We hear the playback and it seems so long ago...
Friday 16 December 2011
[Leveson] Paul McMullan & Honesty vs. Accuracy
Relevant sessions:A lot's been said about Paul McMullan's appearance at the Leveson inquiry, I only want to look at one aspect here.
This is about some of the darkest, most depressing parts of McMullan's testimony.
This is going to take an even darker turn now: the vulnerable women who McMullan feels some responsibility for their death.
The cause of Jennifer Elliott's death was not an overdose. She hanged herself. (Even though McMullan does not say she did not survive the overdose, I'm certain that's how almost anyone would read it in this context.)
Paul McMullan seems to be strikingly honest, in that he's prepared to own up to the worst things he's been involved in. But don't confuse honesty with accuracy.
This is about some of the darkest, most depressing parts of McMullan's testimony.
PAUL MCMULLAN: (...) in a bizarre way, I felt slightly proud that I'd written something that created a riot and got a paediatrician beaten up, or whatever was the case, due to the "paedo" aspect of what our readers latched onto. (...) I suppose I'm being a bit frivolous, but in a sense, how do you judge what you do in your career? You like to have an impact and that was one story that certainly had an impact. I mean, you yourself wouldn't like to spend your career in a back room, never having, you know, created or achieved anything, and that was -- the achievement was not having a paediatrician beaten up, clearly, but it was writing a story of such an impact that there were riots because the public were so furious about the way the law was and it needed to be changed.Okay, so he said "or whatever was the case". But the fact is, while a paediatrician was persecuted in 2000 after a News of the World campaign, she wasn't beaten up - what happened was that she had "PAEDO" spraypainted on her door.
This is going to take an even darker turn now: the vulnerable women who McMullan feels some responsibility for their death.
PAUL MCMULLAN: I remember interviewing, also, Lena Zavaroni after she was caught stealing a 50p bag of sweets and then I interviewed her again and then she killed herself, I think, as well, and Jennifer Elliott went on to overdose after an article that absolutely humiliated her and it was unnecessary and I really regret it because I got to know her fairly well and I quite liked her and she was in a very vulnerable position.Again, he says "I think", but Lena Zavaroni died of pneumonia from a chest infection following surgery. It was psychosurgery intended to help her depression, and she had threatened to kill herself, so anything that exacerbated her depression was arguably a factor in the whole situation. But still - the cause of her death was pneumonia.
The cause of Jennifer Elliott's death was not an overdose. She hanged herself. (Even though McMullan does not say she did not survive the overdose, I'm certain that's how almost anyone would read it in this context.)
Paul McMullan seems to be strikingly honest, in that he's prepared to own up to the worst things he's been involved in. But don't confuse honesty with accuracy.
Thursday 15 December 2011
[Leveson] Derek Webb's Non-Apology to Mark Lewis
Relevant sessions:
Thursday April 1 2010:
We know from Mark Lewis' testimony that he has been shown surveillance video by the police and positively identified members of his family being filmed on it. But he did make the point that the police did not tell him it was Derek Webb specifically:
It's also potentially significant that Webb only ever talks about following one lone woman in the first surveillance, but Mark Lewis said to the inquiry he had positively identified both his ex-wife and his daughter on the video he had been shown. It seems unlikely that Webb would have mistaken one person for several while following them around all day, and his memory seems otherwise good.
So, what am I getting at. Well, Webb also talks in his testimony about how he knew nothing (beyond rumours) about any other private investigator(s) working for the paper. So he certainly wouldn't have known if the news desk had decided to assign another PI to observe the same people, maybe at a different time (after Mark Lewis had been better identified?). Lewis recalled the date of the video he saw as "April/May 2010". Derek's video would have been very early April, so while they could be easily talking about the same video, it's also possible that this potential other video was made up to a month/month and a half later by someone else.
To me it does still seem easily more likely that Webb made the video that Lewis saw, and maybe Webb even feels the same way - but apologising would have effectively meant he was saying he was certain of it, when there is some reasonable doubt. (He could still have been a bit more tactful about it, though...)
- 30th November 2011, Afternoon: [TXT] [PDF] [video]
- 15th December 2011, Afternoon: [TXT] [PDF] [video]
MR SHERBORNE: You said you were asked not to follow children. We now know from the police that -- I understand at the time that you weren't meaning to, but we now know that you did film Mr Lewis's 14-year-old daughter. Mr Lewis is at the back of the court here. Is there anything you would like to say to him as a result?At first glance it might just seem heartlessly evasive, but I'm interested in looking closer at this. Here is a condensed bullet-point timeline, from Webb's perspective, based on the testimony he gave:
DEREK WEBB: All I can say is that it's most important -- because in his statement to the Leveson Inquiry, he actually said that the police had spoke to him on the 4th and that they showed him a video. They showed him a video and they said there's documentation that relates to me in relation to that. I have never been shown a copy of this video, so I'm assuming that we're talking -- if we're talking about the same video.
MR SHERBORNE: As I understand it, we're talking about the video that you referred to in this document.
DEREK WEBB: But I've not seen that video to confirm that we are talking about the same person.
MR SHERBORNE: So you're saying, Mr Webb, that as far as you're aware, you don't know whether the person you filmed was Mr Lewis's 14-year-old daughter or not?
DEREK WEBB: Exactly.
MR SHERBORNE: Thank you, Mr Webb.
Thursday April 1 2010:
- Sent to Manchester, no further information.
- At Manchester, given a specific address, no further information.
- Instructed to place the solicitor living at this address under observations. He is suspected of having an affair. Given a name for him. [The name is not "Mark Lewis".]
- Begin surveillance. No man appears to be at this address, but there is a dark-haired woman. [Charlotte Harris has fair hair.] Report this to news desk. They ask me to get a picture of the woman.
- Followed the woman to a garden centre, and filmed her with a video bag. She moves around a lot, but got some close-up shots.
- End of the day: Footage is put in an envelope with a note. It is collected and sent to the news desk.
- News desk gets back to say the woman on the video is not the one they are looking for. Instructed to stand down on this assignment for now.
- Phone call from news desk. Will return to Manchester on 12th to investigate the two solicitors again. Have names and photographs for them now. [The male photograph was not Mark Lewis; the female photograph was Charlotte Harris.]
- Also have details of their offices. No specific instructions on how to proceed, just to get observations of the two of them together.
- Begin surveillance. No sign of either solicitor.
- No sign of either solicitor.
- No sign of either solicitor.
- No sign of either solicitor.
- No sign of either solicitor.
Informed by the news desk that the two solicitors are in London.
We know from Mark Lewis' testimony that he has been shown surveillance video by the police and positively identified members of his family being filmed on it. But he did make the point that the police did not tell him it was Derek Webb specifically:
MR BARR: You tell us that you attended a police station on 4 November of this year and you were there shown a video which you were told was taken by a private investigator, Mr Derek Webb; is that right?
MARK LEWIS: That's partly correct. I don't think they actually told me who the person who took the video was. They just showed me the video.
It's also potentially significant that Webb only ever talks about following one lone woman in the first surveillance, but Mark Lewis said to the inquiry he had positively identified both his ex-wife and his daughter on the video he had been shown. It seems unlikely that Webb would have mistaken one person for several while following them around all day, and his memory seems otherwise good.
So, what am I getting at. Well, Webb also talks in his testimony about how he knew nothing (beyond rumours) about any other private investigator(s) working for the paper. So he certainly wouldn't have known if the news desk had decided to assign another PI to observe the same people, maybe at a different time (after Mark Lewis had been better identified?). Lewis recalled the date of the video he saw as "April/May 2010". Derek's video would have been very early April, so while they could be easily talking about the same video, it's also possible that this potential other video was made up to a month/month and a half later by someone else.
To me it does still seem easily more likely that Webb made the video that Lewis saw, and maybe Webb even feels the same way - but apologising would have effectively meant he was saying he was certain of it, when there is some reasonable doubt. (He could still have been a bit more tactful about it, though...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)