Leveson inquiry: Ian Edmondson contradicts Colin Myler evidence

Leveson inquiry: Ian Edmondson contradicts Colin Myler evidence

Former News of the World news editor gives different version of events surrounding the publishing of Kate McCann's diaries


Dan Sabbagh

guardian.co.uk, Thursday 9 February 2012 13.08 GMT


Ian Edmondson, the former head of news at the News of the World, leaves the high court after giving evidence to the Leveson


The former news editor of the News of the World has contradicted evidence given to the Leveson inquiry by his one time editor Colin Myler over what a spokesman for the McCanns was told about the planned publication of Kate McCann's diary by the now closed Sunday tabloid in 2008.

Ian Edmondson, giving evidence to the inquiry on Thursday, said he was instructed by Myler to call Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns public relations representative, and tell him only in "very woolly" terms that the newspaper would be running a story about them without giving the family any indication that the tabloid was going to publish her diaries in full.

The editor's instruction, Edmondson said, was to give Mitchell the impression "that we were running a story, but not tell him specifically what story" and that "certainly don't tell him [Mitchell] that we were in possession of the complete diaries". Myler, Edmondson added, was "frightened that if Clarence knew what we had, he might take action".

Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, asked Edmondson what was the purpose of "having an ambiguous or woolly conversation?" Edmondson replied that the purpose would be "in order to blame Clarence Mitchell that he hadn't acted properly upon instructions" if there was a row post-publication.

Edmondson's appearance before Lord Justice Leveson was the first time he has spoken publicly since he was arrested and bailed on suspicion of phone hacking in April of last year. The former News of the World news editor was not asked any questions about hacking because of the ongoing police inquiry.

Edmondson's evidence directly contradicts that given by Myler to the Leveson inquiry on 14 December. Myler was asked: "Did Mr Edmondson make it clear to you that he had made it clear to Mr Mitchell that he had the whole diary and was going to cause extracts from it to be published in the News of the World?"

In response, Myler said: "That's what he led me to believe, yes."

Kate McCann told the Leveson inquiry in November that she felt "mentally raped" by the News of the World's decision to publish her diaries in full – diaries that she had written after her daughter Madeleine had disappeared on holiday in Portugal in 2007, and which were subsquently seized by the Portuguese police. The diaries were translated into Portuguese and acquired by the News of the World, which retranslated them to publish them.

A week later, the News of the World printed an apology for publishing the diaries, and it subsequently emerged that the Murdoch-owned title paid £125,000 to the fund for finding Madeleine.

Edmondson told the inquiry on Thursday that Myler's instruction to ring Mitchell came after a meeting that he, Myler and the News of the World's former legal manager Tom Crone had ahead of publication. Edmondson said that Crone gave "his legal view, which I'm told I'm not allowed to repeat, but which dismayed, shall I say, Mr Myler". The News of the World editor then asked Edmondson to call Mitchell.

Myler lost his job as News of the World editor upon the title's closure last July in the wake of mounting phone hacking revelations.

In January it was announced that he was to become the editor of the New York Daily News, the bitter rival of Rupert Murdoch's New York Daily Post


http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/feb/09/leveson-inquiry-edmondson-contradicts-myler-evidence?newsfeed=true

Nothing unusual there. Every one of them are all lying under oath and shifting the blame away from themselves.
Dont be taken aback there's probably half truth and half lie in the statements of each and every witness pertaining to the diary debacle.

Pointing finger is the game, and since it will be time consuming for LI to do another round of the same participants to get verification; they're banking on getting away with being economical with the facts.

This leveson's obssession over kate's diary leak is OTT.
He should just ignore the mental rape as proclaimed by kate, because kate has mental raped the public for over 5 years telling porky pies and spinning the abduction pixie fairy, so who gives a shit over her contrived diary written after the facts? What is Leveson playing at?

Maybe he's trying to trip the mccanns up in a subtle way.

I don't care if they printed the diary excerpts without the McCanns permission. KM claimed that she felt mentally raped after they were printed, the diaries were the only way she could speak to Madeleine, so in my opinion she should not then of sold them to be printed. But of course IMO money is the top of the McCanns agenda.

candyfloss wrote:Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, asked Edmondson what was the purpose of "having an ambiguous or woolly conversation?" Edmondson replied that the purpose would be "in order to blame Clarence Mitchell that he hadn't acted properly upon instructions" if there was a row post-publication.

I don't care how "wooly" that conversation went, Clarence Mitchell would have known precisely what that story was going to say, word for word. That's utter nonsense.

Stella wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, asked Edmondson what was the purpose of "having an ambiguous or woolly conversation?" Edmondson replied that the purpose would be "in order to blame Clarence Mitchell that he hadn't acted properly upon instructions" if there was a row post-publication.

I don't care how "wooly" that conversation went, Clarence Mitchell would have known precisely what that story was going to say, word for word. That's utter nonsense.

Edmondson holding his buddy CM's hand in bad times against his big bad boss Colin Myler.
Wait till Myler produces the taped convo between Pinky and Edmondson.

Much more punchy headline in the Telegraph..............


Leveson Inquiry: News of the World editor 'ordered deception of McCanns'

Colin Myler, the editor of the News of the World, ordered his news editor, Ian Edmonson, to mislead a spokesman for Madeleine McCann's parents about an intrusive story the tabloid planned to publish, it was claimed at the Leveson inquiry.


Ian Edmondson told the Leveson Inquiry that former editor Colin Myler told him to deliberately mislead the McCanns' spokesman about the newspaper's plans to publish Kate McCann's diary


By Martin Beckford, Home Affairs Editor

3:43PM GMT 09 Feb 2012


Mr Myler was said to have told Mr Edmonson to have a "woolly" conversation with Clarence Mitchell and not reveal the fact that the newspaper was going to print Kate McCann's private diary.


He came up with the ploy to stop the family of the missing girl obtaining an injunction against the story being published, the Leveson Inquiry into press standards heard on Thursday.


The evidence from Mr Edmonson, the former head of news at the News of the World who is taking his old paper to an employment tribunal, contradicts what Mr Myler has previously said.


The former editor has told the Leveson hearing that his paper would never have published the diary of the missing girl's mother if she had not been aware of the plan, and that he thought Mr Edmonson had cleared it with the McCanns' spokesman, Mr Mitchell.


Giving evidence at the Royal Courts of Justice hearing, Mr Edmonson said he had a meeting with Tom Crone, the paper's senior lawyer, who gave a view of the story that "dismayed" his editor.



Related Articles

NotW editor 'told staff to mislead McCann campaign'
09 Feb 2012

Leveson Inquiry: Heather Mills vows she did not play McCartney messages to Piers Morgan
09 Feb 2012

Journalists breaking law to expose injustice spared trial
08 Feb 2012

Hacking victim Nightjack to sue The Times
09 Feb 2012

Rupert Murdoch is still a nightmare for David Cameron
09 Feb 2012


He said the editor told him to phone Mr Mitchell but not to make it clear exactly what the paper had and intended to publish that Sunday - "make it very woolly".

This was in case the McCanns "took action" to stop the story coming out, and also as cover in case they complained afterwards.

"It would be in order to blame Clarence, that he hadn't acted properly on instruction."

Mr Edmonson said he felt uneasy about doing this and suggested that the editor ring Gerry McCann himself, but was overruled.

Asked by Lord Justice Leveson if he had told his editor that he had informed the McCanns' spokesman about the planned diary story, Mr Edmonson replied: "No."

Although there was a "sea change" in the culture at the tabloid after the original phone-hacking trial and the Max Mosley case, Mr Edmonson said bullying still went on.

"Everything emanates from the editor," he told the hearing.

"It's not a democracy, the newspaper, it's autocratic," he concluded.

Mr Edmonson also denied he had told the reporter Neville Thurlbeck what to write to the women seen in a notorious sex video with Max Mosley.

"I wasn't in the habit of drafting or dictating emails."

He said he "didn't like the tone" of the messages telling them they could remain anonymous if they cooperated with the paper, otherwise they would face exposure.

"I think they're a threat."

He said the "majority" of stories in which they used the private investigator Derek Webb to carry out surveillance were about love affairs, and that some were in the public interest.

"There have been a number of examples of false public image - someone portrays themselves in the media as wholesome, faithful and would never cheat on their wife but they're doing something else in private."

He said politicians would highlight their "family values" in election literature while celebrities would "parade their children" in glossy magazines.

Mr Edmonson insisted the private investigator Mr Webb had been carrying out journalistic work and was simply better at following people than reporters, but admitted "it was a sham" to make him join the National Union of Journalists.

He said important phone calls would be taped but that he would not tell the person on the end of the line that they were being recorded, lest they stopped talking.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/leveson-inquiry/9072215/Leveson-Inquiry-News-of-the-World-editor-ordered-deception-of-McCanns.html

Either Colin Myler or Edmondson is telling porky pies. Or both of them are to a degree.

LI is not ever going to get to the bottom of this, unless he sits them down face to face with the mccanns and Pinky and hamper the truth out of them once and for all. Even if he was given the truth, what is he (Leveson) going to do with answer is an enigma? What is the f...g point of this vicious musical chair third degree inquisitions of the newspapers editors and personnel all for the sake of satisfying mccanns' allegation of Mental Rape. How is that in the public interest to know? Kate got her money and apology - full stop. why drag it up again?

Ian Edmondson at the Leveson Inquiry 9^th February 2012 - transcript

Q. The McCann diary story. May I start by reminding us all of Mr Myler's version -- or rather, his evidence, pardon me. Tab 8, page 89. This is part of the transcript of his evidence given on 14 December last year. Particularly at line 20, I think, but we can skim read a little bit earlier on, but can I just try and get to the heart of this. The question was: "... but did Mr Edmondson make it clear to you that he had made it clear to Mr Mitchell that he had the whole diary and was going to cause extracts from it to be published in the News of the World? "Answer: That's what he led me to believe, yes. "Question: Because reading the transcript, and this is something which you didn't, of course, see at the time, the transcript of the conversation ..." And then we identified the transcript.

A. Mm-hm.

Q. Or maybe it's not necessary to go on, because we're then trying to interpret the transcript, about which you give clear evidence. But the gist of it is the bit I read out between lines 20 and 24. Can I seek to deal with your evidence carefully in this way: first of all, you make it clear that your only conversation with Mr Mitchell was on Friday, 12 September 2008; is that right?

A. That is right.

Q. Recording the conversation, what is your evidence in relation to that? I think you say it's standard practice?

A. Yes, it was.

Q. Were you given an instruction to do so on this occasion?

A. I was, yes.

Q. By?

A. Colin Myler.

Q. Do you know why you were given that instruction?

A. Reinforcing "please tape it" and it was standard practice to tape those types of phone calls and I might even say that to a reporter, even though it would be standard, but you would reinforce it.

Q. But was it standard practice to make it clear to your interlocutor that the call was being recorded?

A. No.

Q. And why not?

A. You wouldn't get, in general terms, a true conversation.

Q. Because?

A. They would play to the camera.

Q. Right. Do you feel that it's entirely a frank and honest procedure to conduct an interview with someone but not make it clear that it's being recorded?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Because?

A. Accuracy.

Q. Obviously it gives you concrete evidence subject to interpreting what's being said, one understands that, but is there not an element of deception -- or maybe I can put it slightly lower than that, because that, I think, is a slightly sort of sinister tone, but at least an element of misleading the person you're speaking to that you are recording them and therefore it might be used against them?

A. I think that's fair.

Q. But your feeling is, well, if you did make it clear that it was being recorded, then they would do what?

A. I would imagine freeze up, not talk to you freely, not talk to you honestly. They might not want to talk to you at all. A number of things.

Q. I can see that they might not want to talk to you at all, but you think if we did make it clear to them that they were being taped, there would be more incentive to be dishonest during the course of the interview?

A. I would say that's fair, yes.

Q. Have there been occasions when you've had conversations with people which haven't been recorded?

A. I'm sure there has been, but certainly not on a call that is paramount to a story, and something that might be used later on as evidence.

Q. The third question which was put to you in a written notice, which we see at the bottom of page 60272, the question was this: "During the course of that conversation [of course the conversation with Mr Mitchell] did you make it clear to Mr Mitchell that the News of the World had obtained a copy of Dr Kate McCann's personal diary from a source who had obtained it from the Portuguese police and that the paper intended to write a story based on that diary quoting verbatim from it? If so, please identify with reference to the transcript of your conversation where you made it clear." And then your answer, please, Mr Edmondson?

A. I didn't make it clear.

Q. And you say because you were given express instructions by Mr Myler?

A. Correct.

Q. When did he give you those instructions? Can you recall?

A. From memory, at a meeting on Thursday of that week.

Q. Why did he give you those instructions?

A. I attended a meeting with Mr Myler and Tom Crone where we discussed this story. I think we got the story to a point where I was prepared to present it to Tom and Colin, the editor. Colin gave -- sorry, I beg your pardon, Tom gave his legal view, which I'm told I'm not allowed to repeat, but which dismayed, shall I say, Mr Myler. So he decided to ask me to make a call to Mr Mitchell, not make it clear what we had, tell him in general terms, basically make it very woolly. I think someone previously used the word "ambiguous", and that is absolutely spot on what he wanted.

Q. So the preferred outcome for the end point of the conversation with Mr Mitchell would be what?

A. To give him the impression that we were running a story, but not tell him specifically what story, certainly don't tell him that we were in possession of the complete diaries, as we understood. There had been extracts in the diaries -- of the diaries in Portuguese papers which had been translated into the English papers, but certainly not to the extent that we had. He was frightened that if Clarence knew what we had, he might take action.

Q. Well, he would do -- was the fear that he would, at the very least, tell his clients, the McCanns, what was going on?

A. Correct.

Q. And they would certainly get back to Mr Myler by phone?

A. Correct.

Q. Or make an application for an injunction to stop the News of the World publishing? Is that what it amount to?

A. That's exactly what it would.

Q. What was the purpose, though, of having an ambiguous or woolly conversation, as you've described? What was the intention? That you would have Mr Mitchell's part assent? Could you put it in your own words?

A. Yeah, it would be in order to blame Clarence Mitchell that he hadn't acted properly upon instructions.

Q. I see. And was that part of Mr Myler's thinking?

A. That was his thinking.

Q. Was it Mr Crone's thinking?

A. No.

Q. So you presumably were uneasy in carrying out these instructions?

A. Yes. I had an alternative, which I presented to Mr Myler. He was the only one to have Gerry McCann's mobile number, and up until that point, he had a reasonable or very good relationship with him, and I thought he could argue that we could work collaboratively to get the diaries in the paper, and that was my suggestion.

Q. And what was Mr Myler's reaction to that suggestion?

A. "No".

Q. Because?

A. I think he believed, from memory, and I can't be sure, that that wouldn't be a successful outcome.

Q. I understand. So you were sent out to make this call and presumably in the light of the evidence you're giving to us, you felt uneasy by what you were being asked to do?

A. Yeah, I'd developed a very good relationship with Clarence and I liked him a lot. I felt very uneasy.

Q. Why did you do it then?

A. I was told to.

Q. Do you feel that this was a sort of one-off, because we're looking at this one example, or do you feel it's part of a general sort of system or culture or practice, however you want to put it, and this is just one exemplification of that?

A. I must admit I can't remember an occasion of this ilk. I'm sure there was occasions where an editor would want you to effectively deceive someone, yes.

Q. So there were other occasions of deception, to use your word, but this was a particularly egregious one, is that a fair way of putting it?

A. I think it is, yes.

Q. What about other areas of dodgy or unethical conduct which you feel you were being asked to, as it were, participate in or execute? Were there such cases in your view?

A. I can't recall instantly, but if you've made your point to the editor and it was ignored, he then asked you to do something, then you did it.

a quote from Kate at the LI with reference to the publishing of her diary that had allegedly been retro-translated back into English: quote:

Very subtle changes, but things like where I said I was "really upset", it says I was "fed up". It does change the meaning slightly.


:end quote, is there anyone here who can a) translate "I was really upset" into Portuguese and then b) translate the Portuguese phrase back into English come up with "I was fed up"?

I've tried it with German and the results are quite contraire