ... (who) works closely at News International with the former Telegraph editor Will Lewis, both of whom have strong motivations to damage the Telegraph," Kroll's report says. "In the period between 9 and 21 December there was extensive telephone, text and social contact between (the former Telegraph employee), Lewis, and individuals within the authorized circle of knowledge," the report continues. The private investigators say they "believe it is more than likely that their knowledge of the big story grew. News International was the only media organization we identified as having extensive contacts with the authorized circle of knowledge during this period."
"Given their employment with News International, their antipathy toward the Telegraph, and their knowledge of the story, we have a strong suspicion that (the other former Telegraph employee) and Lewis were involved in orchestrating the leak of the information," Kroll's investigators said.
Kroll concluded "that it is likely that the leak was as a result of unauthorized access to TMG's systems, most probably from within the organization and by someone with admin rights to TMG's IT environment ... The copying of the audio file by either of these methods constitutes theft."
Kroll found that whoever was responsible for the leak "had to have the help of someone who could access the audio file." Kroll identified "one of the individuals who had the relevant Admin rights to access the file" as a computer help desk technician who shortly after Kroll began its investigation left the company. In an interview with Kroll investigators, the technician denied any involvement in the leak, according to the report. But the investigation company said that there were contradictions between a part of his story and that of another witness that led them to question his credibility.
Kroll said that prior to leaving the Telegraph group, the computer technician re-formatted his IPad, erasing all data on it, and cut up the SIM card on his IPhone. The technician told investigators he wiped out the data and his IPad because he wanted to give a "clean" device back to the Telegraph when he left the company.
An analysis of e-mail traffic to and from Telegraph offices by Kroll showed "extensive" contacts between people inside the Telegraph with knowledge of the full contents of the Telegraph's audio recording of Cable and people at News International. In the month the controversy became public there were 550 e-mails between Will Lewis, a former Telegraph employee and a senior journalist still at the Telegraph.
Kroll said that they had no reason to believe the Telegraph reporter in question was involved in the leak, but that it was possible that he inadvertently confirmed information about the Cable recording to his friends who worked for Murdoch.
Kroll investigators found that around 15 information technology personnel on the Telegraph staff had access rights to the data banks which contained the unpublished Cable audio. Because the Telegraph group outsourced some of its help desk functions to BT, up to 50 of the British telecommunications giant's employees also had theoretical access to the relevant servers, Kroll found.
Because so many people, including people outside the Telegraph group, had access to the section of the Cable audio which discussed Murdoch, Kroll advised the Telegraph that while it could eliminate several categories of potential leakers as suspects, the circle of people with possible access was too large to enable them to pinpoint the leakers for certain.
As a consequence, Kroll advised the Telegraph to halt the investigation because it was unlikely to produce a conclusive result.
After the recording of Cable's Murdoch remarks became public, media commentators speculated about whether News International personnel had somehow played a role in the leak, given Lewis' connections in both companies and his alleged close friendship with BBC journalist Robert Peston. It was Peston who first reported Cable's comments to the undercover Telegraph reporters.
The leak, which occurred just as government deliberations over whether Murdoch should be allowed to take over BSkyB were heating up, embarrassed Cable, a senior member of the Liberal Democrat party which is the junior party in Britain's coalition government.
It also embarrassed the Telegraph group, a major Murdoch competitor. Media critics suggested the newspaper had tried to suppress Cable's anti-Murdoch remarks because they might cause Cable to be taken off the BSkyB decision, which would not have been in the Telegraph's business interests.
The Kroll report notes that the closing price for BSkyB shares on December 1 last year was 721 British pence, but that by December 22 -- a day after Cable was stripped of responsibility for the BSkyB decision -- the broadcaster's shares had risen to 743 pence.
The government reassigned the BSkyB decision to another British Cabinet Minister, who had publicly indicated that he was likely to approve the acquisition. Government deliberations on BSkyB became moot this month after Murdoch abandoned his bid to acquire the balance of the broadcaster's shares in the wake of the phone hacking uproar.
(Editing by Simon Robinson and Ralph Boulton)
(Created by Simon Robinson)

Phone hacking: Met police to investigate mobile tracking claims

Whistleblower Sean Hoare claimed the News of the World would pay officers to illegally procure phone-tracking data

Paul Lewis
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 21 July 2011 12.52 BST
Article history

The Met police have been asked to guarantee they will investigate all cases where someone suspects a tabloid tracked their whereabouts using their mobile phone signal. Photograph: Felix Clay

Scotland Yard has been asked to inspect thousands of files that could reveal whether its officers unlawfully procured mobile phone-tracking data for News of the World reporters.

There were half a million requests by public authorities for communications data in the UK last year – of which almost 144,000 were demands for "traffic" data, which includes location.

A Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) member has asked the force to investigate allegations that News of the World reporters were able to purchase this data from police for £300 per request.

The claims were made by Sean Hoare, the News of the World whistleblower, days before he was found dead at his home on Monday. His disclosure about the purchase of illicit location data was first made to the New York Times, which said the practice was confirmed by a second source at the tabloid. Police have said Hoare's death was not suspicious.

Mobile phone location data, which is highly regulated, would give tabloid reporters access to a method of almost total surveillance, arguably even more intrusive than hacking into phone messages.

Jenny Jones, a Green party member of the MPA, has written to the commissioner requesting an audit of all cases where the Met obtained tracking data from mobile phone companies.

She has also asked the commissioner to guarantee that anyone with reason to suspect a tabloid may have gleaned their whereabouts from their mobile phone signal will have their case looked into.

Two police surveillance sources with knowledge of the system said location data was routinely used by police. Both said any corrupt purchase of information would require a fabricated request under theRegulation of Investigatory Powers Act (Ripa) and therefore the knowledge of a senior officer.

The Met and other forces have central databases where they record Ripa authorisations for audits by the interception of communications commissioner. Police are also compelled to keep Ripa authorisations files under the same rules that compel them to keep evidence connected to criminal investigations, which in some cases can mean paperwork is stored for decades.

Records are also kept by mobile phone providers, with at least one company maintaining an "indefinite" database of Ripa requests since 2009.

This detailed audit trail contrasts with the paucity of evidence in cases of phone hacking, due to the fact that records of phone activity are generally destroyed after 12 months.

The New York Times first reported that the News of the World may have had access to phone-tracking data last week, days before Hoare's death.

It said Hoare, a reporter who was sacked from the News International title in 2005, alleged that his editor Greg Miskiw could locate information about a person's precise whereabouts via their mobile phone number.

Hoare claimed that Miskiw had once helped him locate a person in Scotland, and said the information came from "the Old Bill".

The following day he told the Guardian that reporters would ask a news desk executive to obtain the location of a target: "Within 15 to 30 minutes someone on the news desk would come back and say: 'Right, that's where they are.'"

He added: "You would just go to the news desk and they would come back to you. You don't ask any questions. You would consider it a job done."

Hoare made no reference to which police force may have sold the data, although the Metropolitan police are currently investigating evidence that corrupt officers from within its ranks were selling information to the News of the World.

Mobile phone companies can provide police with real-time location information about the whereabouts of suspects or missing people at 15-minute intervals. More commonly, police request a "cell site dump", which gives a complete historical record of the whereabouts of person's mobile phone.

There are two ways the data is obtained. When a phone is used for a call or SMS message, details of its location are logged. Alternatively so-called "pinging" can be used when a phone is not in use, by sending the device signals and triangulating the results from cellphone masts. The level of accuracy ranges from a few hundred metres to around two kilometres, depending on proximity to the masts.

Mark Lewis, a solicitor who represents phone-hacking victims, said: "I have sources that I can't reveal who tell me they could do it [obtain the data]." He said he had clients who suspected they had been tracked: "One or two were very suspicious about how they had been found – simply because they were where they were not supposed to be."

If police want to monitor the contents of emails or calls to combat terrorism or serious crime they require a warrant from the home secretary.

Far more common however is the interception of communications data, which relates to the "who, where and when" of messages or calls. There is a complex framework through which the data is channelled from phone companies to police.

Phone companies provide data to "police liaison units" – funded by the Home Office – which contain a handful of people with maximum security clearance to deal with incoming requests.

Police in turn have special points of contact (Spocs), who liaise with the mobile phone companies and process the requests.

They are trained and accredited by the National Policing Improvement Agency and given unique pin numbers. There are almost 600 accredited Spocs in police forces on a nationwide register maintained by theAssociation of Chief Police Officers.

Under Ripa, these gatekeepers require detailed justifications from a senior officer to request phone information as part of an investigation, in a process that can take up to ten days. In emergencies, senior police can request the information orally, but paperwork is retrospectively filed centrally.

Anyone who suspects their phone was inappropriately tracked is able request details from police or their phone provider under the Data Protection Act.

MPs REPORT: News International 'deliberately' blocked investigation

2011-07-20T08:45:00.000+01:00

News International 'deliberately' blocked investigation

All-party home affairs committee report into phone hacking to be published in time for David Cameron's statement

Vikram Dodd
The Guardian, Wednesday 20 July 2011
Article history

James and Rupert Murdoch testify before the culture, media and sport committee. Photograph: PA

Rupert Murdoch's News International company has been found by a parliamentary committee to have "deliberately" tried to block a Scotland Yard criminal investigation into phone hacking at the News of the World.

The report from MPs on the all-party home affairs committee will be released on Wednesday morning and its publication has been moved forward in time for today's statement by prime minister David Cameron on the scandal.

The report's central finding comes a day after Rupert and James Murdoch testified before the culture, media and sport committee. The home affairs committee report marks an official damning judgment on News International's actions.

It finds the company "deliberately" tried to "thwart" the 2005-6Metropolitan police investigation into phone hacking carried out by the News of the World.

The police investigation came at a time when Andy Coulson was editor. Coulson went in to be chosen by Cameron to be his director of communications, before resigning.

The full report will be published Wednesday morning. Among its findings are:

• Police failed to examine a vast amount of material that could have identified others involved in the phone hacking conspiracy and victims.

• John Yates made a "serious misjudgement" in deciding in July 2009 that the Met's criminal investigation should not be reopened. He resigned on Monday.

• The new phone hacking investigation should receive more money, from government if necessary, so it can contact potential victims more speedily. A fraction have been contacted so far.

• The Information Commissioner should be given new powers to deal with phone hacking and blagging.

The central conclusion about NI's hampering of the police investigation comes after the home affairs committee heard evidence from senior Met officers who were involved in the case that News International obstructed justice.

Last week the man who oversaw the first Metropolitan police investigation into phone hacking, Peter Clarke, damned News International: "If at any time News International had offered some meaningful co-operation instead of prevarication and what we now know to be lies, we would not be here today."

The first police inquiry led to the conviction in January 2007 of one journalist, Clive Goodman, and the private investigator Glenn Mulcaire.

But subsequent developments, and the handing over of documents by News International, are alleged to show the practice of phone hacking was much more widespread than the company ever admitted. NI claimed for years it was the work of one rogue reporter, a defence the company has now abandoned, at least in part because of a Guardian investigation, which eventually led to the Met to reopen their inquiry.

The committee heard on Tuesday that "blindingly obvious" evidence of corrupt payments to police officers was found by the former director of public prosecutions, Lord Macdonald, when he inspected News of the World emails. Lord Macdonald said that when he inspected the messages from NI, it took him between "three to five minutes" to decide that the material had to be passed to police.

The emails and other material has been in the possession of NI or their lawyers for years.

MacDonald said: "The material I saw was so blindingly obvious that trying to argue that it should not be given to the police would have been a hard task. It was evidence of serious criminal offences."

Ed Llewellyn, David Cameron's chief of staff, was also dragged into the phone-hacking scandal on Tuesday when two of the country's most senior police officers revealed he had urged them not to brief the prime minister on developments.

Llewellyn sought to stop information about the scandal being passed on to the prime minister in September, just days after the New York Times ran an article which claimed Coulson had been aware of the use of the illegal practice when he edited the News of the World.

Former Metropolitan police commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson – who resigned on Sunday – and former assistant commissioner John Yates – who followed on Monday – told the House of Commons home affairs select committee that they believed Llewellyn was keen to avoid "compromising" the prime minister.

Yates told the committee he was offering to discuss only police protocol – not operational matters.

Committee Chair Right Hon Keith Vaz MP said:
"There has been a catalogue of failures by the Metropolitan Police, and deliberate attempts by News International to thwart the various investigations. Police and prosecutors have been arguing over the interpretation of the law.

"The new inquiry requires additional resources and if these are not forthcoming, it will take years to inform all the potential victims. The victims of hacking should have come first and I am shocked that this has not happened."

RUPERT MURDOCH ALWAYS IN CONTROL OF THE COMEDY NEWS AGENDA

2011-07-20T02:31:00.002+01:00

Transcript of the hearings at the bottom of this post.

Rupert Murdoch's phone-hacking humble pie

Tycoon expresses regret for News Corporation's involvement in scandal but insists he was kept in dark

Patrick Wintour, political editor
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 19 July 2011 23.54 BST
Article history

Maybe it is just me, ever the cynic, but the over attentive wife, the look of James before it happened and her speed and well aimed thumps just looked a wee bit contrived. I can imagine Rupert figuring this would bury any bad news of anything that went wrong for them at the Committee Hearing. He did not really want to go, but when pressed arranged a few stunts. Anyway cheers Rupert, it is funny, as are your attempts at pretending you have senile dementia.

Protester Jonathan May-Bowles hits Rupert Murdoch with a shaving foam pie as the News Corp chairman gives evidence to MPs. Photograph: PA

Rupert Murdoch defiantly insisted on Tuesday he was not responsible for what he called "sickening and horrible invasions" of privacy committed by his company, claiming he had been betrayed by disgraceful unidentified colleagues and had known nothing of the cover-up of phone hacking.

During a three-hour grilling at the culture select committee, disrupted by a protester throwing a plate of shaving foam, the once all-powerful News Corp chairman and chief executive told MPs: "I am not responsible."

In a halting performance, at times pausing, mumbling and mishearing, Murdoch said those culpable were "the people I hired and trusted, and perhaps then people who they hired and trusted". But he denied the accusation he had been "willfully blind" about the scandal.

Flanked by his son James, the chairman of News International, Murdoch said he and his company had been betrayed in a disgraceful way, but argued he was still the best person to clean up the company, adding in a rehearsed soundbite that his day in front of the committee represented "the most humble day of my life".

In a Westminster hearing screened worldwide, he repeatedly tried to avoid identifying the specific culprits in his company, often blaming earlier legal counsel for inadequate advice or leaving his son to explain his behaviour.

But in separate testimony to the home affairs select committee, Lord Macdonald, the former head of the CPS, now on contract with News International, revealed it had taken him three to five minutes to examine documents kept by the company's solicitors showing widespread criminality at the company.

Macdonald said in his view the criminality revealed was "completely unequivocal", adding when he reported his findings to the News International board recently there was surprise and shock. He said: "I cannot imagine anyone looking at the file would not say there was criminality," including payments to police.

The file was kept at the solicitors Harbottle & Lewis, and the police investigation is now centring on which executives tried to conceal its contents. In May 2007 Harbottle & Lewis sent a two-paragraph letter to News International executives claiming their examination of the documents showed there was no evidence any senior executives knew of illegal activities by the reporter Clive Goodman, or of any other illegal activities.

The physical assault on Murdoch came near the end of the evidence session, prompting gasps as his wife, Wendi Deng, leaped up to hit the assailant, Jonathan May-Bowles, a participant in UK Uncut events.

May-Bowles was detained by police as James Murdoch angrily asked officers why they had not protected his father. The Commons Speaker, John Bercow, called for an inquiry.

The culture and home affairs select committees between them took more than eight hours of evidence about the phone-hacking scandal. Under cover of the drama of the hearings, the Conservatives revealed that Neil Wallis, a former News of the World deputy editor, had given "informal unpaid advice" to Andy Coulson when he was director of communications at the Conservative party.

In a statement the party said: "It has been drawn to our attention that he may have provided Andy Coulson with some informal advice on a voluntary basis before the election. We are currently finding out the exact nature of any advice."

Wallis was arrested last week on suspicion of phone hacking, and the furore surrounding his hiring by the Metropolitan police between October 2008 and September 2009 has led to the resignation of Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan police commissioner, and the Met's assistant commissioner John Yates, who both gave evidence on Tuesday.

Separately emails were released by Downing Street showing David Cameron's chief of staff, Ed Llewellyn, had on 20 September 2010 turned down the opportunity of a briefing by the Metropolitan police on the phone hacking. Labour claimed it showed an extraordinary dereliction of his duty to find out the scale of wrong-doing and the potential involvement of Coulson, the former No 10 director of communications.

Cameron will be pressed on the issue when he makes a statement to MPs on how he is handling the crisis. He has been summoned to a 1922 backbench committee meeting to justify his response, including his decision to hire Coulson.

The publication report from the all-party home affairs committee, which has been brought forward in time for Cameron's statement today, has found that News International "deliberately" tried to block a Scotland Yard criminal investigation into phone hacking at the News of the World. The report finds the company "deliberately" tried to "thwart" the 2005-6 Metropolitan police investigation into phone hacking carried out by the tabloid.

Much of the cross-examination of the Murdochs was largely designed to locate how high the apparent cover-up of systematic law-breaking went. James Murdoch was forced to admit, after much wriggling, that his company was still paying the legal costs of Glenn Mulcaire, one of the private detectives on the payroll of News of the World found guilty of hacking phones. James Murdoch said he was shocked and surprised to learn the payments were continuing, and denied it had been done to buy silence.

Pressed by the Labour MP Paul Farrelly, Rupert Murdoch said he would stop the payments if he was contractually free to do so. James Murdoch denied the large out-of-court settlements to the PFA chief executive, Gordon Taylor (£700,000), and publicist Max Clifford (£1m including legal costs), authorised by him in 2008, had not been pitched so high to buy their silence. He insisted the settlement level was based on legal advice, or in the case of Clifford due to the ending of a wider contract.

James Murdoch also revealed he had authorised the settlements but had not told his father until 2009 after the case became public, saying the payments were too small to be reported to a higher board. He refused a request from MP Tom Watson to release Taylor from his confidentiality agreement.

Both James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, the former chief executive of NI who gave evidence later to the committee, said they had acted as soon as evidence emerged in civil cases at the end of 2010 that phone hacking had not been confined to Mulcaire and Goodman.

James Murdoch apologised for the scandal and told MPs: "These actions do not live up to the standards our company aspires to." The three came under pressure over a letter in May 2007 prepared by Harbottle & Lewis on the instruction of Jon Chapman, the former director of legal affairs, and Daniel Cloak, the head of human resources, suggesting phone hacking had not been widespread. The files on which the Harbottle & Lewis letter is based were re-examined in April by senior News International executives including Will Lewis and Lord Macdonald.

In tense opening exchanges Murdoch revealed he had mounted no investigation when Brooks told parliament seven years ago that the News of the World had paid police officers for information. He said: "I didn't know of it." He also admitted he had never heard of the fact that his senior reporter at the News of the World, Neville Thurlbeck, had been found by a judge to be guilty of blackmail.

Watson interrupted to prevent Rupert Murdoch's son answering the questions, saying: "Your father is responsible for corporate governance, and serious wrongdoing has been brought about in the company. It is revealing in itself what he does not know and what executives chose not to tell him." Rupert Murdoch denied he was ignorant about his company, banging the table and saying News of the World was "less than 1%" of News Corp. He was asked about his connections to the Conservative party and revealed it had been on the advice of the prime minister's staff that he had gone through the back door to have a cup of tea with David Cameron after the election to receive Cameron's personal thanks for supporting his party in the election.

"I was asked if I would please come through the back door," Murdoch told the committee.

Rupert Murdoch denied that the closure of the News of the World was motivated by financial considerations, saying he shut the Sunday tabloid because of the criminal allegations. In one flash of anger he complained his competitors had "caught us with dirty hands and created hysteria".

Aware he must prevent the scandal spreading across the Atlantic, he said he had seen no evidence that victims of the 9/11 attacks and their relatives were targeted by any of his papers.

-------------
But the first question is directed toward James Murdoch about his clearly incomplete investigation when phone hacking allegations were first made. He begins with an apology.

“These actions do not live up to the standards of News Corp.,” says the younger Murdoch.

He is interrupted by his father, Rupert Murdoch, who notes rather dramatically: “This is the most humble day of my life.”

The questioner quickly asks the obvious query, after James Murdoch claims News Corp. was not in full possession of the facts when execs had told a previous committee there was no reason to believe there was more widespread hacking.

Were News Corp. execs lying?

James Murdoch continues to insist that the bulk of evidence came out — “real evidence” — in later civil trials. And also, that News Corp. is now investigating the situation fully.

He throws around words like “proactive action” and “transparency,” which is probably cold comfort now to those hacked when things were less clear to News Corp.’s senior management.

Now up, Rupert Murdoch, who is asked quickly about statements he made about not tolerating wrongdoing and who had lied to him at News Corp. about the phone hacking.

Apparently, he “didn’t know” a lot about the hacking that took place, while also defending the non-hacking employees of his company.

But the questioner is still on him about exactly what he did know about the situation, which seems to be — at least according to his testimony — a lot of I-don’t-knows.

6:53 am: It continues about what Rupert Murdoch knew and when he knew it and what he did. Or not.

As Rupert Murdoch keeps up with this tone of not being clued in to what have turned out to be critical events, James Murdoch wants to keep jumping in with the details, which he is eager to impart.

“At what point did you find out criminality was endemic at News of the World?,” asks the questioner.

Rupert Murdoch does not like the word endemic, but stresses that he was “shocked, appalled and ashamed” by the case of the murdered girl, Milly Dowler.

The questioner seems frustrated by Rupert Murdoch’s answers, which are for the typically razor-sharp media mogul unusually slow.

Like a persistent terrier who wants to perform, James Murdoch is back again offering to serve up the deets.

7:04 am: Now, it is onto the closing down of News of the World: Was the tabloid shut down because of the criminality?

“We had broken our trust with our readers,” says Rupert Murdoch. “We felt ashamed for what had happened.”

A new questioner is on, with a bizarre query about why Rupert Murdoch came in the back door of the Prime Minister’s house at 10 Downing Street on a recent visit there.

It’s a cloddish effort to show him as a puppetmaster to pols, but only serves as a punch line.

Back on track, with questions about whether there was hacking in the U.S., which Rupert Murdoch said he could not believe had happened.

More questions about how badly the company acted, which came down to the questions about whether he was “ultimately” responsible for the hacking.

“Nope,” says Rupert Murdoch, who keeps insisting he relied on others, some of whom apparently “misled” him.

It’s an astonishing admission and, really, excuse, given he has been chairman, CEO and a very strong leader of News Corp. for a more than a half-century.

7:16 am: A new questioner, who asks who decided to close down News of the World. It was Murdoch himself, his son and other execs.

Next up, why did News Corp. pay off a victim of hacking, which James Murdoch did without informing his father or the News Corp. board.

James Murdoch essentially points out that it is typical to do this in companies of the global scale of News Corp.

These are apparently very busy, busy, busy people, who do not seem to have time to notice how such juicy and best-selling scoops might have been magically produced by News of the World.

Onto ethical conduct guidelines, which News Corp. has in a pamphlet form, says James Murdoch, but pages which some at the company have obviously never cracked.

Rupert Murdoch is asked about his culpability in the case again, which he continues to maintain he does not have.

James Murdoch notes that the company “will think more forcefully…about our journalism and ethics.”

Given the situation, in which every day brings a new revelation of bad behavior, this promise of better behavior seems to be a case of much too little and very, very late.

Rupert Murdoch still uses the opportunity to stress the need for a free press, despite its excesses.

7:31 am: More about the payments to settle with phone hacking victims and how soon the company realized the problems were more widespread.

James Murdoch talks about how he might have acted differently had he known more then as he does now.

“If we knew now what we knew then,” says James Murdoch, “we would have taken more action and moved more aggressively.”

But what else is he going to say? It’s a could-have, would-have, should-have line of questioning that is eliciting very little in the way of true information.

Finally, a good point about “willful blindness,” which is a term from the Enron scandal about avoiding knowing about problems you really should have known about.

“Is that a question?,” asks James Murdoch. It is a statement actually and a decent question.

“We didn’t do that,” says Rupert Murdoch.

Still, soon enough, Rupert Murdoch is insisting he was not as involved as people have imagined him to be with the management of his newspapers.

A new questioner is pressing this important point, but Rupert Murdoch is not biting on a query about his legendarily hands-on managing style.

“I’d say, ‘What’s doing?,” he explains about his conversations with editors, but adding he might not have been told about payoffs to phone hacking victims.

The questions are in the deep weeds here, but it’s still interesting that Rupert Murdoch continues to maintain that his life was too busy to wallow in the details, however controversial and important those details might be.

7:55 am: More and more don’t-knows pile up and up in a giant mountain of acts perpetrated by someone somewhere, but not the Murdochs.

“I can tell you I was surprised as you were,” says James Murdoch about certain payments to various hackers and those who were hacked.

Was it Les Hinton, who then ran News International and later Dow Jones, from which he recently resigned?

Could be! Maybe! Mistake were made! Who knows!

Well, someone does!

It moves onto Brooks, the tarnished News International exec and editor whom Rupert Murdoch does note he still trusts. Finally, some certainty!

Brooks is definitely one of the more compelling characters in this drama, although the media focus on her striking red hair color seems odd and vaguely sexist, as if she is some flame-haired she-devil from media hell. (Rupert’s mane is grey, by the way, and James’ is brown, if you want to know.)

Fascinatingly, Murdoch’s backing of Brooks has been strong and consistent, despite intense criticism of her by many in this scandal.

The payment of legal fees of perpetrators and payments to the victims in the hacking seems to obsess one questioner, who wants News Corp. to stop doing it.

Murdoch says he’d like to if contracts did not preclude that, which essentially means News Corp. will keep up forking over the legal fees and payments.

8:12 am: The attention turns to how James Murdoch found out about the various emails that showed there was more evidence of hacking than was first thought about and what he felt about it.

He says very little, noting that the matter is under police investigation. It’s not don’t-know now, but can’t-say.

The hearing is beginning to feel a little rope-a-dope, with the Murdochs apologizing and taking blows, saying very little — either claiming lack of knowledge or lack of ability to comment about the ongoing police inquiry — and tiring out the questioners.

It is a classic tactic of the boxing champion Muhammad Ali and it works in the ring.

Whether that will be the case with PhoneGate remains to be seen, but it certainly has made what could have been a more explosive hearing much less so.

On questioner gets this irony. “That’s frankly unsatisfactory,” he says about the Murdochs continuing shock and surprise at the situation.

Maybe so, but the persistent story from James Murdoch is that they were told by their lawyers, the police and others that nothing was awry once the initial phone hacking investigation was complete and only found out about the larger problem in later civil lawsuits.

But, asks the questioner to Rupert Murdoch, should his editors have known about it?

Of course, they should have.

But the legendary media baron, who made his fortune and fame in disseminating news and information across the world in newspapers, on television, on satellite and on the Web — at least for now — can’t say.

So, was he “kept in the dark” about the situation? Rupert Murdoch acknowledges he might have asked more questions, although he noted his British newspapers were only a small part of his massive empire.

But, he adds, “Anything that is seen as a crisis comes to me.”

Well, not the phone hacking crisis, it seems.

But, they’re sorry. So sorry. And, of course, humbled.

8:54 am: Suddenly, there is a disturbance, in which someone seems to have possibly attempted to accost the Murdochs.

But it is not clear what has happened, as the hearings are suspended for 10 minutes.

James Murdoch leaps up quickly to protect his father, which he has been doing in this hearing verbally already, in which the strategy seems to be to let him largely do all the talking.

Also even faster on her feet and with arms raised toward a man in a plaid shirt and carrying a pie plate with shaving cream was Rupert Murdoch’s wife, Wendi.

The man seems to have managed to get some of the foam on Rupert Murdoch, but Wendi Deng seems to have partially thwarted her husband from a full pie in the face.

It’s the first striking visual of this hearing, protecting the patriarch and the king of the empire from harm, no matter what.

Here is a video of the incident:

According to Britain’s Channel 4: “As the man was being led away in handcuffs escorted by a single police officer, he refused to give his name, saying: ‘As Mr Murdoch himself said, I’m afraid I cannot comment on an ongoing police investigation.’”

9:09 am: The room is cleared, so it is only the Murdoch crew behind James and Rupert Murdoch, and now the committee is even more solicitous.

Rupert Murdoch is without his jacket and his wife is being commended for her most excellent right hook.

Still, it’s back to business and the questioner does zero in on a major disconnect over how two media execs as famously aggressive and involved as the Murdochs were so passive in this hacking situation.

It “was a terrible shock,” says James Murdoch.

The same is said about what would be even more disturbing and recent allegations of the hacking of the victims of the 9/11 bombings.

Both father and son say there is no evidence of this so far, but they were surely looking into it.

While it certainly did not come through in what have largely been feckless questions from the committee, the final questioner does correctly ask the pair if they might want to pay more attention.

The last question is for Rupert Murdoch and finally gets to the real query everyone wants to ask.

Noting Murdoch is “captain of the ship,” she asks if he has considered resigning.

“No,” answers Murdoch firmly.

“Why not?,” she presses.

“People let me down and it’s for them to pay,” says Rupert Murdoch. “But I think, frankly, I am the best person do clean this up.”

Someone better and soon.

He finishes up with a statement about being sorry, how he was also betrayed and how phone hacking and bribery is wrong.

“Saying sorry is not enough, things must be put right,” he says.

Finally, something we do know.