The Leveson Inquiry

[Mahlerei]

As I see it, they're all in the Augean stable, and have resorted to dubious tactics to get their stories. None quite so blatantly as NoW though, and I suspect more will come to light in time. Thurlbeck's evidence was simply breathtaking in its arrogance and confIrmation - if it were needed - of just how amoral News International is/was. That said, if the Grauniad has got its facts wrong re the deleted texts they're honour bound to apologise for doing so. The hacking itself isn't in doubt, so there's no need to go overboard.

[french frank]

One point is not clear about the deletions. Are such voicemails automatically deleted after 72 hours; or are they automatically deleted after 72 hours once they have been listened to (as the Guardian reported)?

If the latter case, it's irrelevant whether the NotW journalists actually deleted them deliberately; or whether the fact that they had listened to them caused them to be deleted. In either case, it was the journalists' action, deliberate or accidental, which caused the deletions and were ultimately so upsetting to the Dowler family.

[Ferretfancy]

Perhaps it's worth noting that after five months in which nobody questioned the statement from the Guardian that the NOW had deleted the messages, the Guardian itself was the first to publish the news that they were incorrect on that aspect, though not on the phone hacking itself, and the paper immediately made a clear admission on its website last Friday evening.
They did so in the light of more up to date information than they had when the phone hacking news first broke.

Some have suggested that if the Guardian had not incorrectly said back then that the messages had been deleted, the NOW would not been closed. This is manifestly absurd, since the hacking scandal goes far beyond the damage done to the Dowler family.

[Mr Pee]

One point is not clear about the deletions. Are such voicemails automatically deleted after 72 hours; or are they automatically deleted after 72 hours once they have been listened to (as the Guardian reported)?

If the latter case, it's irrelevant whether the NotW journalists actually deleted them deliberately; or whether the fact that they had listened to them caused them to be deleted. In either case, it was the journalists' action, deliberate or accidental, which caused the deletions and were ultimately so upsetting to the Dowler family.

This is from the BBC News Website:-

In a statement to the inquiry, Neil Garnham QC, for the Metropolitan Police, said detectives now thought that Milly Dowler's voicemails had probably been automatically deleted because they were more than 72 hours old by the time her parents got through to her voicemail.

Days after her disappearance, Milly's parents had a moment of false hope when they found they could leave messages on her phone, suggesting to them that their daughter had been picking up previous messages and had deleted them.

Mr Garnham said: "It is conceivable that News International journalists deleted the voicemails, but the Metropolitan Police Service have no evidence to support that."

He said "most likely explanation" was that messages were automatically removed after 72 hours, and added that the network provider had confirmed that this was "a standard automatic function of that voicemail box system at the time".

[Mr Pee]

Perhaps it's worth noting that after five months in which nobody questioned the statement from the Guardian that the NOW had deleted the messages, the Guardian itself was the first to publish the news that they were incorrect on that aspect, though not on the phone hacking itself, and the paper immediately made a clear admission on its website last Friday evening.
They did so in the light of more up to date information than they had when the phone hacking news first broke.

Some have suggested that if the Guardian had not incorrectly said back then that the messages had been deleted, the NOW would not been closed. This is manifestly absurd, since the hacking scandal goes far beyond the damage done to the Dowler family.

It's reasonable to assume the Guardian knew that the inaccuracy of their reporting was about to be exposed and decided that the least worst option was to break the news themselves- with their own positive spin. If it was all about to be revealed by the Met then they didn't have much to lose, did they? It seems a bit rich to offer them credit for that.

As to whether the NOTW would have been closed without the deletion issue, well, we'll never know, will we? But since the Leveson enquiry seems to suggest that other newspapers have been guilty of the same practice, and they're still doing fine, one has to wonder.

[David Underdown]

No one at NI, nor even Mulcaire, has denied that Dowler's phone was among those (illegally) hacked. The only thing that has changed is that it would now appear that it was not that hacking which led to the clearing of the messages (though another notw journalist was in possession of the number of the phone and the PIN, so the opportunity may still have existed), and it was the clearing of the messages which appeared to give the hope she was still alive

The original Guardian story was based on the best (legally) available information at the time - it now appears some of that information was incorrect.

All very different from the evidence already given to Leveson as to the way stories were simply made up in other sections of the press.

Apparently Rebekah Wade told notw staff at the time of the closure that there was worse still to come out, and that was why the paper had to close

[french frank]

It's reasonable to assume the Guardian knew that the inaccuracy of their reporting was about to be exposed and decided that the least worst option was to break the news themselves- with their own positive spin. If it was all about to be revealed by the Met then they didn't have much to lose, did they? It seems a bit rich to offer them credit for that.

Granted. But one could be forgiven for getting the impression that you consider the Guardian to have been the main villain in this story of journalistic villainy. They broke a story about the criminal activity rife at the NotW, which was consequently closed down. Oh, and on one detail they were probably inaccurate. Is that about right?

[John Skelton]

This is from the BBC News Website:-

In a statement to the inquiry, Neil Garnham QC, for the Metropolitan Police, said detectives now thought that Milly Dowler's voicemails had probably been automatically deleted because they were more than 72 hours old by the time her parents got through to her voicemail.

Days after her disappearance, Milly's parents had a moment of false hope when they found they could leave messages on her phone, suggesting to them that their daughter had been picking up previous messages and had deleted them.

Mr Garnham said: "It is conceivable that News International journalists deleted the voicemails, but the Metropolitan Police Service have no evidence to support that."

He said "most likely explanation" was that messages were automatically removed after 72 hours, and added that the network provider had confirmed that this was "a standard automatic function of that voicemail box system at the time".

That has been challenged:

New inquiry into Milly Dowler hacking launched

Judge signals that fresh statements will be taken from police about latest developments

reddit this

David Leigh
guardian.co.uk, Monday 12 December 2011 17.44 GMT
Article history

Milly Dowler
Milly Dowler: it is now considered unlikely that Glenn Mulcaire had been responsible for deleting the missing girl’s voicemail messages. Photograph: Surrey Police/PA

The Leveson inquiry into press behaviour has launched its own investigation on Monday in an attempt, in Lord Justice Leveson's words, to "get to the bottom of" fresh evidence about the News of the World's hacking of Milly Dowler's voicemail.

The judge signalled that new statements would be taken from two police forces, Surrey and the Metropolitan police, about the question of the hacking and deletion of the murdered girl's voicemail messages.

This followed confirmation from counsel for the Met that it was now considered "unlikely" that the private detective Glenn Mulcaire, who had been commissioned to hack Milly's phone by the Sunday tabloid, had also been responsible for deleting her voicemail messages. Neil Garnham QC confirmed to a public session of the Leveson inquiry that Mulcaire had not been tasked by the NoW to hack Milly's phone until "some time after" the mystery deletion of voicemail messages from the 13-year-old girl's One-2-One mobile phone. As a result, he said, it was "unlikely" that Mulcaire was to blame for the deletions.

It was, however, conceivable, although also unlikely, that other NoW journalists had carried out the deletions.

He said the phone company's standard system was to delete messages 72 hours after being listened to, and that Milly had accessed her own phone "approximately 72 hours" before the Dowlers discovered the emptying of her voicemail box, giving them false hope that she was alive.

The Scotland Yard version was challenged by David Sherborne, representing the Dowlers. He pointed out that every single voicemail had been apparently deleted at once on 24 March 2002. This could not have been the result of automatic deletions of each message after 72 hours, he said, because the Dowlers had left a series of anxious messages on the phone in preceding days. Sherborne said someone else must have been accessing and deleting messages between 21 and 24 March. He pointed the finger at "a journalist at the NoW" who was also in possession of Milly's phone number and pin number: "The Surrey police know the identity of the journalist," he alleged. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011...?newsfeed=true

Yes, it's from The Guardian. But I don't imagine they are making up David Sherborne's critique. We'll have to see. In the meantime, ff's #112 seems pretty much correct in all aspects, no?

[ahinton]

Ah, sanguine common sense at last! Indeed, the "72 hour rule" must mean that messages drop off automatically after that period of time provided that they have been listened to first; as you rightly observe, if a brace of them disappeared simultaneously when they hadn't arrived simultaneously in the first place, the deletions must have been carried out manually rather than having occurred automatically. The only possible spanners in the works of this argument are (a) the matter of whether and when Milly Dowler actually listened to each message (in the context of when the 72-hour period would have commenced in respect of each) and (b) whether and how that automatic 72 hour period could be interfered with by a third party; the former does already seem to be pretty much covered and I don't see even Mr Pee arguing with that particular aspect of the issue and I imagine that the lack of coverage of the latter is suggestive of the fact that this could not actually be done. OK, acceptance of proof that the messages were indeed deleted manually does not of itself point the finger of guilt at anyone in particular, but it does at least point that finger and it will be up to the enquiry to ascertain the identity/ies of the guilty party/ies concerned and, as you correctly state, we will have in the meantime to wait and see (not wait and Pee).

[mercia]

apart from Mr Pike and Mr Morgan, I'm not too sure who these people are, in the last sittings before Christmas

http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-List-wc-19.12.11.pdf

then no more till January 9th . I've been so enjoying it.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

by far the best soap on telly ever imv ..... can't wait for part two The Press & The Police!

[amateur51]

by far the best soap on telly ever imv ..... can't wait for part two The Press & The Police!

Me too I even love the breaks when His Lord Highship walks up steps behind the curtain with his hands behind his back - will he ever stumble? And re-appear with a shiner?

[mercia]

part two The Press & The Police!

we've had quite a few press already, I don't know who else might be called.
I'd like to see Mr Hayman from the Met again. He was a star of the select committees, IMV.

[amateur51]

we've had quite a few press already, I don't know who else might be called.
I'd like to Mr Hayman from the Met again. He was a star of the select committees, IMV.

He briefly used to attend a committee that I was Chairing many years ago - 'cunning but not that bright' was my assessment of him

He never said what he thought of my Chairing but he didn't stay long

[mercia]

his hands behind his back

have you noticed that Mr Sherbourn (? spelling) and his colleague also bow to Lord L with hands clasped behind backs. I'm sure they're taking the p*ss.