Douglas Caddy

Can you really believe James Murdoch's hacking story? By Roy Greenslade Guardian November 10, 2011 Let's imagine that James Murdoch spoke the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to the Commons select committee. I know it's a stretch, but stay with me. Here's his story. He was appointed as chairman of News International in 2007 after the hacking crisis was over. Though he ran News Int, he had far greater responsibilities on behalf of the parent company, News Corp. As for the News of the World, though it was one of Britain's best-selling newspapers, it was but a pipsqueak in financial terms compared to the company's other assets. Before Murdoch arrived, a post-hacking editor, Colin Myler, had been appointed to with the central task of cleaning house. Myler could draw on the offices of a vastly experienced legal manager, Tom Crone. So Murdoch expected them to handle matters that were way below his radar. When it came to hacking problems, most obviously the legal action by Gordon Taylor, chief executive of the Professional Footballers Association, it was for them, to use Murdoch's phrase, to drive the agenda. So Myler and Crone dealt alone with the paper's legal advisers, the solicitor, Julian Pike of Farrers, and the barrister, Michael Silverleaf QC. One day in 2008, 10 June to be exact, Myler and Crone arrived in Murdoch's office to obtain authorisation for a large payment - a very large, six figure payment - to settle the Taylor action. Murdoch was not shown any documents. He was not told about the contents of a damning legal opinion by Silverleaf. He was not informed about Myler's and Crone's contacts with Pike. Not only that. He didn't ask. It didn't occur to him question why the settlement was necessary, nor to ask why Taylor's phone had been hacked. It also never struck him to wonder why his senior executives were still maintaining the public stance that hacking had been confined to a "rogue reporter". The only discussion was about the level of damages and costs that the company should pay. The meeting then concluded after 15 minutes. Job done. Aside from that, he can recall no further conversations with Myler about the matter. Over and over, question after question from the MPs, he stuck firmly to that version of events. He was squeaky clean but Myler and Crone had misled the committee. Indeed, Myler had failed in his responsibilities because he had been appointed specifically "to bring the newspaper forward". And Murdoch put him right in the frame by saying: "If he had known that there was wider spread criminality I think he should have told me." Murdoch also put clear blue water between himself and Crone over the decision to put lawyers acting for hacking victims under surveillance by a private investigator. To use his convoluted phrasing, "it was not a corporate activity that was condoned." He agreed it was unacceptable and despicable, and he laid the blame squarely on Crone and one other former member of News International staff. In other words, after virtually three hours before the committee, he was unwavering in his defence of his propriety. There had been sins, for which he was duly sorry, but they were not his. However, early on in the questioning Murdoch did concede that he was aware - from the voicemail transcripts - that the paper had been involved in hacking Taylor's phone. That was, of course, an illegal act (ie, a crime). That admission may well come back to haunt him. Finally, though the headlines may well be devoted to Tom Watson's jibe about Murdoch acting like a Mafia boss (early examples here and here and here) it paled beside the Asda moment raised by Philip Davies. After explaining that he used to work for the supermarket chain (owned by the giant US company, Walmart) Davies registered his incredulity that Murdoch could have authorised the payment of more than £500,000 (to Taylor) without inquiring deeply into the reasons. "It all seems so cavalier to me," said Davies. "You agree to settle cases with no real cap but a ballpark figure. You agree that a company should have a legal opinion, but you don't even ask to see the opinion when it is written." And there, in a couple of sentences, is surely the puncturing of the Murdoch defence. What kind of company boss is that fails to show any curiosity about a massive payment in controversial circumstances? A deceitful one or an incompetent one?

James Murdoch: Myler and Crone's testimony to MPs 'misleading' News Corp heir apparent tells MPs that former News of the World editor and lawyer did not tell him about extent of phone hacking By James Robinson guardian.co.uk, Thursday 10 November 2011 11.42 EST News Corporation's third in command, James Murdoch, has turned his fire on two of the most senior former News of the World executives, telling MPs they had failed to tell him the truth about the scale of phone hacking at the paper and that they had effectively misled parliament. Murdoch, facing two and a half hours of questioning from MPs, repeatedly denied seeing or being told about evidence that hacking went beyond a single journalist at the paper. That evidence included an email sent to the paper's former chief reporter, Neville Thurlbeck, containing transcripts of hacked messages from PFA chief executive Gordon Taylor's phone, and a warning from News International's QC Michael Silverleaf that there was "a culture of illegal information access" at the paper. Murdoch told MPs on the Commons culture, media and sport select committee, which has been investigating phone hacking for more than four years, that the paper's former editor Colin Myler and its head of legal Tom Crone has failed to tell him about that evidence. "If [Myler] had known that there was wider-spread criminality I think he should have told me," he said. "We have to rely on these people and we have to trust them." Murdoch, who was running News of the World publisher News International when a £725,000 settlement was paid to Taylor in 2008, added: "The information I received about the Taylor case was incomplete. The full extent of knowledge within the business … was not made clear to me." Tom Watson MP asked Murdoch if he had misled the committee on his previous appearance in July. "No I did not," Murdoch said. "I believe this committee was given evidence by individuals either without full possession of the facts, or now, it appears in the process of my own discovery in trying to best understand what happened here, it was economical." Watson asked if Crone and Myler had misled the committee. Murdoch replied: "Certainly in the evidence they gave to you in 2011 with respect to my own knowledge, I believe it was inconsistent and not right, and I dispute it vigorously. "I believe their testimony was misleading and I dispute it." In their own evidence to the culture committee in September, both Crone and Myler insisted they told Murdoch about the existence of the "for Neville" email and this was the reason he agreed to settle Taylor's case. It has since emerged that Michael Silverleaf QC, News International's barrister, was asked to prepare a legal opinion, which stated that the company was certain to lose the Taylor case. Crone also warned Myler in a briefing note prepared in advance of a 2008 meeting with Murdoch to discuss the case that the company's position was "very perilous". Murdoch insisted he had not been told about the contents of any of those documents in any detail. Referring to a conversation between Myler and Farrar & Co, the law firm acting for News International at the time, during which he had talked about "a cancer" at the News of the World, Murdoch said. "It shows perhaps he [Myler] was worried about raising the issue with me because I would have said 'get rid of them all, get rid of the cancer'. I think that speaks volumes." He added that Myler and Crone had at first acted without his authorisation by trying to come to a settlement with Taylor in 2008. Murdoch, who is deputy chief operating officer at News Corp, the media conglomerate his father Rupert founded and chairs, said he had subsequently authorised Myler and Crone to settle with Taylor following a meeting on 10 June 2008, at which he was told an email existed which showed hacking had been commissioned by the News of the World. Just as he did at his last appearance before MPs in July, however, Murdoch said that he was not told those instructions had been issued by journalists other than former News of the World royal editor Clive Goodman, who had already been jailed for phone hacking. In a surprise twist, which cast further doubt on Murdoch's recollection of events, Labour MP Tom Watson revealed he had spoken to Thurlbeck personally and that the former News of the World journalist had claimed to him that Murdoch had been shown the "for Neville" email. The Labour MP described a conversation with Thurlbeck immediately before the committee hearing on Thursday morning, during which he told him Crone confirmed to him that the "for Neville" email had been shown to Murdoch. Watson said Thurlbeck had recalled that Crone had told him: "I'm going to have to show this to James Murdoch." Thurlbeck expressed concerns he would lose his job. Watson also said that Crone had subsequently told Thurlbeck he had shown Murdoch the email, but had reassured him he would keep his job with the words: "It's OK. We're going to settle." Murdoch responded by telling Watson he could not comment on what conversations Thurlbeck may have had with Crone. He also said several times that he could not remember an earlier 27 May meeting at which he discussed the Taylor settlement with Myler, a note about which was taken by Julian Pike of Farrer & Co. Murdoch said several times that neither he nor Myler could remember the 27 May meeting or discussion taking place, but that he could not rule out the possibility that it had happened. He also refused to rule out closing the Sun newspaper down if it could be shown that hacking had taken place at the News of the World's sister paper and condemned the decision to use private investigators to follow lawyers acting for hacking victims in civil cases. Murdoch also said Rebekah Brooks, who resigned as chief executive of News International in July 2009 when the hacking scandal was at its height, was responsible for negotiating a settlement worth a reported £1m with publicist Max Clifford in March 2010 at a time when the paper was still denying hacking was widespread. "Mrs Brooks did discuss the arrangement [with me] … but not in any great detail," he said. He displayed contrition for News International's response to the Guardian's initial revelations in July 2009 about the extent of hacking at the paper. "The company pushed back too hard," he said. "At various times during this process – and I am sorry for this – we moved into an aggressive defence too quickly." He added News International had displayed a "tendency for a period of time to react to criticism or allegations as hostile or [motivated] commercially or politically". Reminded that the company had responded furiously after MPs published a 2009 report that was critical of News International, Murdoch said: "The company at the highest level should have had a good look at the evidence that was given to you and followed that trail wherever it led." Murdoch denied he had acted incompetently by failing to get to grips with phone hacking at an earlier stage, however. "No, I don't think it shows me to be incompetent … I behaved reasonably given the information I had," he said.

If Jim is upset with my posting this article from Vanity Fair, one of the premier magazines in the world that is read by millions of people around the globe, he will really blow a fuse when he learns that earlier today I posted a New York Times interview with Stephen King about his new book, 11/22/63. Here is the link: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17444&st=30 Stephen King’s book involves time travel – going back in time to the assassination of JFK. I imagine that if Jim were granted his wish to time travel, he would choose to go back in time when he could be head of the Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition (Spanish: Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición), commonly known as the Spanish Inquisition. Here he could make certain that anyone who had views different from his own would be dealt with in accordance with his orders. [The regulation of the faith intensified after the royal decrees issued in 1492 and 1501 ordering Jews and Muslims to convert or leave.]

NOVEMBER 10, 2011 Errol Morris Interviews Stephen King By THE NEW YORK TIMES http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/10/errol-morris-interviews-stephen-king/?hp In the Nov. 13 issue of the Book Review, the documentarian Errol Morris reviews Stephen King’s new novel, “11/22/63.” The book, like the film Morris is currently completing, is about the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Because of their overlapping interests, and because Mr. Morris’s technique as a filmmaker is to chase down every clue, he requested an interview with Mr. King after finishing his review. The resulting Q. and A. is below, with Mr. Morris’s introduction. — The Editors . Stephen King’s new novel inhabits a gray area between fact and fiction. It tells the story of Lee and Marina Oswald in the years leading up to the Kennedy assassination. But this isn‘t just historical fiction; it’s a fictional vision of a historical event that has never been satisfactorily explained. To write the true history of the Kennedy assassination, we need to know it. But how much do we know of what really happened? King believes that Oswald is guilty, and argues in terms of the stories we tell about that day: “Early in the novel,” he writes in an afterword, “Jake Epping’s friend Al puts the probability that Oswald was the lone gunman at 95 percent. After reading a stack of books and articles on the subject almost as tall as I am, I’d put the probability at 98 percent, maybe even 99. Because all of the accounts, including those written by conspiracy theorists, tell the same simple American story: here was a dangerous little fame-junkie who found himself in the right place to get lucky.” Q. Errol Morris: Aren’t you going to have to deal with that whole lone gunman vs. conspiracy thing? The endless debates about what really happened? A. Stephen King: Well, I’ll tell you what. I’m prepared for trouble when the book comes out. Conspiracy people guard themselves pretty jealously. They have their theories and some of them are pretty complex, and some of them are pretty simple. Some of them have been disproved. But one of the things that sticks in my mind is that none of them has been proved. None of them. So it’s like U.F.O.s… If they’re really U.F.O.s, how come one has never landed, or we’ve never been given definitive proof? Q. But, do you have to resolve these questions? Is it even possible? Nearly 50 years later, people are still arguing about it. In the afterword, you caution people that this is not history. Patricia Wall/The New York TimesStephen King’s new novel, “11/22/63.” A. No. It is a novel. Q. But resolved or unresolved, the mystery of what happened stands behind everything. It is perhaps unavoidable. There are cases where you have the feeling of puzzle pieces coming together. Where the evidence leads to a conclusion. But there are other cases that devolve into chaos, confusion. The Kennedy assassination, I would argue, is one of them. The question is why? What happened? Why did it become an investigative morass? A. Well, the reason is, I would say, because Ruby shot Oswald. And when Ruby shot Oswald, he shut his mouth. He permanently silenced him. So there was never any light cast from that standpoint. As a result, you have all these witnesses who stepped forward who saw this and saw that and saw guys on the grassy knoll and this and that and the other thing. It’s a little bit like the blind man describing the elephant. One’s got the trunk and says it’s a snake. And one’s got a leg and says it’s a tree. One’s got an ear and says it’s a banana plant. They all say different things because none of them can see the whole thing. The only one who could really tell us what happened is dead. I’m not saying he would have, but I think he would have, I believe he would have, if he did it. And I do think he did it. Q. You mention in your afterword Thomas Mallon’s novel “Mrs. Paine’s Garage.” [Mallon chronicles the relationship between the Oswalds and the Paines, Quakers who befriended them. They are of particular historical interest because Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was stored in the Paines’ garage.] Associated Press Lee Harvey Oswald A. Yes. He has a good take on conspiracy people. And Norman Mailer, who provides an epigram at the beginning of the book, says people find it very difficult to believe it could have happened the way it happened because it suggests an absurd universe. But there it is. The line is pretty conclusive to me. The mail-order gun that he bought — he used that gun to try to shoot Gen. Edwin Walker. And that’s the gun that was found at the depository with his fingerprints on it. And then he ran, he shot the police officer J. D. Tippit, and they caught him. To me, that’s it. The chain of events seems outrageous, but let me tell you a story. This happened a couple of weeks ago in the Midwest. This guy won the lottery, he won a million dollars or something on the lottery. Maybe it was multimillions. But you know how it is, it’s a great human interest story. So the press comes and this film crew from one of the local stations says to him, “We want to recreate you winning the lottery.” You know where this is going, right? Q. I’m not sure. “The book that I wrote is a time-travel story. “ — Stephen King A. Bear with me. So they went to the store where he had bought the scratch ticket and won the million dollars. And they filmed, and he scratched the ticket and he said, “Holy — I just won another $100,000.” Now, that’s the sort of thing where if you’re not there, if you’re not part of it, you just say to yourself, “This is just absurd.” But it happens all the time. Oswald just happened to be at the right place at the right time. He and his wife were effectively done, and she was living with Mrs. Paine out in Irving. He used to come on the weekends, but that week, he came on Thursday — the night before the assassination. And it seems pretty clear from his actions and from the things he said that he had decided to do this, but that he could be persuaded to change his mind. He and Marina went to bed that night and in bed, he asked her, “Is there a chance that we can get back together?” And she was very cold to him. She said, “No, I don’t think that’s ever going to happen, Lee.” And in the morning, he left his wedding ring and he left all the money in his pockets in a teacup in the kitchen for her. And that was it. There is this chain of ifs, but really, it’s as simple as that. He wanted to shoot somebody. He wanted to be somebody famous. It’s all there. The pieces all click together pretty nicely. Q. And yet you don’t really believe in coincidences, do you? A. Yes, I do. The book that I wrote is a time-travel story. The coincidences are minimized by this idea that the past tries to echo itself over and over again. But it’s not fate when somebody wins the lottery. Some guy picks numbers, or the computer picks numbers, and those numbers come up. You know? It’s a coincidental world. Q. You have created a rabbit hole into the past. But the Kennedy assassination has always struck me as the mother of all rabbit holes. You disappear into it and never emerge again. The books get longer and longer as people write them. They started out at a couple of hundred pages. And now, the books have metastasized. Vincent Bugliosi’s book, “Reclaiming History,” is, I don’t know, more than a thousand pages. With a CD-ROM that adds a couple of thousand more. A. Yes. That’s one I didn’t read. The Mailer book, “Oswald’s Tale,” is 800 pages long. That’s a pretty long one. He goes way back to Marina’s antecedents in Russia and all the rest. But when people bring it up, I’m just going to say, “You believe what you believe.” My wife believes it’s a conspiracy. Q. You mentioned that in the afterword, that you and your wife disagreed. A. She loved John Kennedy in a way that I never did. I grew up in a Republican household, though my mother cried her eyes out when Kennedy got shot. Little John-John salutes the casket when it goes by. You couldn’t help it, whether you were Republican or Democrat. I don’t know what would happen now, but I do know one of the reasons to write the book was because there’s so much hate in the air now, so much hate. A lot of it’s directed at Obama. I think I decided I wanted to write this book when Obama was giving the State of the Union speech and that guy shouted, “You lie!” You know? It’s a real change in American politics, and it goes back to Kennedy, because people hated that guy, too, until he died. Q. One of the things that I liked about the book is what I keep thinking of as twin mysteries. There’s the mystery of whether one man can change the world by going back in time. Will it be for the better or for the worse? A. Right, the consequences. Q. Yes, the consequences of changing the world, if one could do so. The other thing, which I really, really like, is that even if we go back into the past, history remains a mystery. Is Lee Harvey Oswald guilty? Your protagonist still has to investigate because he’s a good man. He doesn’t want to kill somebody just for the sake of killing somebody. It would be immoral, it would be wrong. A. It would be wrong. Q. Before he can act, he has to give himself some assurance that he’s acting correctly, that he’s acting responsibly. So all of that stuff, placing the surveillance equipment in the Oswald apartment— A. Oh God, that was hard. The guy and his wife spoke Russian the whole time. That was the worst part of writing the book. I hope it’s not too boring. Q. I loved that part. What was so hard about it? A. Well, there was certain information I wanted to put across about how they got along and about Lee Harvey Oswald’s mother, who was just a harridan. And his feelings about socialism, how they changed, how he felt about Cuba. And I thought, the guy lives across the street. I don’t want a lot of technological huggermugger; I don’t really want to get bogged down in a lot of detail, you know? Q. There are these forces of malefaction, and then there’s one scene that I wanted to ask you about, where you make your argument for why Kennedy is a good man. It’s this moment with a gentleman in an alpine hat and lederhosen. A. Where the guy’s playing “Hail to the Chief” on the accordion for the president. It’s one of my favorite things in the whole book. You can watch it online. It’s one of the places where you see Kennedy as a real guy. I think it’s Tampa. And it’s the same car, and Kennedy does the same thing where he gets out of the car and he walks into the crowd. You can see the Secret Service people are just going absolutely nuts about this. And there’s not a thing they can do about it, because that’s the way he was. He really wanted to be with people and touch people. “I don’t want a lot of technological huggermugger; I don’t really want to get bogged down in a lot of detail, you know?” — Stephen King Q. And you liked it so much because—? A. Because it was human. You know, it was just a human moment. It humanizes him, and changes him. It’s a first-person narrative, and the best I could do is to try to humanize people from afar. See Oswald a little bit, and show that he’s not completely a monster. He did apparently love his kids. He didn’t beat them. He only beat his wife. I didn’t want them to be figures on a chessboard, O.K.? Best I can do. It’s a sentimental book in a lot of ways, but sentiment’s a part of life. I tried not to wallow in it. Q. But there’s also evil. A. Well, I try to shy away from the word “evil” because it’s so simple to say, “Well, these things happen because there’s evil in the world.” And as you say, most of it’s just little evil. But if it’s all connected — maybe it is big evil. And maybe we don’t need to say that right out loud. Q. I also wanted to ask you about the difficulty of actually writing something that is connected with real history. A. Well, I never tried anything like that before, and I’m not sure that I would ever want to try again because, man, it was too much like work. I mean, I’ve done stuff that’s used reality as a base before. In this case, that’s why I stopped the first time I tried it. I was teaching school, and it was 1971 and I was in the teacher’s room and people were talking about the Kennedy assassination. The 22nd would roll around and people would talk and write about the assassination and stuff. I guess somebody must have said, What would it have been like if Kennedy had lived? And I thought to myself, “I’d love to write a story about that.” But there are so many real people and there’s the whole idea of trying to integrate the past and make it real. And it just seemed too big to me at that time, and it was big. I’ve still got a roomful of research materials. Then once you start, the other trick is to not make it into something that’s boring, that’s all history. “Look what I read, and here are these interesting facts.” I didn’t want to do a James Michener thing. Q. Well, your romance intersects with history. It’s not historical per se. It’s a love story, and the fact that you’re off in a small town and not in the middle of everything allows you to write something that goes well beyond a collection of facts. A. Yes, a real novel. But most of the stuff about Oswald and Marina that I thought is interesting is true, and a lot of the stuff about Marguerite Oswald is true. I just tried not to overwhelm the reader with it. Q. And the idea of making the future worse? A. Well, that was always going to be the kicker for the book. When I actually sat down to write the book, I started to ask people — my wife was a history major and I asked her, “Well, what would have happened if Kennedy had lived?” And I asked some other people. Finally, I went to Doris Kearns Goodwin, who was an aide for Johnson in those days, and her husband, Dick Goodwin, who was part of the Kennedy team. And I asked them to sort of spitball about things that might have happened if Kennedy had lived. And one of the things they pointed out –– it’s a weakness with Obama, too –– Kennedy was inexperienced enough to have a real difficult time dealing with the Senate and the House of Representatives. Johnson was much better at it. He was able to push a lot of stuff through. He was very canny about it. Johnson said, “Well, we ought to do this, this and this to help memorialize our dead Jack Kennedy.” And so we got the civil rights thing and a bunch of other stuff as well, including Medicare, I think. Q. And the chances that Kennedy would have done this or have been able to do this––– A. A lot smaller. It was Doris who said – I thought of this, but it just seemed so wild – Wallace might really have gotten elected in 1968. It’s fascinating, though, isn’t it? That one minute – less than a minute – in Dallas, and everything’s up for grabs. I believe in those watershed moments. In 1999, I got hit by a van and almost killed. I was out taking a walk in the afternoon; I’ve thought back on that many times. And I’m thinking if I’d left a minute earlier or if I’d left a minute later, if I’d stayed another 15 minutes at lunch, if somebody had dropped by — if, if, if. But those things didn’t happen, so I happened to be at that one particular place at that one particular time. And something happened that changed my life. Today, it probably doesn’t matter if we talk until 10 minutes of 1 or 10 minutes past 1, things are going to go pretty much as planned. Most days, they do. But not always. Q. Did you change your view of the past at all in writing this? A. I don’t think so. I think that it clarified a little bit. When you write about the past, the more you write, the clearer the past becomes. It’s like being regressed under hypnosis. My view of the past is that attitudes change, but they change very slowly. Underneath, they stay pretty much the same. “The fundamental things apply as time goes by.” Q. Indeed. Your protagonist is sort of guilt-tripped into the past. He wasn’t even alive when Kennedy was shot. But he has nothing to lose; his life is a shambles. “My view of the past is that attitudes change, but they change very slowly. Underneath, they stay pretty much the same.” — Stephen King A. Well, it’s true that he doesn’t have much of a life in 2011. He goes back into the past and finds a life, which is probably another kind of romantic, sentimental idea, but I like it. I like the idea that he finds somewhere that he would like to stay, and I like it at the end he realizes that he cannot. If he learns anything, he learns that you have to leave things alone. Things are better left the way that they are. Q. Do you think that’s true? A. No, I don’t think it’s true for us because we can’t see the future. We don’t know the influence that our actions have. It’s something that’s unique to the time-traveler’s story; he’s screwing with the cogs and wheels of the universe. But for most of us, we go along and we do the best that we can and we try not to hurt other people. Most of us do, anyway. I guess there are always, you know, the Ted Bundys of the world. If you could go back and stop Hitler or something like that, you would, wouldn’t you? Q. Would I stop Hitler? Yes. A. Yes, sure you would. Q. My mother’s dead, but I think my mother would be proud of me. A. But, of course, she wouldn’t know who Hitler was. Because he would have been totally whisked off the stage. This book is, in a way, like a photo negative of my novel “The Dead Zone.” In that book, Johnny Smith is the guy in the high place with the rifle who feels like he’s seen the future. He’s seen this guy, Greg Stillson, and he sees what he’s going to do when he becomes president because he has this precognitive talent. And he feels like he has to kill him. At the last moment, fate intervenes. I got really uncomfortable with the idea of saying, “Well, under certain circumstances, assassination is a good thing.” And this book is a chance to do it the other way and to take the assassination back. Q. Philosophers have endlessly speculated about the nature of evil. Why there has to be evil–– A. Well, it does seem to me that, without evil, there is no good because we wouldn’t have anything to compare it to. Q. But in your novel, history seems to involve a kind of balancing act between good and evil. We don’t know the interrelationship of things. What you call the “butterfly effect”: change one thing in the hope of making the world a better place, and something’s going to happen to make the world even worse. A. Well, Ray Bradbury called it the butterfly effect before me. It’s also been called the Rube Goldberg effect –– where you see the world as an infernal machine. When you pull lever A, spring B hits cog C. The next thing you know, the models are all over the floor. I’m not saying it’s the way things are, but it’s certainly plausible. I tried as much as I could when I wrote the book not to get caught up in any of the paradoxes and things that go along with time travel. Q. Well, the book is really not about time travel per se. A. Not at all. Not at all. It’s just a device. Q. It’s a device to allow us to examine fate, love, memory, history. And as such, it’s truly compelling. A. You know what? It’s like “Gulliver’s Travels.” Swift never goes into this big long thing about well, there was a genetic mutation and therefore these people became small, and all the rest. We don’t really care about that. It’s just the idea: they’re there. Then we can use it to examine real life.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8881127/Phone-hacking-James-Murdoch-finds-mafia-comparison-offensive.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2011/nov/10/phone-hacking-james-murdoch-live

Headline: Murdoch junior is prepped for 'assault on credibility' The Independent By James Cusick and Cahal Milmo November 10, 2011 "James Murdoch is being prepped by a litigation specialist to help explain why he failed to tell MP's of discussions he had with the News of the World editor on the 'options' they faced over phone hacking.... "He's facing another tough - and no doubt long - session before the Media Select Committee today. To liven things up if you're watching at home, give yourself a point if he uses any of these phrases: "Did not have direct knowledge No recollection Can you repeat? Difficult for me to comment Regret Financial quantum Not in a position to answer Humble Before I was involved Happy to supply answer Co-operate fully Matters for current criminal investigation Not to my knowledge Approved threshold Procedural question Due process Transparency If I can clarify Documentary information"

Neville Thurlbeck rejects request to help phone-hacking investigation Former News of the World chief reporter was asked by Scotland Yard to give evidence against News International By Roy Greenslade guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 9 November 2011 15.30 EST Article The News of the World's former chief reporter, Neville Thurlbeck, has rejected a request by Metropolitan police officers to help in their phone-hacking investigation. Scotland Yard asked him whether or not he would be prepared to give evidence against News International, but he has rejected the request. It is known that the police took key documents from Thurlbeck's home when he was taken into custody on 5 April. Among them is said to be a copy of a 2009 memo which Thurlbeck says he sent to the paper's former editor, Colin Myler, and its legal manager, Tom Crone, in which he made serious allegations about a News of the World executive's involvement in hacking. The dossier is also said to contain a tape-recorded phone call made by Thurlbeck to Ross Hindley, the junior reporter who transcribed the "For Neville" email that has been the focus of the hacking investigation. Thurlbeck had tracked Hindley down to Peru. During the call, which he taped, he is believed to have made allegations against the same executive. The police now have a transcript of that call. This latest twist in the saga comes the day before the News International chairman, James Murdoch, is to appear before the Commons media select committee for a second time. He has been recalled because of discrepancies between his previous account of a crucial meeting with Myler and Crone about the "For Neville" email, and their version of events. Ever since that email emerged in public, Thurlbeck has said that he was unaware of its provenance. He says it was read to him over the phone and that he never saw or read the contents. He has broken cover after meeting two senior Met officers last Friday. Though they were not part of the Operation Weeting team devoted to investigating the hacking affair, he claims they were empowered to offer him a deal in which he might have obtained some form of immunity from prosecution in return for giving them evidence. He was told that the offer, itself contingent on the information being deemed to be in the public interest, was made under the Serious Organised Crime Act 2005. In such cases, the final decision is taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions. It is understood that Thurlbeck refused the offer because he was convinced he could prove his innocence and wished to clear his name in an above-board fashion. The heart of his claim is that his warnings about hacking activities stretching beyond the so-called "rogue reporter" – the ex-News of the World royal editor Clive Goodmnan – were ignored by the paper's senior executives. Thurlbeck is one of 16 people arrested on suspicion of taking part in phone hacking, most of whom have been placed on bail until March next year. He spent 21 years at the News of the World, as a reporter and, briefly as news editor. In explaining why he rejected the police offer to give evidence against his former colleagues, Thurlbeck said: "I have informed Scotland Yard that while I fully understand and respect the reason for their request of me to give evidence for the crown in any prosecution arising from Operation Weeting, it is my opinion that a detailed and forensic inquiry into my working methods by what is a highly-professional police unit will fully exonerate me. So, on that basis, I have declined their offer." In September, Thurlbeck lodged a claim for unfair dismissal against News International after he was sacked. The company has stopped paying his legal fees. He has spoken about the News of the World newsroom's working methods, saying "reporting teams operated rather like IRA cells". He said: "We were assigned to stories and given specific details, but we didn't know where the tips came from." He told of an occasion when his team were told by the news desk exactly when and where they would find a person they were required to interview or photograph. "This information was remarkably detailed," he said. "In many cases, reporters would be sent by an executive to intercept people at very specific locations and they would be taken by surprise. "They were often baffled how we had found them and to be honest, so were we. We just assumed the executive had received a tip-off. But we wouldn't know for certain as they kept their cards very close to their chest."

Ten questions for James Murdoch James Murdoch is to face MPs' questions over what he knew and when during the News of the World phone-hacking scandal By Dan Sabbagh guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 9 November 2011 17.37 EST James Murdoch, son of Rupert Murdoch and Chairman and Chief Executive of News Corporation is to face MPs questions over the phone-hacking scandal. 1 Clive Goodman, the jailed former royal reporter, wrote in March 2007 to your predecessor that phone hacking "was widely discussed at the daily editorial conference". Why did you not ask to review the Goodman file? 2 Why did you not ask to see Michael Silverleaf's opinion of June 2008 which said there was "a culture of illegal information access" at the News of the World after you were briefed on it orally? 3 Do you believe internal evidence about phone hacking such as the Goodman letter and the Silverleaf opinion was withheld from you? And by whom? 4 Why do you maintain you were not told about the "for Neville" email when both Colin Myler and Tom Crone say it was the sole reason for asking you to authorise the six-figure settlement of the Gordon Taylor case? 5 Why did you not ask why Mulcaire had admitted in court to hacking people such as Elle MacPherson and Simon Hughes who would not have been of interest to Goodman who was put on trial with him? Did those targets not suggest to you that hacking may be more widespread? 6 What were you told were the reasons for reaching a £1m settlement with Max Clifford in March 2010? Did you ask why it was necessary to settle that case. 7 When the Guardian first reported in July 2009 that "thousands" of mobile phones had been targeted, News International responded with an aggressive denial of the allegations. Why did you allow News International to make that statement? 8 Why were NI employees allowed to ask a private investigator to conduct surveillance of the lawyers bringing cases against your company? Why did you not know about a practice you say you do not condone? 9 Did you authorise the severance payment for Rebekah Brooks, which is understood to be in excess of £1.7m? Why do executives who resign and are subsequently arrested deemed worthy of a severance payment? 10 Do you believe you were sufficiently curious about what was going on at the company you ran? Does this make you a fit and proper person to run a media company?

Phone hacking: News of the World chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck warned hacking was widespread Detectives investigating phone hacking at have seized a dossier of evidence which apparently shows Neville Thurlbeck warned the paper's editor two years ago that phone hacking was widespread. Neville Thurlbeck refused to comment on claims that he sent Mr Myler and Mr Crone a memo pinpointing Edmondson Daily Telegraph By Mark Hughes, Crime Correspondent 5:56PM GMT 09 Nov 2011 Documents taken from the home of Thurlbeck are said to include a memo he wrote to Colin Myler, the paper’s former editor, and Tom Crone, the ex head of legal, telling them that Ian Edmondson, the news editor, was involved in phone hacking. The evidence uncovered by the Metropolian Police has emerged as James Murdoch, the chairman of News International, appears before MPs for a second time on Thursday. It is now alleged that senior News of the World executives failed to act on numerous warnings over the scale of phone hacking under Mr Murdoch's chairmanship of News International. Detectives hope that Mr Thurlbeck will now become a key prosecution witness and have offered him immunity. Thurlbeck, 50, is thought to have met with police last Friday where he was asked to consider providing evidence against some of his former colleagues. However, he has told the Daily Telegraph that he has rejected the offer, believing that the police investigation will ultimately exonerate him. The offer, however, shows that following the apparent discovery of his dossier detectives now believe that Thurlbeck is potentially more useful as a witness that a suspect. Thurlbeck, who is currently on police bail after being arrested in April, is believed to have written the memo in July 2009 telling the executives that Edmondson was behind the hacking of Gordon Taylor’s phone. He is also believed to have provided a taped recording of a conversation between himself and Ross Hall, the junior reporter who transcribed the voicemail which was in the now infamous ‘for Neville’ email. In the tape Hall is believed to say that it was Edmondson, not Thurlbeck, who had commissioned the hacking. He is said to have sent the memo two days before Mr Crone and Mr Myler appeared at a parliamentary committee to say there was no evidence that hacking went beyond Clive Goodman and Glenn Mulcaire, the reporter and private investigator who were jailed in January 2007. Mr Crone and Mr Myler are already facing claims they were told that hacking went wider than a lone “rogue reporter” in 2008 when Michael Silverleaf QC sent a letter saying there was “overwhelming evidence” that other reporters were involved. The Daily Telegraph has now been told that, as well as being told by external lawyers, the News of the World executives were apparently told by their own chief reporter that hacking was being orchestrated by the news desk and, in particular, Edmondson. The fact that Thurlbeck’s warning was sounded during James Murdoch’s watch will intensify pressure on the News International chief. He is due to give evidence to MPs tomorrow. He is now likely to be asked whether Thurlbeck’s dossier was ever mentioned to him. Contacted by the Daily Telegraph, Thurlbeck refused to comment on claims that he sent Mr Myler and Mr Crone a memo pinpointing Edmondson. On the topic of potential immunity, he said: “I have told the police that while I fully understand and respect the reason for their request, it is my opinion that a detailed and forensic inquiry into my working methods will fully exonerate me. On that basis, I will not be giving evidence for the Crown.” Spokesmen for the Metropolitan Police and News International both refused to comment.

NoW's alleged surveillance targets range from royalty to sport Prince William, Angelina Jolie and Sir Alex Ferguson among figures private eye Derek Webb was allegedly asked to follow By James Robinson guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 9 November 2011 08.24 EST The list of people that private investigator Derek Webb claims to have followed on the instructions of the News of the World includes prominent public figures from the worlds of sport, showbusiness, politics, the media and royalty. They include Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson, former Labour cabinet ministers Alan Johnson and Charles Clarke and Hollywood actors Sienna Miller and Angelina Jolie. Channel 4 News last night published a list of 153 names Webb was allegedly asked to follow by the now defunct News International title from 2003 to 2011, with the identities of members of the public removed. The list appears to show that the paper was using Webb to gather information at various times about the people who the News of the World's readers would be most interested in reading about. MediaGuardian has grouped them by industry and listed them alphabetically. Crime Maxine Carr Law Charlotte Harris Grace Ononiwu Newspapers/publishing Anna Fazackerley (journalist) Kimberley Fortier (former Spectator publisher) Simon Hoggart (Guardian journalist) Zoe Williams (Guardian journalist) Politics Alan Johnson MP Bob Crow Boris Johnson Charles Clarke (ex MP) Charles Kennedy (MP) Chris Huhne (MP) Clare Short (ex MP) David Blunkett (MP) David Milliband (MP) Derek Draper Eric Joyce (MP) Geoff Hoon (ex MP) Harriet Harman MP Hilary Perrin (Labour party official) Justine Greening (MP) Lord Archer Lord Goldsmith Lord Irvine Lord Macdonald Mike Hancock (MP) Philip Woolas (ex MP) Shabana Mahmood (MP) Shahid Malik (ex MP) Stephen Twigg MP Tom Watson MP Sport Alan Shearer Alex Ferguson Andy Gray Ashley Cole Benjamin Mwarawairi (footballer) Chris Coleman Danny Cipriani David Beckham Fernando Torres Frank Bruno Frank Lampard Gary Lineker Gordon Taylor Ian Wright James Cracknell (Olympic rower) Joanne Armstrong John Motson John Terry Jose Mourinho Keven Pieterson Lee Chapman Mark Bosnich Michelle Lineker (former wife of Gary Lineker) Paul Gascoigne Peter Kenyon Rio Ferdinand Simon Jordan Ted Terry (father of John Terry) Tony Pulis· Lord Coe Showbusiness Angelina Jolie Beverly Turner Daniel Radcliffe Daniel Radcliffe's parents Elle MacPherson Gary Glitter George Michael Heather Mills Lulu Ms Dynamite Paul McCartney Peaches Geldof Peter Andre Rik Mayall Ronan Keating Sienna Miller Simon Cowell Sophie Anderton Royalty/aristocracy Chelsy Davy Duke of Westminster Earl Spencer Paul Burrell Prince Harry Prince William Television Ainsley Harriott Alan Titchmarsh Amie Buck (former The X Factor contestant) Ben Freeman (former soap star) Chris Tarrant Connie Fisher (talent show winner) Delia Smith Gaby Logan Gloria De Piero (ex GMTV political correspondent, now an MP) Gordon Ramsey Grant Bovey (husband of Anthea Turner) Jackiey Budden (mother of Jade Goody) Jane Goldman (wife of Jonathan Ross) Jessie Wallace Johnny Vaughan Leslie Grantham Nigella Lawson Paul Ross Phillip Schofield Pollyanna Woodward (TV presenter) Richard Hammond Richard Madeley Steve Arnold (former soap star)· Steve McFadden Sue Cleaver (soap star) Sir Trevor McDonald Vanya Seager (former wife of Robson Green)

Phone hacking: police have told fewer than one in eight potential victims Some 638 of 5,800 possible victims have been contacted by Met, highlighting how far the investigation has still to run By Lisa O'Carroll guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 9 November 2011 09.13 EST Fewer than one in eight of the potential News of the World phone-hacking victims have been contacted by Scotland Yard to confirm there is evidence that their voicemails may have been intercepted. Of the possible 5,800 hacking victims identified so far, 638 have been contacted by officers working on the inquiry to confirm that their phones may have been hacked. The relatively small number shows how far the investigation has to run before it completes its analysis of about 11,000 pages of notes seized from the home of Glenn Mulcaire, the News of the World investigator at the centre of the phone-hacking scandal. "It is an ongoing investigation, you can only go as fast as the evidence allows you," said a Met spokesman. Scotland Yard said those contacted were a mixture of people who its officers had identified and of people who had come forward suspecting their voicemails had been intercepted by Mulcaire. "To date officers from Operation Weeting have contacted or been contacted by 1,833 people. It has been established that the names of 638 of these 1,833 people have appeared in material being analysed by police and may therefore have been victims of phone hacking," the Met added. The figures also undermine News International's efforts to settle phone-hacking cases out of court. Last week it launched a voluntary compensation scheme for potential victims, but solicitors have queried what proof a potential victim can supply to the company when the police investigation is ongoing. Scotland Yard's phone-hacking investigation, Operation Weeting, has been going since January and is staffed by 45 full-time detectives. In July Met deputy assistant commissioner Sue Akers, who is running the inquiry, revealed that 150 people had been told they were potential victims. The latest figure means they have now contacted four times as many. Last week, the Guardian revealed that the number of possible victims was now close to 5,800. This is 2,000 more than previously identified by detectives tasked with trawling through 11,000 pages of notes seized from Mulcaire's home. It is known that Mulcaire kept meticulous notes of his activities, with names of potential targets and of those whose messages he may have intercepted. A summary of his notes will be published by the Leveson inquiry into press ethics. The names of any News of the World journalists in his notes – the so called "corner names", where he wrote who at the paper had commissioned a particular person to be hacked – will be anonymised, Leveson said this week. It will be the first time his notes will be discussed in such detail in any public forum since they were seized in 2006. Leveson said he also intended to ask the police for a summary of the progress of their investigation. Names of suspects will be anonymised.

James Murdoch to Face More Questioning by Lawmakers The New York Times By SARAH LYALL and DON VAN NATTA Jr. November 9, 2011 LONDON — James Murdoch may have embarrassing questions to answer when he returns to Westminster on Thursday to testify before a parliamentary committee investigating the phone hacking scandal that has engulfed the News Corporation. Documents released since his first round of testimony in July have cast doubt on his version of events, while fresh revelations have spilled out about his company’s questionable practices. Mr. Murdoch, the company’s deputy chief operating officer and the younger son of its chairman, Rupert Murdoch, was a deft and deflecting witness in July, nimbly parrying lawmakers’ questions while maintaining essentially that he had learned only recently how widespread the hacking problem really was. Now, he will be faced with defending himself against mounting evidence that top executives at News International, the company’s British newspaper arm, knew a full three years ago that hacking was pervasive at The News of the World, the tabloid newspaper that the company shut down in July, and that the executives discussed it with Mr. Murdoch at the time. “Obviously, there are things which the committee wishes to raise with him, particularly in relation to some of the evidence we have received since he testified,” said John Whittingdale, a Conservative member of Parliament and chairman of the committee holding the hearings, the select committee on culture, media and sport. Mr. Murdoch will also be asked about News International’s behavior after the investigation into its hacking operation intensified. The company acknowledged this week that over the past year and a half, The News of the World had hired a private investigator to conduct covert surveillance of two lawyers representing victims of phone hacking. The admission was prompted by a report in The Guardian that the investigator, Derek Webb, followed and photographed the lawyers and their families, presumably in the hope of unearthing unsavory information about them and using it to discourage them from pursing their cases. “While surveillance is not illegal, it was clearly deeply inappropriate in these circumstances,” the company said in a statement. “This action was not condoned by any current executive at the company.” Mr. Webb told the BBC that he had done such work for The News of the World routinely for eight years, spying on dozens of people, including Prince William; the sports broadcaster Gary Lineker; Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney general; Chelsy Davy, Prince Harry’s former girlfriend; José Morinho, the former manager of the Chelsea soccer team; and the parents of the actor Daniel Radcliffe. “I was working for them extensively on many jobs throughout that time,” Mr. Webb told the network. “They phoned me up by the day or by the night.” Recently released News of the World documents, some of them obtained by the parliamentary committee from News International’s former lawyers, Farrer & Company, show that on June 3, 2008, a lawyer warned company executives in a memo that there was “a powerful case that there is (or was) a culture of illegal information access” at the paper. The lawyer, Michael Silverleaf, also said there was “overwhelming evidence of the involvement of a number of senior journalists” in the paper’s attempts to illegally obtain information about Gordon Taylor, the chief executive of the Professional Footballers’ Association. Mr. Silverleaf’s memo was written at a time when top News International executives, including James Murdoch, were mulling over how to respond to Mr. Taylor’s claim that his voice mail messages had been repeatedly hacked by the News of the World. Mr. Silverleaf counseled them to handle the case privately. “To have this paraded at a public trial would, I imagine, be extremely damaging” to the company, he said. Even more potentially worrying for Mr. Murdoch is the growing body of evidence that other executives discussed newly discovered details of phone hacking at the paper with him around the same time. For example, a May 27 note by Julian Pike, a Farrer & Company lawyer, says that Colin Myler, the editor of The News of the World, spoke to Mr. Murdoch about Mr. Taylor’s claims and that the two men decided to refer it to outside counsel. Another note two weeks later — after Mr. Silverleaf wrote his damning conclusions — says that after meeting Tom Crone, who was the legal manager of News International at the time, Mr. Murdoch “said he wanted to think through options” about how to proceed in the case. Several days later, Mr. Murdoch authorized News International to pay Mr. Taylor more than £450,000 ($725,000) and legal fees exceeding $322,000. Mr. Pike has said that Mr. Murdoch personally authorized the amount, in exchange for a pledge of confidentiality, to keep the matter from being made public. Tom Watson, a Labour member of the parliamentary committee and a persistent critic of News International, said that the panel would question Mr. Murdoch further about the Taylor settlement. “It’s a curious bit about James Murdoch saying he wants to think about his options” — options that included “making a large payment to keep this quiet,” Mr. Watson said. Mr. Murdoch, 38, has been seen for some time as his 80-year-old father’s heir apparent at the top of the sprawling News Corporation media empire. He got a vote of confidence last week when Chase Carey, News Corporation’s chief operating officer, said he was doing a “good job.” On Thursday, though, Mr. Murdoch’s credibility may be on the line. He has always maintained that when he authorized the Taylor payment, he was acting on the advice of lawyers and had no reason to believe that hacking had gone beyond the actions of a single “rogue reporter” — Clive Goodman, the former royal reporter at The News of the World, who was jailed in 2007 for intercepting private voice mail messages of members of the royal household. But the lawyers’ notes indicate that Mr. Murdoch had several discussions with other executives who knew that the hacking was more widespread before he agreed to the settlement with Mr. Taylor. Mr. Myler and Mr. Crone came forward over the summer to dispute Mr. Murdoch’s July testimony, telling the committee that they informed Mr. Murdoch of a damning e-mail marked “for Neville” — a reference to Neville Thurlbeck, The News of the World’s chief reporter, who was given transcripts of illicitly intercepted phone messages. On May 24, 2008, Mr. Crone sent a letter summarizing the case to Mr. Myler, the paper’s editor, to help him prepare for his “planned chat with chief exec James Murdoch.” In the memo, Mr. Crone describes the “for Neville” e-mail as “fatal to our case.” He adds: “The position is perilous. The damning e-mail is genuine.” In his July testimony, Mr. Murdoch denied knowing about the “for Neville” e-mail. The committee also plans to ask about a report by The Guardian last weekend that Rebekah Brooks, the former News International chief executive who was arrested in July on suspicion of phone hacking and illegal payments to police officers, received a severance package of more than $2 million, an office and a car and driver when she resigned from News International. A spokesman for Ms. Brooks did not return calls seeking comment. A spokeswoman for News Corporation said she could not comment on Ms. Brooks’s severance agreement or on what James Murdoch did or did not know. “Whatever he has to say, I think it’s appropriate that he says it to the committee on Thursday,” she said.

Widow of Opportunity Reaction to the recent release of Jacqueline Kennedys half-century-old conversations with Arthur Schlesinger Jr. focused largely on a winsomely innocent reverence for her husband. The author sees a different Jackie: savvy, manipulative, disingenuousand lacking the class for which she was so admired. By Christopher Hitchens Vanity Fair Magazine http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/12/hitchens-201112 If you were to set a competition for the headline most unlikely to appear in an American magazine, the winning entry would surely be JACKIE TACKY or TACKY JACKIE. In her life and even posthumously, it always somehow fell to Jackie Kennedy to raise the tone. An exacting task in her case, and exquisitely so when one appreciates that she had to raise the tone without ever actually admitting that the tone could use a bit of raising. But it was always implicitly acknowledged that a dash of Bouvier was needed, like a tincture of yeast in the lump, to refine the rather coarse mixture of The Last Hurrah and bootleg that was the original Kennedy patrimony. And the new First Ladya working title she disliked, incidentallypossessed just that hint of class that is respected by the mass. (You may wish to attempt enunciating my last phrasing in the tones of Hyannis or Back Bay or Harvard.) Yet now, reading and listening through her half-century-old sit-downs with the historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., recorded shortly after her husbands assassination, I am once again visited with that vague feeling that the lovely widow has actually rather lowered the tone. Much of the commentary on Jacqueline Kennedy: Historic Conversations on Life with John F. Kennedy has focused on the self-subordinating, near-doormat opinion that Jackie voiced of her own status as a wife. Enhanced by the unexpected breathiness of her voice (almost Marilyn-like on some portions of the tape), the avowal of being confined to an awful Victorian or Asiatic kind of marriage, or a Japanese one, as Schlesinger prompts her to say, has upset her granddaughters and those ladies on The View, who believe in the tradition of strong womanhood. But when examined carefully and in context, the pouting refusal to have any ideas except those supplied by her lord and master turns out not to be evidence of winsome innocence but a soft cover for a specific sort of knowingness and calculation. Left out of the boys conversation and kept in the dark, eh? She tells Schlesinger, when the subject of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and civil rights is raised, that she regards Dr. King as a moral monster who goes as far as to arrange orgies in Washington hotels. She can have been in a position to say this only if, as a special treat, she had been cut in on the salacious surveillance tapes by which J. Edgar Hoover kept the enemies of the Kennedy clan (and Kennedy himself) under his thumb. This was the rawest and raunchiest underside of access to crude power. It has to make one ask how much else she knew, about the presidents stupefying consumption of uppers and downers, for examplerather difficult to conceal from a wifelet alone how often she had to close her eyes or her ears as the door practically banged on the heels of a departing mistress or hooker (or Sam Giancanas moll Judith Exner). Bambi-like looks notwithstanding, it sure was the sexual channel along which she directed her antennae. And quite a wised-up channel at that: why would tough babes such as Clare Boothe Luce and Madame Nhu seem to care seriously about the politics of the politicians they championed? Did such ardent attachment, Mrs. Kennedy speculated, suggest the heated effect of Sapphos incandescent verses: Madame Nhu tearing all around, saying things about him [President Kennedy]I suppose she was more of an irritant. But once I asked him, Why are these women like her and Clare Luce, who both obviously are attracted to men, why are theywhy do they have this queer thing for power? She was everything Jack found unattractivethat I found unattractive in a woman. And he said, Its strange, he said, but its because they resent getting their power through men. And so they become reallyjust hating men, whatever you call that. She was rather like Clare Luce. (whispers) I wouldnt be surprised if they were lesbians. While Jackie was not always wrong by any means when it came to rendering a thumbnail of some dame (clichés they may be, but you cant dispense with lemons and prunes when analyzing the chemical composition of Mrs. Gandhi), its still slightly off-putting to find her so eagerly searching for the bitch-slap put-down (She is a real prunebitter, kind of pushy, horrible woman), based on experience she can have gained only by accepting the role of insider and distinctly relishing it. Michael Beschloss, who has steered this frail craft of last-sip publishing into harbor, may have overstepped himself as a historian by saying that the tapes show Jackie as a major player in the Kennedy administration. But they certainly make it difficult if not impossible to accept her at her own paradoxical valuation, as merely a self-effacing hostess and decorator. If the subject were being a major player in establishing the popular reputation of the Kennedy administration, that would be an entirely different story. With amazingly professional velocity, she seized control of the image-making process and soon had an entire cadre of historians and super-journos honing and burnishing the script. And there again, as I revisit it, comes that weird feeling that the taste and style pressure were being exerted very slightly downward. Take the single example that everybody knows best: the notorious interview she gave to Lifes Theodore H. White and the way in which it forced even cautious academic historians into emplacing a showbiz promotion into the heart of the American discourse. Here it is as Life magazine printed it while the hoofbeats died away, on December 6, 1963: When Jack quoted something, it was usually classical, but Im so ashamed of myselfall I keep thinking of is this line from a musical comedy. At night, before wed go to sleep, Jack liked to play some records; and the song he loved most came at the very end of this record. The lines he loved to hear were: Dont let it be forgot, that once there was a spot, for one brief shining moment that was known as Camelot. She liked that closing line so much that she insisted that White repeat it, and enshrine it, which he very thoroughly did, even ending his article with it. Now consider: The nation has just buried a president whose books were replete with the language of valor and grandeurfit rhetoric for Profiles in Courage. Arlington cemetery has been garlanded as never in the century. The bugle calls can still be heard wafting on the air. And then: Oh, mercy me, why do I worry my pretty little head?why, all I can call to mind is some plonking ditty from Lerner and Loewe that even the Broadway critics found a tad paltry. Odd, when you reflect upon it, that her first instinct was for the popular, the kitsch, and the second-rate. (And can you imagine what the Hyannis crowd would have said if Mamie Eisenhower and Pat Nixon had admitted to the same writhe-making cultural preferences?) Then the inevitable second thought arrives: Shes the only possible witness to this supposed wish for posterity. Nothing else in the interview is vindicated by truth. (She was horrified by the stories that she might live abroad…. Im going to live in the places I lived with Jack. ) The other opinions expressed are patently insincere (The Johnsons are wonderful, theyve been wonderful to me). Her need to make an immediate impression is evidently very strong. And yet her very first concern is to keep things within the mental and aesthetic grasp of the average, to reduce the horizon and shrink the frontier. I suppose it depends on what makes you cringe. On the tape we hear the patter of tiny feet, and its little John-John scampering into the room. With amazing effronteryand just three months after the presidents deathArthur Schlesinger inquires what happened to his father. The little boy responds that hes gone to heaven. Not yet content, Schlesinger asks the absurd question Do you remember him?, to which the kid replies first, Yeah, and second, I dont remember any-thing. I dont even want to suspect that this little encounter was choreographed to the slightest degree. But somehow, if it was … At any rate, there can be little doubt that, throughout the taping, Mrs. Kennedy was in permanent and vigilant damage-control mode. She maintains the often exploded falsehood that her husband, and not his trusted consigliere Theodore Sorensen, was the true author of Profiles in Courage, which had earned the aspirant candidate an attention-getting Pulitzer. And she stoutly maintains that the new president wrote his own inaugural address, when it has been well established that the weightier hands on the manuscript were those of Adlai Stevenson and John Kenneth Galbraith. In sticking to the party/clan line in this way, moreover, she doesnt just exhibit faith in her husbands undiluted talents. She evinces a sound working knowledge of all the infighting and backbiting that accompanied both plagiarism scandals. In fact, or in retrospect, this awareness that it wasnt a safe subject may have impelled her, in that White interview, to steer attention away from the classical and noble invocations of Profiles and toward the safer destination of light opera. You dont have to be a cynic to detect something stale and contrived in any further milking of the Camelot tale and its sole author. Recent years have seen the departure of Schlesinger and Sorensen from the scene, and a continued slow erosion of the old bodyguard of liars, prepared at least to xxxxx themselves with their swords as they contested any additional unwelcome disclosures about what had sometimes gone on down Camelot way. The John F. Kennedy Presidential Library is now renowned among presidential and other scholars as the most obstructive and politicized of the lot. The opening of hitherto sealed official archives and rec-ords has tended to remove rather than to add luster to the magic years of 196063, germinal soil for the later misery of Vietnam. A truly deft Kennedy apologist might decide that a period of relative reticence would be advisable. And so might holding it down a bit on the knockoffs and the franchises. For some people, the 1996 public auction of Mrs. Kennedys private effects, down to the most trivial and tangential (such as her Hermès hairbrush), was when the wrong scent began somehow to cling to the business. For others, it was Caroline Kennedys release in 2001 of a volume fragrantly titled The Best-Loved Poems of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, which one hopes would not have seduced the incautious purchaser into supposing that the First Lady had ever extended herself into verse. If they did fall for that, then at least they got some quite decent poems that, at one time or another, Jackie had indeed best loved. Certainly a superior bargain to the buying of Why England Slept (an account of Britains moral collapse in the face of Hitler), rushed into print in 1940 by the evil patriarch Joseph Kennedy and passed off as the work of J.F.K. Again, it turns out that full and proper credit may not have been given to the books chief author, the biddable journalist Arthur Krock. In presidential terms, plagiarism is not high among the list of vices. In fact, its so rare as to seem almost … sophisticated. And yet, kleptomania is among the most vulgar of crimes. Better on the whole, though, not to make it into a family failing. And even plagiarism is to be preferred to the recycling of mythical or distorted history. It could be that very element that caused Mrs. Kennedy, given so many chances to uphold a gold standard, to discard it in favor of the reverse alchemy now on show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9jJGbokSWY

8 November 2011 Last updated at 13:30 ET Dossier shows NoW surveillance on massive scale Prince William was followed in 2006 BBC News A dossier of evidence obtained by BBC Newsnight from an ex-policeman hired by the News of The World (NoW) shows the newspaper was engaged in covert surveillance on an industrial scale. Over eight years Derek Webb was paid to follow more than 100 targets. They included Prince William, Prince Harry's ex-girlfriend Chelsy Davy, former attorney general Lord Goldsmith and football manager Jose Mourinho. The now-defunct paper's owner News International has yet to comment. Along with celebrities like football pundit Gary Lineker, relatives of celebrities - such as the parents of actor Daniel Radcliffe - were also targeted. Mr Webb says he is not ashamed of his actions and that he did nothing illegal. Speaking exclusively to Newsnight's Richard Watson, he said that shortly after setting up his own private detective agency in 2003 he was contacted by the NoW and offered work. He continued to work for the newspaper until it was shut down in July after a string of allegations emerged about the hacking of phones, including that of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler. "I was working for them extensively on many jobs throughout that time. I never knew when I was going to be required. They phoned me up by the day or by the night... It could be anywhere in the country." Mr Webb is a former police officer who worked for many years in covert surveillance and received additional training from MI5. He said he felt the paper should have given him "loyalty money" for his eight years of service when it closed - as it had done for other freelancers - but it refused. Target selection Mr Webb said that most of the time he received his commissions over the phone, but sometimes he was also e-mailed photographs or address details to assist him in his work. The approaches came from a number of journalists at the paper, he said. "I got calls from numerous journalists on the news desk," Mr Webb said. The private detective said that 90% of his targets were celebrities or politicians. In 2006 Mr Webb was asked to follow Prince William when the prince was spending a number of days in Gloucestershire. It was also in 2006 that Mr Webb covertly followed Gary Lineker, a job which lasted a number of weeks. Lord Goldsmith was followed by Mr Webb whilst he was attorney general for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. And on occasion the surveillance was not restricted to celebrities or public figures, but the people that surrounded them - Mr Webb's records show that in the last two years he was hired to follow the parents of Harry Potter star Daniel Radcliffe. Detailed logs Mr Webb kept detailed logs of his movements and observations while on surveillance jobs, which Newsnight has seen. "Basically I would write down what they were wearing at the time, what car they were in, who they met, the location they met, the times - the times were very important - and I would keep that. "And then I would transfer part of it into my diary, but not the actual log itself. Just the names of the people." Mr Webb said he never asked his contacts at the newspaper why they had selected the targets for surveillance. He also defended his work for the newspaper pointing out that what he had done was legal. "The News of The World employed me to do a job, I did the job to the best of my ability. I didn't infringe on private ground, on private property... I never did anything which is unlawful," he said. Mr Webb said that he was not concerned by the nature of his work: "I don't feel ashamed. I know to a certain extent people's lives have been ruined with front page stories but... if I wasn't doing it, somebody else would have been." Watch Richard Watson's full report in which the names of more News of the World surveillance targets will be revealed on Newsnight at 22:30 GMT on Tuesday, 8 November 2011, then afterwards on the BBC iPlayer and Newsnight website.

Prince William 'among News of the World surveillance targets' Daily Telegraph 6:26PM GMT 08 Nov 2011 A private investigator carried out surveillance of Prince William and scores of other targets for the News of the World, it was claimed tonight. In 2006 Mr Webb was asked to follow Prince William when he was spending a number of days in Gloucestershire Derek Webb was paid to follow and record the movements of celebrities picked by the newspaper's staff, the BBC reported. The investigator told Newsnight: "Basically I would write down what they were wearing at the time, what car they were in, who they met, the location they met, the times – the times were very important – and I would keep that. "And then I would transfer part of it into my diary, but not the actual log itself. Just the names of the people." A spokesman for the Duke of Cambridge declined to comment. Mr Webb told the broadcaster that over eight years he was paid to follow more than 90 targets including former Attorney General Lord Goldsmith and football pundit Gary Lineker. Relatives, such as the parents of actor Daniel Radcliffe, were also targeted, he said. In 2006 Mr Webb was asked to follow the Prince when he was spending a number of days in Gloucestershire, it was claimed. The investigator, a former policeman, told Newsnight: "I was working for them extensively on many jobs throughout that time. "I never knew when I was going to be required. "They phoned me up by the day or by the night ... It could be anywhere in the country." Carrying out surveillance is not illegal and is not new for journalists or private investigators. Mr Webb added: "I got calls from numerous journalists on the news desk." The private detective said that 90% of his targets were celebrities or politicians. It was also in 2006 that Mr Webb covertly followed Gary Lineker, a job which lasted a number of weeks, the BBC reported

News of the World paid me to follow 90 people, claims private detective Former policeman says he surveilled figures including Prince William and the parents of Harry Potter actor Daniel Radcliffe By Lisa O'Carroll guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 8 November 2011 13.33 EST A private detective has claimed the News of the World paid him to target more than 90 people, including Prince William, former attorney general Lord Goldsmith and the parents of Harry Potter actor Daniel Radcliffe, for eight years until it was shut down in July. Derek Webb, a former policeman who said he started working for the News of the World shortly after setting up his own private detective agency in 2003, has told the BBC's Newsnight he continued to carry out surveillance for the News International title until it was closed at the height of the phone-hacking scandal. The investigator said he was paid by the paper to follow more than 90 targets including Prince William, Goldsmith, Radcliffe's parents and Match of the Day presenter Gary Lineker. "I was working for them extensively on many jobs throughout that time. I never knew when I was going to be required. They phone me up by the day or by the night… it could be anywhere in the country," Webb told Newsnight's Richard Watson, in a report to be broadcast on the BBC2 daily current affairs show on Tuesday night. In 2006 he was asked to follow Prince William while he spent a few days in Gloucestershire. A former police officer, Webb worked for many years on covert surveillance and had some training from MI5. He told the BBC he set up his own detective agency in 2003 and was approached shortly after that by the News of the World. Most of commissions were over the phone, but sometimes he was sent photographs or address details to work from. The orders came from several journalists on the paper, he reveals. Like Glenn Mulcaire, the other private investigator known to have been used extensively by the News of the World, Webb kept detailed notes of his movements. "Basically I would write down what they were wearing at the time, what car they were in, who they met, the location they met, the times – the times were very important – and I would keep that. "And then I would transfer part of it into my diary, but not the actual log itself. Just the names of the people," says Webb. He said 90% of his targets were celebrities and politicians and that he got calls from "numerous journalists on the news desk". The BBC said the names of more News of the World surveillance targets would be revealed in Tuesday's Newsnight. His claims will further add to claims that the News of the World targeted celebrities, royals, politicians and victims of crime on an industrial scale. The Guardian revealed on Monday that the News of the World had also paid Webb to to run covert surveillance on two of the lawyers representing phone-hacking victims as part of an operation to put pressure on them to stop their work. Webb secretly videoed Mark Lewis and Charlotte Harris as well as family members and associates. Evidence suggests it was part of an attempt to gather evidence for false smears about their private lives. Last week the Metropolitan police confirmed that the number of possible victims of phone hacking by Mulcaire is now close to 5,800. This is 2,000 more than previously identified by detectives tasked with trawling through 11,000 pages of notes seized from Mulcaire's home.

Deleted.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread773044/pg1&flagit=773044

News of the World hired private eye to spy on phone hacking victims' lawyers Daily Telegraph By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter 8:13PM GMT 07 Nov 2011 A private investigator hired by the News of the World carried out covert surveillance on two lawyers representing phone-hacking victims as part of an apparent plan to smear them. The investigator spied on Mark Lewis and Charlotte Harris, as well as members of their families, to compile a “dossier” about their private lives. Last night News International, which published the News of the World, admitted to carrying out surveillance on the two lawyers, which it described as “deeply inappropriate”. James Murdoch, who was in his current role as executive chairman of News International at the time the surveillance took place, is likely to be asked whether he knew about it when he makes a second appearance before a committee of MPs on Thursday. The Daily Telegraph has been told that an internal News International memo unearthed by police suggests that one of the reasons the two solicitors were targeted was because the company was trying to protect Andy Coulson, the former editor who became the Conservative Party’s head of communications. NI executives were desperate to avoid “negative publicity” which could bring down Mr Coulson. He resigned from his Downing Street post earlier this year despite denying any knowledge of phone hacking. In September Tom Crone, a former senior lawyer at the News of the World, confirmed he had seen a file on two of the phone hacking claimants’ lawyers which “involves their private lives”. It has now emerged that Derek Webb, a former policeman who regularly carried out surveillance work for the News of the World, was hired by the now-defunct tabloid in early 2010 to gather evidence on Mr Lewis. Mr Webb told the BBC he watched Mr Lewis’s ex-wife and filmed her with her daughter as they went shopping and visited a garden centre near their home in Manchester. Mr Lewis had represented Gordon Taylor, the chief executive of the Professional Footballers’ Association, who was paid £700,000 compensation by the News of the World after it admitted his phone had been hacked. He went on to represent several other high-profile victims, including the family of the murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler. In January 2011 Mr Webb was reportedly hired to spy on Miss Harris to find evidence of an alleged affair with Mr Lewis, for whom she worked at the time. The allegation was entirely bogus. Other investigators were also reportedly hired, and followed her with her two young children and obtained copies of their birth certificates. Miss Harris was being followed at a time when she was representing the football agent Sky Andrew, whose case uncovered information that led to the sacking of the News of the World’s news editor, Ian Edmondson. Exactly what the News of the World intended to do with the information is unclear, but emails recovered by Scotland Yard investigators suggest the newspaper was determined to stop Mr Lewis representing any other phone hacking victims. The newspaper reportedly hired a senior barrister to assess whether it would be possible to injunct Mr Lewis on the grounds that he was privy to confidential information because of his work with Mr Taylor. The law firm Farrer and Co wrote to Mr Lewis threatening an injunction if he took on other phone hacking clients, but did nothing when he ignored the letter. Mr Lewis said: “To follow my teenage daughter, my youngest daughter and video her is nothing short of sick. On another level, looking at me, that’s not how you litigate, you play the ball you don’t play the man…this is Mafia-like.” Mr Lewis is said to be considering suing the company for breach of privacy. Miss Harris declined to comment, but Max Clifford, the publicity agent who was represented by Miss Harris when he successfully sued the News of the World for £1m, said: “I know that she will be horrified at the thought that she was spied on and followed. “She is a young mum and it’s horrendous that this happened. “She became a thorn in the side of News International right from the start and they were desperate to silence her as she and Mark Lewis got closer and closer to the truth about the extent of phone hacking.” A spokesman for News International said: “News International’s enquiries have led the company to believe that Mark Lewis and Charlotte Harris were subject to surveillance. “While surveillance is not illegal, it was clearly deeply inappropriate in these circumstances. This action was not condoned by any current executive at the company."

Koch brothers: secretive billionaires to launch vast database with 2012 in mind David and Charles Koch, oil tycoons with strong right-wing views and connections, look set to tighten their grip on US politics By Ed Pilkington in New York guardian.co.uk, Monday 7 November 2011 10.36 EST http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/07/koch-brothers-database-2012-election The secretive oil billionaires the Koch brothers are close to launching a nationwide database connecting millions of Americans who share their anti-government and libertarian views, a move that will further enhance the tycoons' political influence and that could prove significant in next year's presidential election. The database will give concrete form to the vast network of alliances that David and Charles Koch have cultivated over the past 20 years on the right of US politics. The brothers, whose personal wealth has been put at $25bn each, were a major force behind the creation of the tea party movement and enjoy close ties to leading conservative politicians, financiers, business people, media figures and US supreme court judges. The voter file was set up by the Kochs 18 months ago with $2.5m of their seed money, and is being developed by a hand-picked team of the brothers' advisers. It has been given the name Themis, after the Greek goddess who imposes divine order on human affairs. In classic Koch style, the project is being conducted in great secrecy. Karl Crow, a Washington-based lawyer and Koch adviser who is leading the development, did not respond to requests for comment. Nor did media representatives for Koch Industries, the brothers' global energy company based in Wichita, Kansas. But a member of a Koch affiliate organisation who is a specialist in the political uses of new technology and who is familiar with Themis said the project was in the final preparatory stages. Asking not to be named, he said: "They are doing a lot of analysis and testing. Finally they're getting Themis off the ground." The database will bring together information from a plethora of right-wing groups, tea party organisations and conservative-leaning thinktanks. Each one has valuable data on their membership including personal email addresses and phone numbers, as well as more general information useful to political campaign strategists such as occupation, income bracket and so on. By pooling the information, the hope is to create a data resource that is far more potent than the sum of its parts. Themis will in effect become an electoral roll of right-wing America, allowing the Koch brothers to further enhance their power base in a way that is sympathetic to, but wholly independent of, the Republican party. "This will take time to fully realise, but it has the potential to become a very powerful tool in 2012 and beyond," said the new technology specialist. Themis has been modelled in part on the scheme created by the left after the defeat of John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election. Catalyst, a voter list that shared data on supporters of progressive groups and campaigns, was an important part of the process that saw the Democratic party pick itself off the floor and refocus its electoral energies, helping to propel Barack Obama to the White House in 2008. Josh Hendler, who until earlier this year was the Democratic National Committee's director of technology in charge of the party's voter files, believes Themis could do for the Kochs what Catalyst helped do for the Democrats. "This increases the Koch brothers' reach. It will allow them to become even greater co-ordinators than they are already with this resource they become a natural centre of gravity for conservatives," Hendler said. Though Charles, 75, and his younger brother David, 71, are very rarely seen or heard in public, their political importance in the US is hard to exaggerate. They have been steadily investing their wealth in projects designed to drive the country ever more to the right they have backed the tea parties, funded incubators of radical conservative ideology such as the Mercatus Center at the George Mason University and hosted twice-yearly gatherings of some of the richest and most powerful figures in the country. "What makes them unique is that they are not just campaign contributors; they are a vast political network in their own right," said Mary Boyle of the watchdog group, Common Cause. They are estimated so far to have given more than $100m to right-wing causes. Kert Davies of Greenpeace estimates that the sum includes $55m since 1997 funding climate change deniers. Many of the causes backed by the brothers clearly chime with their own self-interests. To encourage the denial of global warming science is obviously advantageous to businessmen who have made their fortunes in drilling and piping of oil; low taxation suits billionaires wanting to cut their own tax contributions; a bonfire of state regulations over business and the environment would be beneficial to a multinational corporation like Koch Industries, which is the second largest private company in the US. But the two men are also anti-government ideologues who believe in what they preach, an inheritance from their fiercely anti-communist father Fred, who was a founder of the radical right-wing John Birch Society. David Koch stood as vice-presidential candidate for the Libertarian party in 1980 on a platform of doing away with a host of public bodies including the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, the FBI, the CIA, social security, welfare, taxation and public schools. Though the Kochs have already stamped their influence on the American right, their impact to date looks like small beer compared with their ambitious plans for 2012. According to Kenneth Vogel of Politico, the brothers intend to use their leverage among billionaire conservatives to pump more than $200m into the proceedings, focusing in particular on the presidential race. Their potential to sway the electorate through the sheer scale of their spending has been greatly enhanced by Citizens United, last year's controversial ruling by the US supreme court that opened the floodgates to corporate donations in political campaigns. The ruling allows companies to throw unlimited sums to back their chosen candidates, without having to disclose their spending. That makes 2012 the first Citizens United presidential election, and in turn offers rich pickings to the Koch brothers. They have already made clear their intentions. At their most recent billionaires' gathering in Vail, Colorado in June, Charles Koch described next year's presidential contest as "the mother of all wars". A tape of his private speech obtained by Mother Jones said the fight for the White House would be a battle "for the life or death of this country". Exhorting the 300 guests in attendance to open their sizeable wallets and donate to the Koch election coffers, he went on: "It isn't just your money we need. We need you bringing in new partners, new people. We can't do it alone. We have to multiply ourselves." Which is where Themis comes in. Karl Crow, the spearhead of the new database, was one of the speakers at the June 2010 Koch gathering in Aspen, Colorado, where he described his mission under the heading "Mobilising Citizens". "Is there a chance to elect leaders who are more strongly committed to liberty and prosperity," he said, adding that he wanted to put forward a "strategic plan to educate voters on the importance of economic freedom". At the same gathering, the kernel of the idea for Themis was unveiled as a "micro-targeting" initiative that would allow a more thorough understanding of the electorate. "How can we take advantage of this advanced technology?" the agenda asked. By dint of the secrecy surrounding the project, it is not known which bodies have signed up for the database. But it is a reasonable guess that groups that are highly influential within the tea party movement such as Americans for Prosperity and Freedomworks, as well as right-wing think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, will be among the participants. Between them, they have tentacles that extend to millions of voters. Lee Fang, a blogger at the Center for American Progress, thinks the combination of the Kochs' capital and their new voter files could have an immense impact in 2012. "This will be the first major election where most of the data and the organising will be done outside the party nexus. The Kochs have the potential to outspend and out-perform the Republican party and even the successful Republican candidate

News of the World hired investigators to spy on hacking victims' lawyers Exclusive: Investigators followed and filmed lawyers of hacking victims in apparent bid to gather material on their private lives By Nick Davies guardian.co.uk, Monday 7 November 2011 10.41 EST The News of the World hired a specialist private investigator to run covert surveillance on two of the lawyers representing phone-hacking victims as part of an operation to put pressure on them to stop their work. The investigator secretly videoed Mark Lewis and Charlotte Harris as well as family members and associates. Evidence suggests this was part of an attempt to gather evidence for false smears about their private lives. The News of the World also took specialist advice in an attempt to injunct Lewis to prevent him representing the victims of hacking and attempted to persuade one of his former clients to sue him. The surveillance of Lewis and Harris occurred during the past 18 months, when Rupert Murdoch's son James was executive chairman of the paper's parent company, News International. He is due to give a second round of evidence to a House of Commons select committee on Thursday and is likely to face intense questioning about the quality of his leadership. Neither lawyer would comment but friends say they are furious at what they see as an attempt at "blackmail" and are considering suing the News of the World for breach of privacy. They have previously had to reassure clients that their private lives would not be exposed if they dared to sue the paper. Lewis and Harris have been part of a small group of lawyers who have mounted a series of devastating legal actions against News International. Separately, they represented Gordon Taylor and Max Clifford, the first two hacking victims to sue the company for hacking their phones. Harris also acts for football agent Sky Andrew, whose case led in January to the resignation of the prime minister's media adviser, Andy Coulson. Lewis also represents the family of the murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler, whose case led to the closure of the News of the World in July. Emerging evidence suggests they were targeted on at least two occasions by Derek Webb, an investigator who specialises in physically following people and in making secret videos of their movements. Webb has worked for the News of the World since 2003, following hundreds of targets including members of the royal family and serving cabinet ministers. Emails that have been recovered by Scotland Yard disclose the names of those working for News International who hatched the plans. Webb was tasked as part of an attempt to prove a false claim that Harris was having an affair with a Manchester solicitor and other false claims about the private life of Charlotte Harris and her children. It is not yet clear exactly how the News of the World would have used the information if any claim had proved to be true. In the spring of 2010, following a hostile report by the Commons media select committee, the News of the World hired Webb to gather evidence on Lewis. For reasons which are not yet clear, he focused on Lewis's former wife and secretly filmed her home in Manchester, following her and making further video of and her daughter as they visited local shops and a garden centre. In January 2011, Webb was hired to spy on Harris. This was at a time when the case of her client Sky Andrew had uncovered information which led to the sacking of the paper's news editor, Ian Edmondson. Webb was tasked to find evidence that she was having an affair with a Manchester solicitor. The allegation was false; Harris had never met the solicitor in question. Other investigators also were hired to supply reports on the two lawyers, although it is not clear who commissioned them. One of the reports which has been seen by the Guardian, clearly suggests that somebody had been following Harris and her two young children. In evidence to the media select committee in September, the News of the World's in-house lawyer, Tom Crone, was asked by the Labour MP Tom Watson if he had seen dossiers on the private lives of claimant lawyers. Crone said: "I saw one thing in relation to two of the lawyers, except I do not know whether it was a dossier. It involves their private lives." He suggested that he could not name those who had commissioned this work without interfering with current police inquiries. Separately, according to internal emails recovered by Scotland Yard, the News of the World commissioned a senior barrister to advise on whether they could injunct Lewis to stop him working for any alleged victim of phone hacking on the grounds that he had confidential information from his work for Gordon Taylor. The newspaper's solicitors, Farrer and Co, wrote to Lewis threatening to injunct him if he took on any hacking clients but took no action when Lewis ignored the threat. The internal emails also reveal that the newspaper's lawyers tried to approach solicitors acting for Lewis's former client Gordon Taylor to see if they could persuade him to sue Lewis. This also failed, and Lewis has gone on to represent several dozen clients who are suing the News of the World for their alleged role in hacking their phones. Webb is now also in dispute with the newspaper and has sought the help of the National Union of Journalists to pursue a claim that the News of the World failed to honour an agreement to give him a loyalty payment after the paper closed in July. Webb is known to have followed members of the royal family, often on instructions from the former royal correspondent Clive Goodman, who was jailed in January 2007 for intercepting the voicemail of three members of the royal household. Webb, who is a former police officer, also followed cabinet ministers, including John Prescott when he was deputy prime minister and Charles Clarke, the former home secretary. The newspaper continued to hire him even after the phone-hacking scandal broke and he is known to have been following a leading trade unionist shortly before the paper closed. In November 2008, Webb was cleared of aiding and abetting misconduct in public office in a controversial case in which Thames Valley police arrested a local newspaper journalist, Sally Murrer, and tried to have her prosecuted for receiving information from a police officer. Physical surveillance is not normally seen as a criminal offence but it is possible that Webb's targets might sue for breach of privacy.

NASA video on YU55

Worth remembering these misses. It is certainly going to be a great event, but I would treat anything that Mr Hoagland says with a very large grain of salt. I posted earlier this statement by one of Richard Hoagland "Friends" on Facebook: High Lander, a "Friend" of Richard C. Hoagland on Hoagland's Facebook page, wrote today (October 30, 2011)on Facebook: "If this Asteroid does not do what Richard Hoagland said Then I suggest it will be the end of him because MANY people would be in doubt about anything he says afterwards..!!"