A Case for Waterboarding?
The MPs on the Culture, Media, Sport Committee must have been asking themselves yesterday, what on earth a reasonable person could do when confronted with three hardened, well-rehearsed liars, all desperate to avoid having their collars felt?
Experienced interpreters of body-language can enjoy a revealing session by tuning into the video-archive of yesterday’s oral evidence in front of the CMS Committee in Portcullis House.
Andy Coulson – bullish, assertive, knowing his best defence is attack, with a dash of cheeky chappy charm.
Tom Crone – for once not so sure of his ground, nervously cutting in a little too quickly when little Colin Myler gets it wrong, with a giveaway sheen of sweat on the strong, ruddy features.
Stuart Kuttner – eau de nil, haunted, shaking like an aspen, fiddling, fiddling, picking up his water, putting it down undrunk, rearranging files and pens, moving his large spectacles from side to side – meaning, for those who speak body language, that he is shitting himself; that after an ignominious dismissal by … who? Which Mr Murdoch? … his long, wicked career at the Screws is well and truly on the skids.
Little Colin Myler doesn’t need to lie. He wasn’t there when events at the centre of this enquiry took place. [When he’d arrived, he did arrange a few training sessions in act-cleaning-up for his newsroom hacks. But did Mazhher Mahmood and Neville “Onan the Barbarian” Thurlbeck attend? From the continuing and relentless shoddiness of their output, it seems they were excused – or just weren’t paying attention.]
When Crone, legal boss of News Group is asked about the terms of a pay-off to Glenn Mulcaire, a former investigations contractor who has been imprisoned for carrying out tasks from which his company profited, and he claims he doesn’t know what those terms were (although he’s very sure that Mulcaire did not sign any non-disclosure agreement), you have to conclude either that he is suffering from severe amnesia and should instantly be relieved of his post, or that he is not telling the truth.
He directed the MPs to ask Stuart Kuttner.
When Kuttner told the MPs, confirming that an arrangement had been made with Glenn Mulciare, he too was utterly unfamiliar with the terms, conditions and size of the pay-off, and that he didn’t know who in an organisation of which he has been Managing Editor for 22 years was responsible for making such arrangements, you have to conclude that he has become insane – for imagining that any rational person would believe him.
When Andy Coulson tells his questioners that he has no recollection whatever of a story, flagged on the front page of an issue of the paper that he’d edited, occupying the whole of Page 7, depicting a verbatim transcript of a message left by one prince on another prince’s voicemail, knowing that not a single person in the Wilson Room in Portcullis House, or viewing the session on Parliament TV, or in the evening news broadcasts would believe him, you a have to conclude that here is a youngish man who sees his whole future in jeopardy if he breaks and admits to a scintilla of knowledge of the phone-hacking that was involved in acquiring the story.
It was very clear that before the three men came in to answer the awkward questions that would be put to them, they had agreed between themselves that they would simply declare either that they didn’t know the answers or that they couldn’t remember the events.
Although this made them look utterly ridiculous, and Tom Crone, as a senior media lawyer, a disgrace to his profession, they knew, if they toughed it out, there was little the MPs could do, for, naturally, there was never a paper trail to confirm the involvement of any of them in the Goodman/Mulcaire case – and short of getting them to submit to US Intelligence gathering techniques on the waterboard, there was nothing more the committee could do to extract the verité.
It was a sad day for British justice and the state of British popular journalism.
Popularity: 1% [?]

Comment by Chris Paul on 23 July 2009:
Peter
There is another paper trail, or two. One which MP Mike Hall alluded to. After repeating the truism that one should not put in an email what one does not want to see on the cover of the NOTW.
The trail of payments to Glenn Mulcaire, his companies, and his rivals. Was it not Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price who questioned Scuttler on those £75 credits to various bin divers for sourcing ex-Directory Numbers, and ‘phone to address and other such naughtiness? Clearly these will not be generated only on stories by the Crime Correspondent in Waiting.
A paper trail, possibly a partial one, but a paper trail nonetheless, does exist in the form of the NOTW ledger listing all the payments, in theory the cash ones as well as the cheques and the BACS, generally with a short narrative on each, sometiems with the tags of the stories, sometimes with the journo’s names.
When I get (very small, and alas infrequent) payments from News Group or GNL or whatever the pro forma invoices include certain elements. typically:
Date / Pub / Ref / Type (e.g. Text or Pic or Research) / Story Tag / Commissioner / Value / and VAT etc.
The document gives my supplier number and also the details of the bank account to which it was paid, if BACS.
For the period in question there also ought to be a whole series of returns to HMRC and predecessors covering all individuals and entities who were given “not taxed at source” payments.
This latter also has the advantage of not being in the possession of News Group. Though it may have far less narrative. I can’t be sure of that. I am not a tax man! It could certainly reveal the level and timing of payments to any individual or entity in any tax year.
Best w
Chris P